General Childfree FAQ

We're not out to convert, trust me. Most wannabreeders are not the kind of people we want on our "side".

We don't go around trying to convince people not to have children, and even if we did, I don't think it would work. People who want kids really don't give a crap what anyone else thinks or says. 

If someone comes to us and asks about childfree life, sure, we'll tell them what we think. But certainly we are not ordering them not to have children or pressuring them to be just like us! We have better things to do with our lives.

Occasionally I have met childfree people who asked for advice about how to convert someone (usually their girlfriend or spouse).  When that has happened, I have told hem that it is NOT our place to convert anyone and they could try and educate the person about what parenthood is like, and have the person read the fencesitters page, but if it doesn't work, they have to move on. 

In all honestly, it's the breeders who are out to convert! They try to convince us that we'll regret not having kids, and we won't have anyone to take care of us when we're old, and worse, all the belittling crap like, "I pity you" and the reverse psychology like, "Well, it's a good thing you aren't having children!" I really wish they'd save the bullying tactics for their kids and leave the rest of us alone.

I would never try to convert someone to childfree because I think the best thing for the childfree movement is for it to be full of people who truly are childfree, not people who we "converted" just to inflate our numbers. That's ridiculous.

I believe the term "breeder" did start in the gay community to mean anyone who was straight. Someone in the childfree community hijacked the term years ago and it stuck.

But while some childfree people might be gay, most of the childfree I meet are not.  Not all childfree people are gay and not all gay people are childfree. Got it?

Technically, anyone who has children is a breeder. According to Mirriam-Webster Online, the definition of "breeder" is "one that breeds," and the definition of "breeds" is "to produce offspring by sexual union". That's exactly what people who have children do, which means, in the strictest sense of the word, people with kids are breeders.  

But the childfree community prefers not insult people who take the job of parenting seriously by lumping them in with morons who don't. So we consider that there are two kinds of people with children: Parents (responsible people) and Breeders (irresponsible people). Sometimes you'll see abbreviations like PNB (Parent not breeder) and BNP (Breeder not parent).

It's a case of we're damned if we do and damned if we don't:  If we don't use the word "breeders," good parents complain that we're lumping them in with the bad.  If we use the term "breeders," bad parents are mad because they are singled out.  No matter what we do, someone will be mad at us. The bad parents will be mad at us either way, so we use the terminology that works for us, and doesn't insult good parents along with the bad.

My rants refer to breeders, and most of the arguments you'll see on this page are statements that have been made to myself or others by breeders, not parents.

I don't think parents are unhappy. I do think many breeders are. 

When we're out in public, we can't help but see all the parents who don't seem to be having that much fun. When the kid is throwing a tantrum in a store, the family appears to be miserable.  When people are ignoring their children in public, I suspect they can't be too happy with their children. I rarely see parents and children in public who look really happy together. Most of the time they all just look tired.

When breeders are harassing and bingoing childfree people and sending me hate-filled emails, I'm pretty sure they must be pretty damn unhappy.  If they were truly happy raising their children, they'd be too busy parenting and wouldn't have time to  bother harassing us. 

Maybe because it's a CHILDFREE site and most of us don't see any upsides to having kids! Besides, when was the last time you saw a parenting site list the "Upsides of Not Having Kids"? Oh that's right, parenting sites don't do that. So why do you expect me to? Duh.

We are surrounded by people with kids, and all too often, people are complaining about their kids or how exhausted they are, how much they fight with their spouse (or ex) about the kids, etc. It's hard for us to get any other impression other than that parenting isn't all that grand.

This parent emailed me telling me I should write more about the positives of parenting, but she never got around to telling me what they were.  The whole email was about how bratty her two teenaged girls were. Wait, so a positive side of parenting is that I'd get to referee fights between teenaged girls? Oh goodie! Where to I sign up?! 

The moral of the story is that parents can't even figure out what the upsides of parenting are, so how am I supposed to know what they are?!

I really don't care if it dies out or not. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care!   I know that everyone dies, and I'll eventually die, and so it won't really matter if there are still humans on the planet after I die. It wont really matter if there are still humans on the planet after you die, either. We won't be here to care either way.  So if the human race dies out, oh well.  I don't have a problem with it.

That's a breeder statement if I ever heard one! That's about as ignorant as saying, "Unless you've had cancer you couldn't possibly know anything about preventing or treating it!" Heck, if not having children means someone knows nothing about parenting, then no one should be allowed to have their first kid, since they wouldn't already be a parent, and not know anything about parenting!

If you seriously made that statement, you not only sound arrogant, but incredibly ignorant, too. Now, slowly put the crack pipe down and try to concentrate while I explain this concept to you. Childfree people HAVE been around children before. It's hard to get away from them. Many of us have babysat our siblings, nieces, nephews, god-children, or neighborhood children. Some of us have worked with children, through day-cares, schools, maternity wards, pediatricians offices, etc. We also, as you are fond of pointing out, had parents ourselves, so we do have a few clues about what worked and what didn't when we were kids. We CAN read you know -- some of us have actually read parenting books and magazines while trying to figure out if we wanted kids or not.  We probably thought a lot longer and harder about parenthood than you ever did, so give us some credit for knowing a little about children and what it takes to raise them. You don't need a Ph.D. in child-rearing to know a few things about children and parenting, and anyone with two eyes can recognize the difference between good parenting and bad parenting!  And we certainly know more about parenting than these parents who kill, abuse and neglect their children!  

