We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The desire of people to reproduce and leave offspring after themselves seems quite natural. The adherents of voluntary childlessness were nicknamed childfree.

The term itself appeared in the 1970s, and after a couple of decades, groups of such people became very popular. You can mention at least Mylene Farmer or Oprah Winfrey.

There are constant debates around this movement, sociologists, politicians, and religious organizations take part in them. But, like many other people who, with their views, were in the minority, many myths have appeared around childfree, their views and activities. Let's try to debunk some of them.

The entire childfree community hates children and mothers, disliking the state for their support. Do not put such a label on everyone. After all, almost all childfree are ordinary sane people. They do not stand out from the crowd in any way, and in the company you can hardly recognize them. Usually childfree is determined only after he himself communicates his views. There are indeed child-haters among them, they were even nicknamed for the radicalism of childheit views, there are also rude people with ill-mannered people. But these people should not be judged on all consciously childless citizens. After all, boors are found in all movements and organizations.

Childfree do not think that a lonely old age awaits them, and even there will be no one to give them water. In response to such a statement, one can recall an anecdote. One man started a big family so that in his old age there was someone to give him water. And now he is dying, his wife, children, grandchildren gathered around. Only now the man realizes that at this moment he does not feel like drinking at all. It should be understood that having your own children is not always a guarantee of a secure old age surrounded by attention.

It often happens that heirs acquire their own families and dwellings. After that, they disperse in all directions, and they safely forget about their parents, limiting themselves to postcards for the New Year. And what were all the sleepless nights for? It may be even worse - instead of caring for parents in old age, they are simply handed over to a nursing home, thereby freeing up the necessary living space for themselves. And now someone else will be watching over the old people.

But childless people have much more chances to save up for their comfortable existence. In the end, there is always the opportunity to hire a nurse or nanny, and friends will certainly appear. With a certain degree of confidence, it can be argued that a socially active grandmother, without children and grandchildren, will have more communication and understanding than her friends with numerous offspring. And from diseases, loneliness and poverty often accompanying age, no one is immune, alas.

The state will be forced to support the childless on pensions, including at the expense of taxes for the children of ordinary people. In fact, this is not the case. The pension that people, including childfree, receive in old age, almost entirely depends on the taxes that were paid during the years of active work. At the expense of these funds, parents with children also receive assistance in the form of maternity payments and benefits, free medical care and education. Having hit the count, one can come to the conclusion that childfree even overpay for some services from the state. It is not a fact that these people will ever use everything that they are supposed to. And it is absolutely certain that they do not pretend to earn money for our children.

In fact, childfree are ordinary losers who simply could not organize their personal lives. A beautiful word just covers up inferiority. And these people deep down regret that they have no children. Don't think that childfree are lonely losers. There are many among them who have found a partner who shares this philosophy. Yes, it seems strange that not everyone has happiness in children. But even such views are worthy of acceptance. In the life of a childfree, there can be many other joys besides children - a loved one, creativity, pets.

If childfree does not give birth, it will endanger all of humanity. In fact, there are too few people on Earth who profess such views. All childfree is simply not enough to significantly affect the population of humanity. There are already almost 7 billion people on the planet. With such a growing number, humanity can die out only due to cataclysms of a planetary scale, and some social currents do not pose a threat in any way.

If childfree stops giving birth, then there will be no one to defend the country from external enemies. Soon, the Chinese, Africans or Caucasians will multiply so much that they will take over the whole world. And again it is worth returning to the previous myth, which speaks of the extinction of people. Nobody forbids giving birth to defenders of the fatherland, there are simply other ways to ensure the defense of their country. It is worth considering the fact that China today has a program to reduce the birth rate.

Childfree are ordinary selfish people. You should not immediately deny this statement, because it is true. Only now it is necessary to consider in more detail the meaning of the word "egoism" itself. It means selfishness, while a person behaves, putting his own interests above others. But selfishness is a natural consequence of the natural instinct for self-preservation. From the point of view of ethics, it is precisely this behavior that is the best for preserving the most valuable thing - life. Selfishness helps to realize all life values, and then to realize them. The individual will be able to fulfill his moral duty, which is to bring his own capabilities to the maximum level and reveal his potential. From the point of view of ethics, selfishness is unacceptable when less attention is paid to someone else's life and personality. Thus, the rights of other people are violated. According to this principle, any thinking person can be called an egoist. After all, he will always act in his own interests, maintaining his wealth and preserving his own life. And who doesn't want to realize their creative or intellectual potential? But leaving offspring on Earth is a conscious and personal choice of everyone. A person must decide for himself whether such a step will improve his personal life. To force others to certain social behavior outside their desire, this is real selfishness.

Infertile people can also be considered childfree. This term refers to people who have made a conscious choice not to have children. It is impossible to rank among this movement those who decided to have children later or are barren by nature. On the other hand, childfree under the influence of their views can undergo sterilization, they can also have adopted children. Although having a child is contrary to the very ideology, this does not prevent some people from referring to themselves as childfree.

