Charlotte Shields-Rossi | a&e editor

Being child-free, if that’s what you want, is great. There are a lot of valid reasons why someone would choose that path in life. The child-free movement started with good intentions — women trying to find community in a society that preaches the importance of ‘populating the Earth.’ Recently however, it has been taken over by people who have a genuine hatred for children and those who create them.
 

Being completely devoid of empathy for children and calling for virtually all public spaces to ban children isn’t edgy, it’s misogynistic. When you ban children from public spaces, you ban mothers.

In 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an American Time Use Survey, which showed on average, women spend 12 hours per week taking care of children, while men spend half that. According to PEW Research Center 26% of mothers were stay-at-home parents, compared to 7% of men. Children can’t be left alone, and childcare is expensive. Mothers often have to take their children with them when they run errands, travel and get a cup of coffee. Prohibiting children from these spaces affects mothers.

Traditional conservatives tend to share the belief that women should stay at home and bear children. The other side has begun to hate women for having children. Both have very different ideals, but are united in one thing — degrading women.

The verbiage used to describe mothers in child-free spaces is degrading, especially looking at the term “breeders.” “Breeders” was popularized by the LGBTQ+ community as a way to poke fun at heterosexual relationships. It then became popular among child-free communities to reference parents, mostly mothers.

Although the term has seen a rise in popularity it isn’t new.

“The breeders get SO MAD at those of us who are happy with our child free existence. “Why do you have to make content about it?” Why do you have to harass me about not having kids every time you talk to me, Karen?” mcsailorpants wrote on X in a response to a woman posting about her child-free lifestyle.

The word was used by slave owners as a way to describe the female slaves they forced to bear children, according to an article by Aisha Djelid in “American Nineteenth Century History,” an academic journal. The term is still dehumanizing and offensive, only seeing women as incubators for children is perpetuating the traditional conservative values so many claim to hate.

A few years ago, I boarded a 16-hour, transatlantic flight to Ireland. When I got to my seat I saw a baby, no older than 10 months, crying. I thought, “wow, that’s annoying,” then put myself in the shoes of the mother and thought “this must be so stressful.” I promptly put on my noise canceling headphones and didn’t think much of it after that. I didn’t make a fuss, or rush to social media calling for a ban of children on public transportation.

Not everyone feels the same way as me. There has been a push on social media to create more child-free spaces, a “children should be neither seen nor heard” mindset, if you will. Coffee shops, grocery stores, movie theaters and public transportation are all places some deem not suitable for children.

“Children are neither to be seen or heard. Do not bring them to public spaces,” NosferatuFan369 wrote on X in response to a post about unpopular opinions on parenting.

Hearing a crying child for five minutes of your day should not cause such a temper tantrum that you call for a ban of children in the spaces you frequent.

“Being annoyed is the price you pay for community” Divya Venn wrote on X. If you want a healthy community, it starts with children, forcing them to stay home because it’s inconvenient doesn’t create a productive and strong community.

Banning children from public spaces is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misogynistic side of child-free spaces.

In an article published by The I Paper, blogger Beth Ashley joined an online child-free group in the hopes of finding community. On the page, she found a news article about a woman living in public housing in Great Britain with her five children because her benefits were paused.  

Among these comments someone wrote, “Why should we have to pay for these women’s children because they can’t keep their legs closed?”

Saying that someone should “keep their legs closed” is too black and white, it doesn’t consider the nuances like the lack of sex education, affordable birth control and rape culture.

“Keep your legs closed” is often used by the pro-life crowd when a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. In this child-free movement those in support of a woman’s right to choose are using the same talking point.

The child-free movement has a lot of merit, but unfortunately it has been taken over by those with a hatred for mothers and children. The way the movement attempts to remove these groups from public spaces and the language used to describe mothers is misogynistic. Was it ever really just about the children?

Charlotte Shields-Rossi can be reached at shieldsrossic@duq.edu