The only area that you could positively say we couldn't "understand" would be parental guilt. "But I HAVE to give Junior every toy he points at or he'll be miserable and make me feel guilty!!" you may cry. You're right, we probably couldn't understand that. But that just means we're just more objective about it than you. I don't have feelings of guilt clouding my judgment.

Regardless, I rarely, if ever, hear childfree people giving out parenting advice. Mostly what childfree people are saying is basic common sense, like, "Your kid is screaming because he's tired." That's something a parent SHOULD be able to figure out faster than a childfree person, but you wouldn't believe how many breeders can't figure that out! Everywhere you go these days, you see breeders dragging their exhausted and bored children everywhere they go because they are too selfish to get a sitter for the kid! That isn't the sign of a good parent, and you don't need to have kids of your own to recognize that. Don't start lecturing me about how expensive sitters are -- I see people out shopping with their bored and tired (clue: they can't be too broke if they are out spending money). Also, you don't have to PAY for a sitter -- friends, relatives, neighbors -- everyone else has them, why don't breeders?

Other "advice" I hear from childfree people is: "If your kid is throwing a tantrum, you should take him out of the store or restaurant." Well, you don't need a degree in parenting or child psychology to figure that one out, either! Also, everyone knows that children do not ever HAVE to be in a restaurant or an R rated movie -- breeders choose to take them there because they are too selfish to, you know, stay home and read a cookbook, get take out, or rent a movie.

That shit isn't parenting advice, it's common sense that people should be required to have before breeding.

Any 14 year old crack whore could have kids. You're incredibly stupid to think they know everything about parenting and a 45-year-old person without kids knows nothing. Grow up, you self-righteous breeders.

I have an inkling of how hard it is to be a working parent, which is why I don't want to do it. The thing is, you made your life choices and you have to live with those choices. If you're pulling your weight at work, we aren't going to care so much. But if you are gone as often as Suzie Q in the example below, and you still think you deserve to be promoted at the same rate as me, then you're just being lazy and entitlement minded. If you choose to not be a model employee, then you deserve to be on the mommy track.

We are frustrated by maternity leave for several reasons. First of all, it's just inconvenient to other workers that we should have to pick up the slack because Suzie Q decided to have a baby.

And she doesn't want just the couple of weeks that it takes to recover from childbirth off -- she wants extra time to "bond" with the baby.  And in many cases, that "bonding" means hanging out at the local mall, bragging to anyone within earshot that Junior is only two weeks old!  Trust me, I've seen this happen more often than I'd like.  Gee, we should all be so lucky as to get time off from work so we can go shopping.

We've also all too often seen the gal who gets the job just so she can get pregnant almost immediately after starting. She then spends the entire pregnancy spending more time yapping about her pregnancy or at doctor's appointments than working, then taking off her six or more weeks of vacation only to call in at the last minute and refuse to return to work.  In other words, the company trained her, paid her for a few months of work while getting *maybe* a few days worth of work out of her, and then she leaves them in the lurch.  This doesn't only screw over the "evil" employer, but also all the coworkers who get stuck doing her work all this time.  We hate working with women like that.

So while Suzie Q is at her 52nd doctor's appointment in three months, I'm having to cover for her job.  Then while she's out on maternity leave, I'm covering for her job.  I'm doing my work, plus her work, but I'm not getting paid extra for it, and 9 times out of 10, Suzie Q isn't even grateful that we're picking up her slack!  I don't mind covering for a co-worker who is legitimately sick, but I'm sorry, Suzie Q is just milking this pregnancy for all it's worth and intentionally screwing me over. 

Besides, I might get sick a few days a year, but Suzie Q is taking time off for: days she's actually sick (maybe six days a year), days she had OB appointments (as many as she can possibly get away with), six weeks of maternity leave, days she has baby check-ups, days the baby gets sick... So I'm covering for her a hell of a lot more often than she's covering for me! It's frustrating! I wouldn't feel so bad if she was covering for me as often as I'm covering for her, but it never even comes close.  Yes, I get that the employer might be partly to blame, but at the same time, Suzie Q is definitely contributing to it. She abuses her co-workers, and she's smug about it to boot!

But the thing that usually gets us going is this whole "We deserve PAID time off for maternity leave."  That's just ridiculous and unfair to other workers. For one thing, it's something you chose to do and you can plan for. Unlike me getting struck down by cancer -- something I wouldn't chose and I wouldn't know was coming -- you chose to get pregnant (or at least not abort it), and you have 9 months to plan for it. If I were going to buy a house, I'd have to save up money for a down payment. That's what adults are supposed to do -- they plan ahead. I would never expect my boss to just give me the money (as a gift, not a loan) for a down-payment because I was too lazy and irresponsible to save up the money myself! So if I got a wild hair up my ass and decided to take six weeks off from work next spring, I'd start saving money so I could afford to do it if I didn't have enough vacation and sick time to cover it. That's called being responsible and mature things parents are supposed to be, but often aren't.

