Why do we have such a problem with non-child-bearing women?

The "child-free" movement, as it is known, champions the choice to live without children as not just a personal preference but a distinct lifestyle. Yet, the term "child-free" is still a significant point of contention, specifically for mothers. Kate Demolder writes.

A quiet but powerful shift has been occurring in how we talk about personal life choices, particularly the decision on whether or not to have children.

The "child-free" movement, as it has become known, champions a life outside traditional trappings as not just a personal preference but a defined lifestyle. While the basis of this movement is to empower, connotations around it speak to a myriad of underlying nuances, many that address especially concerning messages about the role of women and womanhood.

When an iPaper headline about model, TV presenter and activist Jamella Jamil read, "At 38, one of the best decisions I've made is not to be a mother," the reaction was fraught. "You can't imagine anything worse than being a mother? Why is that?" one Facebook commenter posted beneath the iPaper's interview post.

"At 78 all alone with all your friends around you passed or passing away you will be isolated and lonely," another wrote on Instagram. "38 is too old," a final wrote. "And she know (sic) it." Behind these comments sits an absolute fact, one that refuses to understand women outside of dedicated care roles.

We need your consent to load this Instagram contentWe use Instagram to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

We saw this with Kamala Harris – a woman ironically hailed by Drew Barrymore as "Mom-ala" – whose entire political campaign was marred by scrutiny over her not having biological children of her own.

So much so that conservative lawyer Will Chamberlain posted on X that Harris "shouldn't be president" because she hasn't got "skin in the game," and opposing candidate JD Vance called Harris and others "a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives".

At a different time, Vance went on to equate child-free people with conspiracists, saying that "so many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they're people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children, that really disorients me and disturbs me".

I said the exact same thing about Tim Scott

I want a President with skin in the game, a stake in the future, and the lived experience of raising children

Scott didn't have that, Kamala doesn’t either https://t.co/wbrZl34IYG

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 22, 2024

Motherhood, by any metric, is an economic measure. It is played out for the public good. Anyone who denies that tends to also be the kind of person to lob the predictable grenades of irresponsibility and selfishness at the offending source. (Elon Musk recently posted about how he finds lower levels of motherhood in the 21st century 'extremely concerning!!' –– this is because of the potential change in world order, one that has benefitted men like Musk since the dawn of time.)

It is also, mercilessly, not an option for everyone. An enormous number of women have tried and tried to have children – many financially and emotionally bankrupting themselves in the process – only to be told that it wasn't in the cards for them. Many of them, still, take on some sort of caring role.

Harris among them, cares for her stepchildren – a crucial distinction that doesn't absolve her from traditional connotations. Typically, the rebuttal for women choosing to forgo having children is, "it's not natural".

"Women have babies," they might say. "That is their natural purpose for being here." That argument is flawed based on two things. Firstly, just because something is natural, doesn't mean it is good. Tumours are natural, as are root canals, fibroids, miscarriages, hair loss, ear aches, ingrown toenails, deviated septums and lions eating their young.

Secondly, I believe that, generally, the people who believe that statement to be true are reductive in their approach to women. They expect women to be mothers, and to exist around that fact. That said, even within those confines, the expectations can be constricting; society regularly looks down on single mothers, mothers in abusive relationships, or mothers with any deal of personal need.

This is extremely concerning!! https://t.co/UN835dYS1C

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 24, 2024

In the West, the option for women to be child-free, without shame, is growing. Thanks to a number of remarkably brave couples and women, we now know the realities –– ectopic pregnancies, gene mutations, low sperm count, PCOS –– of attempting to procreate naturally, and many of them can be cruel.

These realities are startling and heartbreaking but can crucially be spoken out loud without fear of reprehension. Not everywhere boasts the same understanding.

As part of photographer Zoë Noble's We Are Childfree movement, she sees first-hand the oppression many around the world face: 'One woman from Serbia got in touch saying her boyfriend threatened to kill her when she said she didn't want children,' she wrote for Flash Pack. 'She had to get a restraining order against him.' (Noble also mentioned that We Are Childfree regularly gets hate mail and has been hacked several times.)

In a pro-natalist culture, the childfree woman "is a symbol of freedom and autonomy," Noble continues. "And that's a threatening idea for many people."

This chimes with one theory that exists about why men, specifically, hate child-free women. It is that the concept itself is driven on the basis that women no longer need men. Many modern men, seemingly, worry on a basic level that they're no longer needed by women and therefore have no purpose.

This gender asymmetry lends itself to a personal worry that's backed up by statistics: single men are more socially isolated and lonely than married men; unmarried, childfree women are happiest; married men earn more money and live longer than single men, while married women earn less; marriage also extends life expectancy more for men than women, and living alone is a far better option for women than men.

Personally, I worry if this is the case. At its root, it implies that a woman is an accessory to make your life easier. An assistant, not a partner. This echoes a study from 2009 that shows the gender imbalance when a partner gets seriously unwell. It found that the strongest predictor for separation or divorce for patients with brain cancer was whether or not the sick person was a woman. That same study showed that men were seven times more likely to leave their partner than the other way around if one of them got brain cancer.

While they are not fully exonerated from social pressures – women, particularly women in the public eye, are penalised whether they have children or not – the ones who do procreate are accepted socially in ways that child-free women aren't. They avoid the questions of "why not?" and "what's wrong?" in the same way that men without children do, while also not being provided with the deep wells of support they need.

The wealth gap, naturally, has a part to play here. Women who ask for nothing, return to work and can afford childcare are considered remarkable, while those who stay at home don't see their work – most of it, endless – recognised.

It feels important to make clear here that being a stay-at-home parent is a remarkable feat, one that requires myriad skills, emotional tenacity and, crucially, no clocking out. It would drive most into periods of ill health and breakdown, and yet women do it every day for little pay and no respect. (It goes without saying that there are exceptional stay-at-home fathers out there today, the likelihood, however, is that mothers will never be asked whether they are "babysitting," of a random workday.)

We need your consent to load this Instagram contentWe use Instagram to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

This traditionalism persists because without women, and their undertaking of unpaid roles, capitalist society as we know it would crumble; companies would need to provide adequate parental leave and support, governments and State agencies would need to offer comprehensive care plans for the disabled and elderly and hospitals would need complete overhauls to cater to the invisible work women do.

The consequences of such narratives can be far-reaching. They can influence policy, societal norms, world orders and personal feelings when it comes to individuals or children themselves. Moreover, when these sentiments become politicised, they can lead to a division so potent that it turns the attention away from the real issues at hand, such as a lack of affordable childcare, abysmal work-life balance for parents and the little support for both new parents, as well as those desperately trying to become parents.

As the decision to overturn America's landmark abortion law shows, a lot of opposition exists when it comes to women having control over their bodies and lives. This is alarming, and yet unsurprising.

Women choosing to live a life not structured by children has always been met with alarmist tendencies. But it's not women or womxn, you should be mad at. It's policy, government officials and the patriarchal structures we seem to increasingly uphold.

They are the "disturbing" and "disorientating" points in reality, not a woman choosing to put herself first in 2025.

If you have been affected by issues raised in this story, please visit: www.rte.ie/helplines.