By Kathleen Guthrie Woods
People are talking about “The Childfree Life.”
If you missed it, the cover story of TIME magazine’s August 12 issue explored “When having it all means not having children.” (Read the full article by Lauren Sandler here.)
I stumbled upon the article in a waiting room, and it wasn’t long before my voicemail blew up with messages. “Did you see it?!?” “What did you think?”
I cheered the positive portrayals (finally!) of women who have made the choices to be childfree and are leading full and fulfilling lives. I am grateful that Ms. Sandler acknowledges that “if you’re a woman who’s not in the mommy trenches, more often than not you’re excluded from the discussion.” (Yup.) I am hopeful that “women who choose not to become mothers are finding new paths of acceptance.” (Something we address regularly here at LWB.)
Most of all, after years and years of being subjected to articles—if not whole publications—about parenting, I am happy about finally being included in a mainstream discussion.
Did you read the article? What do you think about it?
Kathleen Guthrie Woods is a Northern California–based freelance writer. She is mostly at peace with being childfree.
I read it a few days ago after finding it on my parents’ coffee table.
I was happy to see the topic brought forward but I have to admit that I was a little disappointed that it was primarily about women who had a choice in the matter. Infertility was basically glossed over in one sentence (if I recall correctly) indicating that with adoption and infertility treatments anyone who wants to become a parent these days can if they want to. That made me feel that the author was a bit out of touch.
I thought the interview with the couple from TN was interesting where he said that most childfrees expect to be lonely in their elderly years, but they have found the loneliest time to be now. Most of their peers are preoccupied with raising their children and don’t have the time, understanding, or patience to socialize with a childfree couple. I could identify with that. My husband and I are pretty much loners.
I agree with Jenny. The article completely ignored those who were unable to become parents through ART or those who were unable to afford ART or were just not interested in pursing ART for personal reasons. I was really pissed by the line that said basically everyone could become parents nowadays since ART was widely available. As someone who had amazing access to ART(5 IUI, 4 own egg IVFs and 2 donor egg cycles), it did not give me a baby. I did not chose to be CF and it is very painful to be excluded from so many of life’s events because I was dealt a shitty hand in the baby-arena.
I agree… while I, like you, was happy to see this subject being discussed, and some good points made about the positive aspects of life without children, the complexity of childless/free living and how people come to it was given pretty short shrift. I was also really, really irked by the cover photo, because it just played into the whole stereotype about childfree people — rich, lazy, self-indulgent, always taking fabulous vacations, etc. etc.
I wrote about the article & rounded up some other related links on my blog here:
http://theroadlesstravelledlb.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-time-article-whats-wrong-with-this.html