Suzie Q will argue that I could take time off if I get cancer, or if my mother or husband or father or cousin is ill. True, but so can Suzie Q. So not only is she taking all this time off when she has a baby every year or so, she's also going to take any time someone in her extended family is ill. So even if I WERE to take time off for my mother, father and husband's illnesses, Suzie Q could be taking time off for her mother, father and husband's illnesses, as well as three pregnancies. It's not anywhere NEAR even and never will be.

It would be wonderful if employers would say, "Listen,  everyone gets 6 weeks time off for every 24 months working here. Enjoy!" We'd be happier.  So if Suzie Q wants to to take her six weeks off to have a baby, great. If I want to take my six weeks off to travel Europe, great.  At least then it would be fair to all employees. 

First of all, if you're a housewife or househusband or if you are on welfare, you'd damn well better not be calling ME a drain on society. Get a job!!

Do you see all those childfree with jobs? I know this is going to take a few brain cells, but try to keep up. When people have jobs, they are paying INTO the social security system and they are also paying income taxes. All those people on welfare, the housewives and househusbands who don't work are NOT paying into the system. THEY are the ones being a drain on society and some day they'll expect a social security payout without contributing to it. Don't argue that "It's okay that I'm too lazy to work -- my kids will pay into social security when I'm old and that will make up for me!" because who knows -- your kids will probably end up sitting at home not working, either, using THEIR kids as an excuse not to contribute to the system.

Besides that, all the people collecting WIC, welfare checks, food stamps, free or reduced lunches at school, or any other welfare benefit for people with kids -- THEY are a drain on the system. Instead of putting money IN to the system they are taking money OUT of it. Duh. I don't see any childfree folks taking those benefits.

If it would make you feel better, how about you lobby for the government to change the laws? You tell the government -- "Anyone without kids doesn't pay into social security, and anyone without kids doesn't draw out of social security. That will make things fair!" okay? Would that work for you? Will we all be happy then? While you're at it, it would be AWESOME if you would change the law so that anyone without kids doesn't have to pay taxes that go to WIC, Welfare, food stamps, schools -- you know, all the stuff that we don't benefit from. Then it would be fair. Will that work for you?

My point is, if you want to think that the childfree are a drain on society, fine.  But keep in mind all those people not working but using welfare, WIC, food stamps and schools are bigger drains on society than we are.  At least we're putting money into the system.

It's not that we hate people with kids who work.  We only have a problem with co-workers who use and abuse us, or they do very little work while standing around yapping all day long. I know that there are co-workers with kids who aren't abusing the system, so we don't mind them as much.  

As for the SAHM crowd, mostly we're just glad they aren't in the workplace getting in our way.  The only time we get annoyed by them is when they claim WE are drains on society, when they whine that no one respects them, cry that they deserve to be paid over $100,000 a year, or when they claim to be doing more important things than anyone else in the world.  It's all ridiculous attention whoring and yea, we find it annoying.

The childfree tend to be divided on this issue, so I will just tell you MY opinion. I do not like that most social programs are set up for people with children only. What if I fell on hard times? I shouldn't be left out in the cold because I chose to be responsible and not create children I couldn't afford?  

It was a little different back in the days when people were embarrassed to take handouts. Some of you may recall that back in the "olden days" someone would take a handout only as a last resort. Then they'd get back on their feet as soon as they could to save their pride. These days, people are not only proud to end up on "the dole" but many of them go out of their way to get on it! You hear teens saying, "Yea, I think I'll just have a baby and then I can get free money and stuff!" Ug, it's shameful and disgusting.

Of course, part of the problem is that society now encourages people to have babies they can't afford, first through religious groups that tell you that you're a waste of life if you don't have babies as soon as you can (and as many as you can). Then by the very social programs that will only be offered to you if you have kids. Such as a teen who can't afford college -- she can get free college if she has a baby she can't afford to raise. Don't want to work? Just go have a baby and sign up for free food stamps, WIC and welfare. Can't get medical treatment? Get pregnant, and then you can get any medical procedures you want for free.  

The only thing you get if you are responsible is a higher tax bill to pay for all the freeloaders! So of course most people want to be freeloaders -- it's the easy way out.

Personally, I'd rather have public social services saved for only people who actually fell on hard times -- not people who intentionally set out to get on the program. Death of a spouse, serious illness or injury -- I can accept that people need help at those times.  But even then, there should be a limited amount of time. Everyone else should have to get their handouts from family members, religious groups or private charities. And luckily, since there are so many people in favor of supporting those who won't support themselves, I'm sure there will be plenty of people donating their tax refund checks to these churches and charities. And that way, since it'll be totally voluntary, no one will feel bad about funding it.

Again, I can't speak for all childfree people, but here's my take on the subject: It's not so much as wanting to ban children as it is about wanting some civility in public places. The options are a) parents start disciplining their children and/or taking them out of public places when the kids act up in public, b) businesses stop allowing parents and their children to act uncivilized in public places and ask them to leave when they create disruptions (the way they do when it is an adult creating the disruption), or c) banning kids from public places. Take your pick.

