Childless(free) and Unapologetic

Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed:

Childless(free) and Unapologetic

“Après nous, le déluge.”

            - (attributed to) King Louis XV of France

Introduction

Believe it or not, be it the collapsing birth rate in the Global North or the population control policies in the overpopulated South, reproductive normativity has always been the center of such torrents, and so are the appeals to examine the theory and practice thereof.

Primary Principle

“It is strange, then, to be in a position where society demands you should have an appetite for something. And yet here was a rare instance where I was appetite-free.”

- Courtney Hodell, “Babes in the Woods”

from Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed

Reproductive normativity is the disciplinary default that holds motherhood as the sole definition and eventual designation attached to womanhood, and sins those who dare not to follow suit. It refuses to admit the fact that, the destined female motherhood is, at best, an artificial concept, and that there are women who would genuinely reject a role out of pure lack of appeal. It glorifies the power of biological design and how it would determine a person’s possessive use of their body. It creates an illusion of body autonomy where it is only seen as acceptable as long as a woman remains interested, if not zealous, toward placing herself in the reproductive chain, and slices and dices those who explicitly speak against it. And that is what I’m doing here today – rejecting it.

I’m not rejecting the idea of childbirth or motherhood, although I do not see such a disclaimer as walking back from my stance. I’m rejecting the normalization of it being the default to a woman, from life to death. For those who are unable to have children, for those who feel void of claims of “maternal instincts”, for those who care too much or too little about their life after childbearing, I submit to you my intervention, that this should have never been the norm, and if that the human race cannot see its future with dismantling a deliberately oppressive system as such, let it sink, for all I care.

The Making of the Mother Nature

“…Childbirth is at best necessary and tolerable. It is not fun. (Like shitting a pumpkin, a friend of mine told me when I inquired about the Great-Experience-You-Are-Missing.)”

- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex

For centuries, human culture has been infused with a single idea that shaped our collective view on reproduction and/or motherhood: that a woman is born a mother. Throughout history, civilizations have idolized the figure of the mother. In various cultures, goddesses of fertility, childbirth, and motherhood have been revered. Whether it's the image of Isis in ancient Egypt, Demeter in Greek mythology, or Parvati in Hindu tradition, the concept of the divine mother has been omnipresent. These deities, while representing strength, nurturing, and creation, have perpetuated the belief that womanhood and motherhood are inseparably entwined.

But there is an inherent irony in espousing “natural” [ZY2] facts such as maternal instinct and mother-child bonds, for when examined with a closer look, such claims, fused with biological determinism ideals, exist mostly as social conventions of womanhood, rather than eternal conditions, because what’s social is also malleable. Moreover, what’s with the kowtowing to nature as though adhering to the “natural” had some sort of ethical force?[ZY3]  Nature has never been such a friend to women anyway, not like nature just blithely kills women off on a random basis during childbirth or anything. No one who faces up to the real harshness of nature can feel very benignly about its tyranny. If it were up to nature, women would devote themselves to propagating the species, compliantly serving as life’s passive instruments, and pipe down on the social demands. It’s only modern technology’s role in overriding nature that’s offered women some modicum of self-determination. [ZY4] 

Such ubiquitous, constructed assignments bleed into the “mother-child bond” just as seamlessly. As the human race enters into industrialization, the fact became clear that, the concept of “maternal instincts[ZY5] ” is manmade[ZY6] , at best. The industrial-era sexual division of labor circles around the core assumption that men go to work and women stay at home, which again cites references back to what only seemed “natural” at the time. This is also when the romance of the child begins, as it was only when children’s actual economic value declined, because they were no longer necessary additions to the household labor force. Once they started costing more to raise than they contributed to the household economy, there had to be some justification for having them, which is when the story that having children was a big emotionally fulfilling thing first started taking hold. When middle-class parenting philosophy[ZY7]  kicked in towards the end of the nineteenth century, the definition of a “good” mother was narrowed down to the point that there are only those who are fit to be a parent, and those who will never be.