Childfree are supremely irresponsible people. They are not like a child, a cat cannot be trusted. It is groundless to think so. After all, one can be considered irresponsible if he took up a task but did not solve it. Among those who gave birth to children, there are many such people. A mother can leave her child in the orphanage, a father who shifts all problems onto the shoulders of his wife, parents who do not care about their children. But how can a childfree be irresponsible towards their children? After all, they simply do not have them. On the contrary, these people are responsible for this issue, realizing that they simply cannot become good parents.

All childfree are infantile. This is what you say when it comes to 14-year-olds. The very concept of infantilism is quite broad. Infantile people read science fiction and listen to romantic music. Today, many psychologists say that such behavior is characteristic of modern society. And this is not so important anymore. It is much more important that a person has his own views and a formed opinion. And to consider a person who has achieved success in society and business as infantile is strange.

Childfree deprives themselves of the right to choose. If a person declares himself childfree, this does not mean that he has permanently deprived himself of the right to have a child. Having once refused such a step in your life, you can always change your mind. All people sometimes change their minds. It is much worse if a person has children rashly. In this case, you won't be able to go back. If a person made the decision to become a childfree, and in old age realizes his mistake, then he himself will pay for the once wrong decision. But if a child has already been born, and adults constantly regret it, even in the most secret corners of the soul, then not only parents, but also the baby will pay for it. After all, he will always feel that he was unwanted.

Childfries simply hate children. In fact, there is a big difference between hatred and indifference. The fact that we do not like some kind of food does not mean that we will suddenly go to restaurants and destroy it. And a lot of things depend on the behavior of others. If every morning the neighbors are interested in when the children will appear, at work they will remind you of this, and even the parents will not forget to ask, then it will not be long and howl at the mere mention of the child. And in the manifestation of hatred there are certain limits. If a person openly and for no reason shows it to children, then he either has nerves out of order, or there are some deep personal reasons for behaving this way. And it doesn't matter what we are talking about at all - whether about children, or about food. The very ideology of childfree does not carry any hatred of children. These people are completely indifferent to them. Therefore, there is nowhere to take negative emotions to something that absolutely does not care. It is quite reasonable that this approach is much more reasonable than having to have a child just because it is "supposed".

Some kind of sexual or psychological trauma was the cause of these attitudes. Sometimes such a statement really makes sense. But what to do with those childfree who had a completely happy childhood and then a cloudless life? They don't fit in with trauma theories. There are two ways to explain this. There are a large number of social perfectionists among the childfree. These overly responsible people understand that they cannot give their children all the best. Therefore, it is better not to have offspring at all. Such people consider - either everything or nothing. Another category of citizens is rather skeptical about motherhood. After all, the planet is overpopulated. But what do they care about the planet? In this case, the roots of the problem lie on the surface. Many childfree during their life were constantly in the center of life, not being able to normally retire. These people did not have their own room, one of their relatives was constantly present nearby, and strict control was exercised by their parents. In general, there was everything, except for the normal and sometimes necessary loneliness. But the impossibility of being left alone is at the heart of all correctional and prison institutions. And now the person has grown, at last he can devote time to himself in peace. And here society demands from him that he has a child. There are childfree who have an urgent need to be or live alone. Only when these people are satiated with such a state, they will be able to decide to have offspring.

Childfree is in favor of abortion. Why not immediately attribute to these people the terrorist attacks on the territory of the maternity wards? In fact, the whole ideology of childfree consists in one phrase: "Having a child should be an extremely verified step. It should be done by those who are ready. And everyone else should stop bothering themselves with children and the course of the biological clock." The desire to reduce fertility through abortion is a very strange attitude towards contraception. After all, there are much simpler solutions.

Childfree does not and cannot have a maternal instinct. Sometimes paternal instinct is also intertwined here. The fact is that for the appearance of such an instinct it is not at all necessary to bear and give birth to a child. The subsequent care of the baby - swaddling, washing, feeding will not help its appearance. Someone realizes themselves perfectly, taking care of little puppies or kittens, or brothers-sisters, nephews-godchildren. It doesn't matter if the children are in infancy or are already finishing school. It is worth recognizing that the degree of manifestation of the maternal instinct, as well as its presence in general, is a natural phenomenon. It is on a par with Darwinism, the struggle for existence and procreation. But it is in vain to think that primitive impulses oblige us to become parents. After all, our brain has not evolved for so many thousands of years. We can make decisions today. If people want to be caring, then the object does not have to be the child.

Watch the video: Women Who Choose To Remain Child-Free. Studio 10 (July 2022).


  1. Tamar

    This message is incomparable,))), it is interesting to me :)

  2. Guafi

    Just what you need. Good topic, I will participate. Together we can come to the right answer.

  3. Abdul-Samad

    I apologize for interrupting you, but, in my opinion, there is another way to resolve the issue.

  4. Netaur

    I agree, this very good idea will come in handy.

  5. Shaktitilar

    I think you admit the mistake. I propose to examine.

  6. Elvin

    Whistling all upstairs - the speaker discovered America. Bravo bravo bravo

Write a message