I certainly want children banned from R rated movies, bars and strip clubs (I've heard reports of people bringing babies into strip clubs!!). There are some places that *should* be adults only. Before you whine about the R rated movies, shut up. You can't have it both ways -- wanting everything to be rated and censored and then disregarding the ratings. Either we need to do away with the ratings or we need to start enforcing them. 

Hmm, more and more smart people aren't having kids.... I wonder why that is? Maybe smart people are smart enough to realize it isn't worth it!

There is no way that smart people can outbreed the idiots. Smart people who actually have kids stop at one or two -- it's the idiots who have five, six or seventeen children. So even if smart people wanted to TRY to outbreed idiots, they couldn't do it. Not without becoming idiots themselves.

I can think of no worse fate for a child than to bring him into a world where he'd be surrounded by morons and be one of the last eight smart people on earth. That's just cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm serious, I don't like kids. Sure, I might end up loving my kid, but I know I wouldn't enjoy raising it. Besides, look at all the women who murder or beat their children -- it sure wasn't different for them. I honestly don't want to have a kid, find out it's NOT different when it's my own, and have to leave him in a hot car to die to get rid of him like other regretful parents have done. That's just sick. I'd rather go with my instincts, and my instincts say, "No thanks."

Is this why you had children? As an insurance policy? "Okay kids, here's the deal. I'll take care of you for 18 years, but after that, you are on your own until I'm sick, and then you have to take care of me. It's the rules!" Sounds pretty selfish!

Why do you think I'm incapable of taking care of myself? And what makes you so sure that your kids are going to take care of you when you are old? If children are taking care of their parents, why are there so many people in nursing homes??

My mother visits the elderly in her community quiet often. She started this when my uncle was in an assisted living home. Two of his children lived within 15 miles from where he lived, and another lived about 70 miles away, and yet they were too busy to visit him. My mother was there often with him, though, so at least he wasn't alone. So much for his children taking care of him, huh?

Another time, my mother was visiting with an elderly member of her church when he was in the hospital dying. All of his children lived within 30 miles, as well as some of his grandchildren. But were any of them there for him? No, my mother was there when he died. After he was gone, she spent about an hour trying to find someone in the family to let them know.

A couple of years ago, when my father had heart surgery and my mother needed help caring for him, my childed siblings, many of whom live in the area and have teenaged or grown children, couldn't be bothered to help them. I ended up going to stay with them for a couple of months while he recovered (and I live several states away, which means I had to pack up and move in with them). So trust me, having kids is NO guarantee they'll help you in your old age. They'll use their own kids or jobs as an excuse, and you'll be screwed anyway, unless you are lucky enough to have a childfree kid!

Here is a clue for you, having children does NOT guarantee that there will be someone there to take care of you when you are old, or that someone will be there when you die. It's not even close to being true.

Give me a break! What expectations?! No expects parents make their kids behave in public, respect their elders or learn to read, write and spell. Instead we have a generation of teens and young adults who write like this: "hy my naim is Kait. I m dum. I didnt finsh th 3nd graid." If there were higher expectations today, kids would behave better, be smarter and be more respectful than ever -- not LESS.

Even if there were any expectations on parents today, how is that my problem? You're the one who chose to take on such a difficult job!  I live up to my responsibilities and you need to live up to yours.  

You don't have to hit or beat your children to punish them. If raising children is so rewarding, you shouldn't have anything to complain about, anyway.

That's such a load of crap. You can train your child how to behave IN THE HOME like parents did for generations before you came along. Trust me, it is totally possible to sit down at the dinner table at home (with take out if you can't figure out how to cook) and teach him not to throw food, scream and yell and run around the table during dinner. Kids love playing pretend, so just play, "Let's pretend we're at a restaurant!" when you're at home. Trust me, it can be done. Don't use idiotic excuses because you're too lazy to do that.

I defend most online childfree ranting because for most of us, the ONLY place we can go to vent our frustrations at crappy parenting today is online. Many of our families or friends wouldn't understand, being parents themselves. So we come online and get this stuff off our chests. It's harmless venting. It's sort of like when people go online and piss and moan about their boss or stupid customers they deal with everyday. A certain percentage of the population finds great stress relief in writing about whatever stressed them out that day. Better that they write about it than that they act it out.

I will admit that I don't like everything I see in childfree groups online, either. Not everyone in the childfree community is perfect like me.  *lol* 

With that attitude, it's obvious you're a pretty crappy (not to mention selfish) parent! If your kids are acting like brats in public, and are tired and whiney, no one benefits. The people around you aren't enjoying themselves while listening to your kids have tantrums, and your children certainly aren't enjoying themselves. But if you think making everyone around you miserable is your "right", you certainly have a bad attitude. People who really care about their children would like to see them happy. Parents would get a babysitter before dragging their children to something the children wouldn't enjoy; breeders drag their kids everywhere instead of spending money on a babysitter, and then later claim it's their "right" to make everyone (including their own kids) miserable.