By perpetuating the idea that women are naturally inclined, or biologically predestined[ZY8] , to be mothers, and that they are predisposed to be held to a higher standard that not only requires care, but also love, it is only natural, if not intentional, for the vast spectrum of aspirations, capabilities, and identities that women can hold to be diminished. When such beliefs became actionable upon societal designs and labor divisions, women had been designated as primary caregivers, often to the exclusion of other roles. It presupposed that a woman's chief, if not sole, satisfaction should come from motherhood. Such predispositions of a motherhood archetype have also borne psychological ramifications, as women who choose not to have children, or those who cannot, often grapple with feelings of inadequacy, exclusion, or unfulfillment. It is then to be concluded that, the cultural narrative, so heavily slanted towards motherhood as a woman's destiny, invalidates other paths a woman might choose or find herself on.

And there you have it. A perfect myth about motherhood, something we dubbed biological instinct that actually is merely a historical artifact, a culturally specific development, not a fact of nature. Yet such normativity continues to assign social roles to the “born mothers”, excuse those who are forever excluded from such scrutiny, and attach disproportionate recognition for productive and reproductive labor. Men are no easy beneficiaries of such prestige, although some would argue the opposite. Women who are disciplined by such default are either stepping into an entirely different future with little preparation or excessive anxiety, or are inundated with guilt, humiliation, and self-hatred that they couldn’t live up to the ideal mother figure. As long as such normativity persists, none will ever be free.

Childless (free) – What’s in Name[ZY9] ?

If we see motherhood as less of a command and more of a choice, what does it embody, and why are we so unapologetic about refusing it? The answer to that question is yet left to be answered, but the reason for that ambiguity is more of an inherent design than a lack of exploration from the predecessors. The pressing societal demand and default association of womanhood with motherhood are so omnipresent, that there is not a single word to describe “a woman who does not intend or plan to become a mother”, without using the word “mother” or “child”.

In the modern-day social dictionary, the word “childless” itself suggests the lack of something, as though it was an incomplete puzzle that suddenly lost some of its pieces in a tragic accident. In conversational context, “childless” is immediately associated with the image of a lonely woman in her fifties sitting on her porch forcing a smile while watching neighbor kids running across the driveway. Neither presents itself in a likable manner and both are threatening enough to those new to such ideas.

As a counter-tactic, the word “childfree” rose to prominence in the 1970s. The suffix -free was added supposedly to highlight the voluntary nature of the choice not to have children, and symbolic meanings in the act. However, it often led to an overall rejection of motherhood and children, which could be oversimplified (although oftentimes not) as leading a free life rid of hassles from a child.[1] Either way, it always seems that people who remain a loner or engage in relationships without contemplating reproduction are just fleeing away from childbearing as the ultimate key, and not the other way around.

Let that sink for a moment. If the first and foremost justification for having a child is the natural norm, which has been proven to be a mere social construct, what is the decency behind all that? On the other side, at least in other cases, the right to passive freedom should always trump the proactive ones, unless otherwise instructed, which seems like the scenario in ours.

That narrative sinks into the cliché “working mom” stereotype. Even with men doing more parenting than before, the majority of women are still left facing the well-rehearsed motherhood-versus-career dichotomy. But it’s not a dichotomy; it’s a socially organized choice masquerading as a natural one. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Be Here Now Means Be Gone Later[ZY10] 

There would be all sorts of ways to organize society and sexuality that don’t create false choices if we simply got inventive about it—as inventive as we’ve been about equity in sexual pleasure—but there has to be the political will to do it. There has to be the right story going in. “If “maternal instinct” is a synonym for wanting to devote your life to something, or be absorbed in someone other than yourself, then fine. But its having been invented in the first place means there’s no reason such an instinct can’t be invented differently, including in men. Men may not yet be able to biologically bear children (though not far if you count the artificial uterus coming in *wink), but when women no longer have an exclusive relation to such things, no doubt raising children will become a more socially valued enterprise, one that people will race to prove its superiority over the others.

If saying no to that sort of prospect means a complete overhaul of reproductive normativity and practice, I shall embrace it with welcoming arms. And if human civilization cannot stand after overriding some of its most barbaric, brutal, and self-righteous conceptions, I, nor my peers, need to apologize for it.

[1] Cover of August 12, 2013 Time Magazine serves as an excellent example of this. Image can be accessed here: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1101130812_600.jpg.