childfree and misunderstood
I hate inadequate research, relying on only one ‘expert’ source without checking for differences of opinion and other signs of sloppy ignorant journalism. A perfect example is the recent article Whoops I remembered not to have children in the Age. Writer Liz Cincotta makes a complete mess of discussing the topic of women who have chosen to be childfree.
First she gets the concept all wrong, arguing that there are:
This is simply wrong; these women are childless by circumstance, not by choice.
Being childless by choice means actively choosing not to have children for various reasons that are examined in detail in this wikipedia article on being childfree. There are many reasons for being childfree; the most obvious being that some people simply do not think having children is an interesting thing to do with their lives.
Cincotta then gets confused discussing whether “women who make this choice are selfish, self-centred or incapable of self-sacrifice.” She refers to an academic and apparently believes everything she hears:
If this is true (and not Cincotta’s distortion of Lipsig-Mumme’s ideas) then Lipsig-Mumme (like Cincotta) is a failed researcher.
The labelling of women (and men) who choose not to have children as selfish is widespread in the wealthy western countries where being deliberately childfree is becoming more common. It is not unique to Australia. The childfree by choice website and the childfree wikipedia article cite numerous articles and sources on the topic from Australia, the US, the UK and western Europe.
Cincotta has done no comparative research. Has she read read French author Corinne Maier’s No Kid: Forty Reasons For Not Having Children? Or the websites cited above? Or read the work of a leading Australian academic, Leslie Cannold, whose book What, no baby? is a significant contribution to the topics of circumstantial childlessness and being childfree?
How about previous articles published in the Age about being childless or childfree, such as Without kids… and loving it by Tim Richards. No? No idea? Even a Google search would have found many relevent articles, perhaps including my own deliberately barren and proud of it.
This is what happens when mediocre journalists are required to think and write beyond their abilities. In this article, the failings are first to adequately define and explain the topic, second a narrow and exclusive discussion of the issues that does not acknowledge other points of view, and third an absence of a conclusion that places everything in context.
The old media keeps failing to deliver quality ideas. I barely bother reading the Age anymore. It is an insult to the Age’s readers they it cannot effectively filter and share conversations about topics of broad social concern. Would the last person to read the newspaper please put it in the recycling bin?
Update 2 July 2008: I’ve just read a fascinating article, ‘No babies’ in the New York Times, which contains some childfree facts:
A 2002 study found that 27.8 percent of German women born in 1960 were childless, a rate far higher than in any other European country. (The rate in France, for example, was 10.7.) When European women age 18 to 34 were asked in another study to state their ideal number of children, 16.6 percent of those in Germany and 12.6 percent in Austria answered “none.” (In Italy, by comparison, this figure was 3.8 percent.) The main reason seems to be a basic change in attitudes on the part of some women as to their “natural” role. According to Nikolai Botev, population and development adviser at the United Nations Population Fund, many observers have been surprised to find that in recent years “childlessness emerges as an ideal lifestyle.”
I’m so enjoying my ideal lifestyle!
Posts you may find relevant and interesting
- deliberately barren and proud of it, 9 May 2007
- men’s reproductive choices, 27 November 2006
- Corinne Maier, 12 July 2007
- taking responsibility, 7 January 2008
- get thee to a vacuum cleaner boy, 5 December 2007
October 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
What a shame you felt the need to descend into personal abuse of me rather than simply debate the points of contention - therefore undercutting any reasoned discussion of them. I find your attack on me interesting, to say the least.
You have entirely missed the point, whoever you are. I am also childless by choice - and proud of it. The point of writing this piece was to highlight the stigmas often associated with women who deliberately choose not to have children. And it was my intention to bring their reasoning to light.
Firstly, I was not at all “confused when discussing whether women who make this choice are selfish, self-centred or incapable of self-sacrifice”. I have myself been called “selfish” for my choice not to have children, and I have read of others who have been branded “self-centred” and “incapable of self-scarifice”. No confusion there. My reference to that was to highlight how ridiculous it is to assume women are selfish, etal, for choosing to be childfree.
Secondly, you say about me: “She refers to an academic and apparently believes everything she hears.” As a writer, journalist, reporter - whatever you like to call it - I do not believe everything I hear. In an 800-1000 word article (that is my official brief), I aim to include three case studies/subjects and one official “spokesperson” (ie. Carla Lipsig-Mumme, in this case). There was no distortion of Lipsig-Mumme’s comments whatsoever. They were her views and her comments. Where she was not quoted directly, I paraphrased her comments. That is her professional field and I relayed the information she gave.
Re your patronising comment: “has she ever read the work of a leading Australian academic, Leslie Cannold…?”. Yes, I have. I know Leslie and I have great respect for her and her work. And yes, I did see the Childfree By Choice website.
You go as far as to say I have not done any research (which is ridiculous). Do you truly believe I don’t read other articles published in the newspaper that employs me? I quote you: “Even a Google search would have found many relevent articles, perhaps including my own ‘deliberately barren and proud of it’. As far as I can see, your ‘article’ is a blog comment of four paragraphs. Not exactly filled with detail.
I, too, am ”deliberately barren” and proud of it. I think it is you who is confused.
The blogosphere is overpopulated with bile-filled diatribes from people who do not have the courage to put their names to their views. Clearly your blog is one of those.
Liz Cincotta
October 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Ironically, this rant of yours confirms the points I make about your ability to construct a logical argument Liz:
1 - I provide ways to contact me (top left column) so you can easily find out my name.
2 - I did not abuse you - I criticised the arguments you made and the way you constructed those arguments.
3 - You admit that you “relayed” Lipsig-Mumme’s ideas without considering their validity. Her suggestion that the criticism of childless women as selfish is uniquely Australian is simply wrong. Good luck with trying to defend that.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
- I shouldn’t need to “make contact” in order to get your name. If you stand by your articles, then why not put your name to them?
- And why do you feel the need to refer to my reply as “a rant”? Your post is not?
- I disagree - you have abused me. And you have called to question my credibility. If you want to pass that off as “criticising my arguments”, then so be it.
- Why do you assume I didn’t consider the validity of Lipsig-Mumme’s comments? It’s hardly a balanced piece if I don’t present a different viewpoint. And frankly, I will present the comments of an academic who has studied and lectured on gender related issues around the world, over those of a nameless blogger any day.
Bye now.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
My post is a rant. I’m equal opportunity when labelling ideas as rants. Limiting display of my name is to reduce spam. Many bloggers do this. If you care about putting a name to my work you can easily do it. You’ve again confirmed my point - your article is not balanced because you offer no critique of Lipsig-Mumme’s opinion. You imply that it is correct and that you agree with it because you do not say otherwise. This blogger has a PhD in English and did most of his undergraduate work on gender - see my Honours dissertation - http://indolentdandy.net/hons/index.html