As far as telling everyone else to stay home if they don't like your anti-social behavior, why not take some of your own advice? If people in public are swearing and you don't like it, YOU stay home. If I'm out in public and I tell your kids to get the hell out of my way and you don't like it, YOU stay home. Gee, it isn't quite as much fun when people turn it around on you, huh?

You're selfish if you think that you deserve quiet in public places like restaurants! Go home if you want quiet!

The fact that kids are expensive isn't the point. Having children is a choice. You should be responsible for all costs of raising your child(ren), and if you can't afford it, don't have them. If I want to buy a Rolls Royce I shouldn't expect a tax refund because my Rolls Royce is expensive. If I can't afford the Rolls Royce, I won't buy it.

Annoyingly enough, the government provides WIC, welfare, food stamps, free schools, free breakfast and lunches at those schools, gives you tax breaks and you are still complaining? What more do you want? The government to pay for everything? Just because you have children shouldn't excuse you from paying taxes like everyone else. Who exactly is paying for all these freebees for parents, if parents aren't paying taxes but instead getting refunds? Ever thought of that?! You want me to chip in for schools because you want that refund check instead of putting that money towards the very schools you want ME to pay for.

If you can't afford to raise the kid, you shouldn't have the kid. Period. Government handouts should not be necessary other than for temporary emergencies. Maybe if we expected people to support their own kids people would work harder (not just as their jobs, but at their education, too).

I'd agree with you, if our youth were actually getting educated. The fact is, they aren't. Just hang out online in any teen sites like Myspace or Xanga. The kids who hang out online can barely read, write or spell. And they are PROUD of that shit. Heck, I've even known a lot of college graduates that didn't even know the basics of spelling and grammar. Some of these crazy parents don't even want science taught in schools anymore. The teachers aren't allowed to discipline the students anymore, because the parents defend their children's bad behavior and threaten to sue the teacher or school district if the child is being "picked on" -- or worse, they make up false allegations against the teachers!

Meanwhile, those of us without children are expected to PAY for the school, but told to keep our opinions about education to ourselves. There is no reason I should pay for something and have no say. Our education system really isn't a benefit to society, so what exactly are we paying for?  Day care?

Even if the education system WAS working, we're wasting money educating people who only end up on welfare, in jail, or as housewives or househusbands.  If the whole premise of me paying for schools is that these kids will grow up and pay my social security, you know, by WORKING, then what if these kids don't get jobs to pay my social security? Am I going to get a refund from them? Worse, these people not only expect me to fund their education when they are young, when they grow up, they expect me to fund their children's education, plus their welfare, food stamps, and WIC, among other things. They just keep taking and taking and not giving anything back to society. If they aren't even planning to contribute to their own children's education, why should I have to?

The bottom line is, I don't really mind paying for education if the kids are getting educated, which they aren't.  But don't be calling the childfree the "drains on society" as long as we are paying or taxes for all your social programs when a lot of parents aren't even working or contributing.

Because we find it appalling that people would spend so much money to create a child when the world is full of kids who need parents now! I just find it incredibly selfish to reject all these kids who need to be adopted because they think their own DNA is somehow far superior to someone else's "rejects". (Never mind the fact that their own DNA was defective in the first place, rendering them infertile!).

So, if Suzie Q spends $100,000 on fertility treatments to have her own DNA replica, and she dies four years later, is she going to be okay if her kid ends up shuffled around the foster care system? After all, no one else should have to take her kid in -- they should instead have their own DNA, right?

It's pretty sad that people who supposedly care about kids don't give a damn about kids in foster care.

You are missing the point. I've already said I wouldn't make a good parent. I'm not good with children, and I never was. They drive me nuts! I don't enjoy being around them.

You, on the other hand, like kids and think you are good at raising them. So why did you have to create your own? What about the children in the foster care system? They deserve a home, and not with someone like me who doesn't like them, but with someone who likes children and believes they are good at raising them. Too bad only your own DNA is good enough for you. How arrogant can you get?!

Do you really think we could get that law passed, even if we were totally serious? And if we could get it passed, do you think there would be a way to enforce it?! Use some common sense.

Even breeders tell me that the "smart people" are the ones who should be having kids rather than the dumb people, and lets face it, the world would be a better place if the only people who had kids were smart people so we'd (most likely) have smart future generations. But logistically, it's impossible, for no other reason than this: smart people know how to use birth control, dumb people don't. So... the dumb will continue to breed. And they'll breed faster than the smart because they are too dumb to figure out birth control.

Even if we could get the law passed and could enforce it, where do we draw the line? It gets really sticky here. And there would always be people who would skirt the issue and find ways to cheat the system.

We aren't generally serious about this anyway, so get over it. It's a nice idea in theory, but it's really not practical at all. Of all the things to get your panties in a twist over, THIS is what you picked? Lame!

Funny how you don't complain about age discrimination when your kid gets a discount at the movie theater or on airline tickets or admission fees to amusement parks or museums. While I could see charging less for a child for a meal (assuming they eat less), I don't see the point in kids eating FREE. And I never saw the point in kids paying less for movies -- they still take up a whole seat, and they still see the same amount of movie as the rest of us. Seriously, WE should be complaining about age discrimination!

