It is World Childless Week.
Today we are talking about the Childless in the Media.
In
the 1980s, when I was just starting to make my way in the world, there was a
real freedom for young women. Our lives did not have to be defined by our
biology. We could pursue careers and opportunities beyond those of becoming a
wife and mother. We could choose if and when we might become a parent. The
world was our oyster. Little did I know that whilst opportunities would exist
for me that my mother never had, society’s stereotypes and restrictions would
manifest again in rampant pronatalism, duplicating the expectations and
judgements that she was subject to back in the 1960s.
There
are two main stereotypes about those without children that permeate our
societies. We are either the carefree and selfish childfree, or the pitiable
childless who dwell in eternal misery, regretting the lives we never had, or
worse, becoming unhinged, wanting to take other people’s children. These
stereotypes are recreated in the media again and again. But neither are true
representations of people without children, who are as varied as any other
group in society. Those of us who wanted to but couldn’t or didn’t have
children – commonly called the childless – learn to accept our situation and to
embrace our lives without children. Yet when we do so, we simply become
stereotypes again; the “selfish” people without children, with no
responsibilities.
The stereotypes
are hard to avoid. The “miracle baby” stereotype is well entrenched in the
media. Articles about infertility or assisted reproduction almost invariably
end with a “happily ever after” case of a surprise baby or final successful IVF
cycle. There is little or no acceptance of a life that doesn’t end this way.
Little acknowledgement of the statistics showing most people do not get these results.
No challenges to the stereotype that the only outcome worth talking about is
the one that ends with a baby. And almost never any exploration of what it might
be like to be the ones who go on to live without children. We are ignored.
Hidden. Dismissed.
I was
once interviewed for an article about Christmas by a national media
organisation. They wanted to write about Christmas for the childless, and how
isolated we might feel. I said that societal and media messaging concentrates
on Christmas and holidays are only for children, and completely forgets those
of us without them (or with children who are estranged, or live overseas, etc).
My main point was that we can reclaim Christmas – a message I have been
emphasising on my blog No Kidding in NZ for more than ten years. Christmas is
not just for children, and we can establish our own traditions, do what we
enjoy, carve out time alone, and make it special for us too. When the article
was published, this point was ignored entirely. The narrative they wanted was
that childless people were sad and lonely.
Of
course, the “selfish” stereotype is common in articles too. The truth is that
people without children – whether childfree or childless or a mixture of the
two – help each other, take on important roles in our societies and communities
and extended families, volunteer, and give to charity. We do this more widely and
frequently than those who are parents. We help the elderly in our family when
the parents are too busy to do so, but often with expectation, rather than acknowledgement
and gratitude from our siblings/cousins etc. The definition of “selfish” is
skewed too. After all, what is selfish about simply living our lives when there
is no other good alternative? So what if I can take a trip when parents have
children in school? That’s not being selfish, it is simply being practical.
Such lazy reporting is sadly too commonplace in today’s media.
Likewise, reporting about elections brings an onslaught of
messages about “families” or hopes for “your children’s children” from
politicians. In an election here in just a month or two, I have little hope
there will be challenging questions from reporters that might consider the
needs of all members of society, especially those of vulnerable people who
don’t have families around to help them.
Sadly, pronatalism is so strongly entrenched in our society
that even journalists, supposedly taught to question and probe and investigate,
seem oblivious to their bias. I would be delighted to see this change. But I
admit I am not hopeful.