I don't hear you complain about age discrimination in parks or schools. These days, they assume you're a child molester if you go near a park or a school if you don't have a child with you. Never mind the fact that most molesters are parents themselves. As a taxpaying adult citizen, I'm not allowed to use parks anymore. Age discrimination!! If I wanted to stop by and check out my old elementary school, I wouldn't be allowed to because of age discrimination. I don't hear you complaining about THAT. Oh no no no. That's because you're a hypocrite.

I also don't hear you complaining about age discrimination about the age to drive a car or vote or drink a beer. I suppose you think we should let 4-year-olds drive and vote, otherwise it's age discrimination? Give me a break.

Besides, even if kids are discriminated against by their age, at least they'll grow out of it. It's not like someone who is disabled, or someone who has a different skin color -- things that won't ever change..

Oh grow up already! First, grab yourself a dictionary and look up the word "breeder" and you'll see that the word is correct and is *not* a slur. It's certainly less of a slur than the word "bitch" which is even allowed on television and in music.

Second, breeding (or having children) is a choice. A person with dark skin did not get to choose their skin color. It's not the same as harassing someone for something out of their control.

Third, I have yet to see anyone yell out "breeder!" at anyone. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but even if it does, it's rare, and not socially tolerated. Also, you won't see anyone burning crosses in the yards of people with kids, or breaking into their houses and lynching them, so it's obviously not the same thing.

Fourth, just the fact that you think being called a "breeder" on some website is the same as a couple hundred years of slavery and torture shows that you're the racist. I'd like to see you walk up to someone who actually lived through civil rights movement and tell them that your "pain" is just exactly the same as what they went through. Don't belittle what an entire race went through just because you don't like a grammatically correct term.

Take some racial sensitivity classes, you moron. You obviously need it.

Asking for equality and consideration is not being "a bitch".  If the world were different and people without kids were allowed as much time off as they wanted and you weren't, I'm sure you'd be complaining louder than anyone. In fact, breeders DO complain louder than anyone anytime they even perceive a slight injustice against them.  You're all, "OMG, the grocery store lets handicapped people park close, but not mommies.  Let's all start harassing the store to put in mommy parking because they have no right to treat us worse than handicapped people!"  *eyeroll*

Of course you never cared when your parent coworkers expected you to buy them baby gifts or you had to cover for them every time they took time of due to their kids, because you knew that some day they'd have to do the same for you.  It's different for childfree people because we know you'll never have to reciprocate and you're just using us.

It isn't just workplace issues, either.  It's the fact that you want all kinds of special treatment for having children, and then don't want to actually discipline them or have any consideration for anyone else on the planet. Rude!

Yes, I was, so what's your point?

Unlike your children, I was expected to behave, and no, my parents didn't beat me. I wasn't perfect, but I was courteous and respectful to my elders, and I was not loud and obnoxious in public. My parents didn't take me out to restaurants until I was old enough to sit still and be quiet.  Even then, we didn't eat out very often (unlike you, my mom actually knew how to cook more than just chicken nuggets and tater tots). My parents taught me to be responsible for my actions, and if I did something wrong in public, I would apologize, and clean up my own mess, if that was the case. I was expected to get an education, learn how to read, write and spell correctly.

I see far too many children in public today who are uncivilized, and I would like to see less of them. That's MY point.

Sure, and you'll probably change your mind, too! I'm sure one of these days you'll grow up and realize you don't want your kids anymore! Then I'll laugh and point!

This is just so ridiculous. By implying this, you're saying that a woman should always be pregnant and men should always be out impregnating as many women as possible, lest some child not be born. If that were true, all of society would never get anything done because all we'd ever do would be having sex, and society as we know it would collapse, and we'd be accomplishing nothing more than what animals accomplish: eat, sleep, shit, and breed.

And if you REALLY believe that, then you'd better have been pregnant every minute of your reproductive life (or if you are a man, you should have hundreds of kids now from getting women everywhere pregnant) or you're a hypocrite.

If a childfree person did come to you and start a flame war with you, why did you feel the need to continue it? Parents are supposed to be mature, responsible people. A mature, responsible person would let it drop. Do you think I haven't gotten flamed by parents? Do you want to know how many times breeders have sent me viruses in my email, sent me PMs saying "Fuck you" (in the days when I had my instant messenger link on the site), or linked to my site and made up lies about my site and called me names? What do you suppose I do about that? I just delete the emails without opening, and close the IM boxes, and I laugh at the insults and lies I see on other websites. I don't start a huge flame war over it. If anything, I would come back here and talk about it, or on a childfree board, but I don't start a flame war over it. Why bother? I have better things to do. Don't you?

Don't accuse me of starting any flame wars because I did NOT invite you to visit my site, I didn't create this site for you, and I certainly didn't come to your sites and start fights or invite you to visit my site. If anyone claims I did, they are a liar. I hardly have time to maintain this site; I certainly don't have time to troll your lame sites.

Since when is asking for people to be more kind and considerate to others around them "bitter"? Since when is asking for equality in the workplace "hateful"? Maybe you need to learn the definitions of those words before using them.

What's the difference? Am I supposed to sit here crying that my parents might have decided to be childfree and I might not have ever existed? That's just ridiculous. You can't change the past, so worrying about it is pointless and stupid.

But if my parents HAD felt the way I do, they would be here talking about childfree living instead of me! So this line of thinking wouldn't be solving any of your problems.  Either way, there would still be childfree people on the internet and you'd still be picking fights with them.

Now who sounds bitter and hateful?  But if that's really how you feel, and you think saying this kind of thing to people is appropriate, I'll be sure to say that to your kids next time I see them.  How's that sound to you?

Is this supposed to hurt? Oh, now I'm supposed to cry because you think I'd make a bad parent? Seriously, get over yourself. You don't mean enough to me to hurt my feelings!

Whether or not I'd make a good parent is a moot point, since I've chosen not to have them. But with your attitude, I'm really questioning whether or not it was a good idea that you had them. I can just imagine the bad attitude you are passing on to them.

I guess this means you had children because you wanted to prove you found some man desperate enough to fuck you, huh? Congratulations. I now know some guy out there got drunk enough to find you sexually arousing for 15 minutes before he sobered up. Whoop-de-do. Some accomplishment!

If you want to spend the rest of your life thinking I'm a virgin because I haven't "proven" my non-virgin status, go right ahead. Doesn't hurt me one bit.

That isn't true. Sometimes it looks that way, because more often it is women rather than men that we find attacking us. Also, women are more likely to try to find excuses to get out of work due to their children and/or pregnancy.

We do find some men who anti-CF, but they tend to also be anti-birth control, anti-abortion, pro-women-home-barefoot-and-pregnant; and basically anti-anyone who isn't them. Yeah, we don't like them, either.

For the record, childfree people tend to be liberal. It's the conservatives who hate women.

Funny, I was just about to say the same to you! Seriously!! Whenever I see parents in public and having to fight with their kids, I just have to stop and say a little "thank you" prayer that I dodged that bullet. Sure, I'm missing out on all those great toddler tantrums in public, and all the late night wake-up calls, and all the potty-training fun, but I'll pass. That's something I'm glad to be missing out on.

Honestly, I don't give a crap about overpopulation anymore. It's not MY children and grandchildren who will be suffering. If the people who have a vested interest in the future generations don't give a shit, why should I?

This assumption that there is no overpopulation because human beings need nothing more than 3 feet of space to live in is extremely ignorant. Perhaps we should take all the people, like yourself, who believe there is no overpopulation problem and stuff them in a 3 foot square of land and see how long they last with no goods or services. Perhaps that might enlighten you a bit.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has the figures as to how much square footage each human being needs to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, and if you have it, please share it with me. I know the figure has to factor in much more than just the space one's physical body takes up. It involves a lot of factors, like farmland to grow food, pastures for raising livestock, trees and plants to create oxygen, and water treatment plants to make sure their water is drinkable. It also involves hospitals for each individual to be born in and graveyards for them to be buried in, landfills for them to store all the disposable diapers (among other things) in, stores for them to shop in, work places for them to earn a living in, homes for them to live in, factories to manufacture the goods you need to buy at the store, and of course, churches for zealots to "worship" in. Let's not forget all the Walmarts to buy all their kiddie crap in! And how are all these kids going to have their own bedrooms if they get nothing more than three square feet to live in?! Horrors!

Kristine from Chicago shared this:

"I've read that human beings needs 0.6 hectares of arable land per person for a western diet, 0.4 hectares per person for a vegetarian diet. I can't find that exact source, but I have found: http://www.cnie.org/pop/conserving/landuse2b.htm citing 47. Vaclav Smil. 1993. Global Ecology: Environmental change and social flexibility. London: Routledge.

"Also see Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers? at http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/limithumans.pdf which gives a 0.5 hectare number, which is the average of what I've heard before. (It is probably hard to measure exactly, I suppose.)

"This is how much land it takes just to feed a person. Nevermind dwelling quarters, or factories to manufacture cars, computers, or Doritos as well as all the other stuff you mentioned. I suppose the human population could go back to subsistence living, but I for one would rather not."

FW shared this:

The lifestyle of an average American requires about 24 acres of land per person. Ecologists recommend that a minimum of 12% of the Earth's landmass be set aside for nature for optimum biodiversity preservation. For this to take place, each person would have to squeeze a living out of 4.7 acres. (The current global average per person is 5.6 acres- with the population increasing, it's only going to get worse.) If you want more information, go to the website http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm

Rika shared this link:

Ecological Footprint Test: Sixteen Simple Questions to Assess Your Use of Our Natural Planet.

Darren shared this information:

I can fill in the food factor: it takes 4 acres of land to feed a vegan, 16 acres to feed a vegetarian, and 64 acres to feed a meat eater. Without getting into an argument about which way is best, it takes more land to feed a meat eater because you have to grow the food to feed the animals s/he will eat. It takes not quite as much to feed a vegetarian because you still have to feed the cows if they do dairy, or the chickens if they do eggs, but since that doesn't constitute as much of their diet they don't need as much room.

But even if you are vegan (ie *no* animals involved in any stage of the food chain) it still takes 4 acres of land to feed you. So the person who said that we only need 3 sq ft of space? is reeeeeally skinny. Heh heh. I'm not sure about other factors, but that covers *just* the food issue.

When we ask for respect, what we want is for people with kids to stop harassing us about why we don't have kids, when will we have kids, why we should have kids, and snotty comments like, "It's a good thing you're not having kids!!" We do not walk up to people and say, "Why do you have kids? Why didn't you wait until you were older to have kids? You'll probably change your mind!! It's too bad you had kids!" So by not harassing childed people the way we get harassed, we ARE respecting their life choices.

Of course we don't respect people who do a lousy job of parenting, harass us, and want to make their own lives easier while making life miserable for everyone else. So much of what we complain about in regards to crappy parents today is their utter laziness and wanting the entire world to accommodate their laziness. Since when is laziness a respectable trait? And why is that something they should be allowed to model for their children?!

We DO respect the parents who are responsible and mature, have well behaved kids, take the job of parenting seriously, and don't demand respect or entitlements from the general public. That's why we don't refer to the bad childed people as "parents" -- out of respect for the good parents and not wanting to insult the whole culture of parenting. Of course, the parents we respect are the ones who don't care if we respect them or not because their self-esteem is not based on what others think of them, so they are the very ones who wouldn't bitch and complain even if I didn't respect them. Funny how that works.

Why is this the new favorite insult from mommies? We should turn it into a drinking game! I guess coming up with something a) original and b) more accurate would be too hard for these geniuses!

Considering the majority of you who use this one on me aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, I'd say this is a classic case of projection.  I can not even count the number of dull knives that have emailed me to say, "OMG, like, how dare you say women who breastfeed should be sterilized."  Considering I never said that anywhere, who is the ignorant one now? 

Smarter than most people who want kids!

The fact that you aren't just rushing into parenthood is a good sign. The fact that you understand the concept of birth control is a good sign. And the fact that you're open minded about alternate opinions is a very good sign.

But if you want an actual label, Childfree people would label you any one of the following labels:

-childless (for now)
-wannabe
-wannabreed
-wannabreeder

If you want a label, you can pick one of those.

Most childfree people aren't against breastfeeding. There are many childfree people, though, who are offended by attention whoring mommies who whip out their breasts in public to get attention and to shock people. These are the same women who will scream about nudity on TV, but they think it's okay for them to show off their boobs in public and online just to harass and annoy people.

Discreet breastfeeding in public doesn't offend people because it's discreet so no one notices. Flaunting your breastfeeding in public is obnoxious and many of us think it makes you look just as trashy as Paris, Britney and Lindsey for exposing yourself in public for attention and to flaunt public decency laws.  

Personally, I feel this whole pro-breastfeeding argument is extremely sexist and holds women back.  If the misogynists can convince you that your kid needs to feed every 30 minutes for the next 4 years, and they convince you that you are the ONLY one who can do it, they have made that kid a shackle around your leg.  Women deserve better than to be slaves to their sexist husbands and ungrateful children.  The worst part is that there are a lot of ignorant women who have bought this trap hook line and sinker and are now betraying their fellow women by trying to put the same shackle around their legs.  "Tit-nazis" are anti-feminists.

Lastly, people who like breasts often like to see firm, sexy breasts, not saggy, engorged breasts. I know it's horrible that people are evil and they'd rather see attractive people and body parts and it's very discriminatory against ugly people and ugly body parts, but that's just the way it works. Life isn't fair.

Until we all start wearing childfree pride T-shirts, that could be hard!

Check out the Social Groups page to see if there is a childfree social group in your area.  That would be a great place to start in your quest to find people without children.

My next best suggestion is to join some hobby groups in your area, especially child un-friendly things. Things like hiking or canoeing (I'd assume they wouldn't bring a lot of small children to things like that, but possibly some older children would be there), or woodworking classes (I would expect they'd keep kids away from the dangerous equipment), or stain-glass making (sounds a bit hard for kids), or motorcycle groups. You might not find childfree people, but you are likely to find people with older children (who have more time to do stuff), people who actually use babysitters (I think there are a few of those people left), people who are infertile, or people who are non-custodial parents, or empty-nesters. AND when you first meet them, you already know you have something in common -- the hobby that you are involved in.

Stop looking for a childfree man and just start looking for a good man. A lot of men end up leaving the option of children up to the wife. You obviously don't want to date a guy who is desperate to have kids, but a lot of guys think they want kids because that's what they've always been taught. When presented with the idea of a childfree life, a lot of guys warm up to it. I'm not saying you should *convert* a man but if you date a guy you already get along with great in other areas, and you tell him all the benefits of childfreedom, let him make his own decision.

And never, ever date someone who keeps score. Keeping score is just another game, and you don't want to be married to a game player.

You can also check these childfree dating sites.

Every childfree board is predominantly female. It's not that hard to find childfree women. Start hanging out on childfree boards and at childfree gatherings.

You can also check these childfree dating sites.