Childfree Women’s Online Discussions of the Choice to Not Have Children

Childfree Women 1

Running Head: CHILDFREE WOMEN’S ONLINE DISCUSSIONS

Childfree Women’s Online Discussions of the Choice to Not Have Children:

A Qualitative Study

Adi Avivi, MS

Long Island University, C.W. Post Campus

Dissertation Chair:: Danielle Knafo, Ph.D.

Committee Member: Jill Rathus, Ph.D.

Committee Member: Suzanne Phillips PsyD

CHILDFREE WOMEN’S ONLINE DISCUSSIONS 2

Acknowledgments

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the childfree women who so kindly volunteered

their stories and their time to this study. Without them this would not have been possible.

I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Danielle Knafo, who mentored me throughout my

doctoral journey. Dr. Knafo was my mentor, teacher, advisor, and friend every step of the way.

Her thoughtful advice, kind encouragement, museum visits, sound logic, and most of all, her

faith in me, made this study possible. Dr. Knafo had made LIU Post a home for me and her

presence has been a positive and powerful force in my academic and private life.

I also want to thank Dr. Jill Rathus and Dr. Susanne Phillips for committing to my project

and for providing insightful suggestions that helped organize and structure my research. Dr.

Rathus gave me the tremendous compliment of asking to be on my committee and I was

delighted to accept. Her approval and encouragements helped me believe in myself and increased

my enthusiasm in conducting this study. Her kind reaction to my personality allowed me to be

myself. Dr. Phillips has been a role model for me throughout my training. Her teaching during

our professional development seminar influenced my theoretical thinking as well as my clinical

work. Dr. Phillips also volunteered to facilitate student-focused projects as part of S.M.A.R.T.

She has always been encouraging, kind, and insightful, and for that I am grateful.

I want to thank Melissa Defalco, Debra Japko, and Tristan Barsky, for their dedication to

this project. They offered astute suggestions and original ideas. They worked efficiently and

flexibly, proving to be invaluable collaborators. Working with them has been a pleasure.

I also want to thank my family and friends in Israel: I want to thank my brothers for being

the most wonderful siblings a sister can have; my mother, for not being too focused on my

childfreedom and for being the free-spirited mother that she is; my step-father for his quirky

emails and warm support; and my big group of delightful friends for not deserting or resenting

me when they had children. To my Boston friends, thank you for being my family in the US. To

my New York friends, thank you for taking care of me for the past five years. And finally, to my

online friends who were the first to believe and accept my childfreedom, and by that, directing

me toward this project.

I want to thank my classmates, whom with I shared my doctoral adventure. They are the

loveliest group of smart, funny, supportive, and crazy people, and I am lucky that they are not

only my classmates, but my friends. I also want to thank my co-interns at Kings County Hospital

Center for their love and support. I especially want to mention Melissa Melkumov, Danya Weiss,

and Rachel Safran who spent hours editing my work. I could not have done this without you.

Finally, I want to thank Brian Dominick for his wise advice and edits. And most

importantly, I want to thank Brian for his belief in me, his love, and for not wanting children.

Our non-existing reciprocal biological clocks are making me happy every day since we met.


Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 2

Table of Contents 3

Abstract 6

Introduction 7

Review of the Literature 8

Making the decision 13

Discussing the Childfree Lifestyle with Others 16

Internet Communication as an Outlet for Discussion and Identity Formation 19

Method 28

Participants 28

Table 1 29

Design 31

Procedures 32

Data Analysis 34

Results 35

The CF Identity is Complex and Dynamic 36


Being a Childfree Woman Influences Interpersonal Relationships 41

Childfree Dedicated Websites Are Powerful Tools of Communication, Support,

Information, and Socialization 43

For Childfree Women, the Personal is Political 50

Table 2 55

Tables 3 60

Table 4 63

Table 5 70

Discussion 75

The CF identity is complex and dynamic 77

Being a Childfree Woman Influences Interpersonal Relationships 89


Information, and Socialization 97

For Childfree Women, the Personal is Political 115

Clinical Implications 127

Limitations of the Research 130

Hypotheses and Suggestions for Future Research 131

References 134


List of Appendices

Appendix Title

A Final list of repeating ideas generated from five groups 144

B Final list of Themes 147

C Informed Consent 151

D Research Concern and Questions 154

E Demographic Questionnaire 155


Abstract

Negative views toward voluntary childlessness, or rather, childfree life, has been apparent ever

since the issue started receiving academic attention in the 1970s. Women who live childfree are

often challenged and judged with regard to that aspect of their life. The need to justify one’s

choices creates on-going self exploration and a formation of an insightful identity. A supportive

other, curious and accepting, is often needed to address aspects of the self that are less socially

normative. Women in particular had to fight for changing norms and being accepted when

choosing something other than the common image of womanhood (Houseknecht, 1977;

Houseknecht, 1979). In a world progressively electronic, when online interaction is dominating

communication in the western world, what is the place of the internet and its platforms for

women who live childfree? Is discussing their childfree lifestyle online inherently different than

in other social settings?

A qualitative research methodology developed by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) was

employed, with five focus groups of childfree women who are active in online childfree

communities. These groups were conducted in the form of online message boards and

participants discussed the affect of internet communication on their lives as childfree women.

The five message boards produced insight into how the participants have been affected by using

online childfree resources. Psychodynamic intersubjective theory was used to inform the

qualitative narrative that emerged from the group online discussions. Recommendations were

developed from this narrative for mental health providers who might give services to childfree

women.


Childfree Women’s Discussions on the Choice to Not Have Children: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

I have never wanted to have children. When people asked me why, I gave reasons. Often

I was told that my reasons are wrong, silly, misinformed, or unjustified. For me, that was

actually true. No reason captured the inner feeling I always lived with: I do not want children.

There was never a reason, a logic explanation, or some way to justify this lack of desire. It is

difficult for me to discuss this issue through the language of “choice” as I do not feel that it is a

choice I am making, rather; this is it who I am.

In the past six years I have been actively writing in online platforms about my life. The

writing helped me consolidated opinions, explore options, and create a community of like

minded individuals. That community gave me the safe space to talk about not wanting children

with supportive others. The noncritical and curious attitude of my fellow writers allowed me to

explore that part of my identity without needing to justify myself or fight for my right to be the

person I am. It enabled me to think more freely about this issue while receiving support for my

views. The delicate nuances of exposure and anonymity that online communication allows for

have been liberating for me.

This made me wonder if other women have found this mode of communication

significant in their journey to make meaning of their decision about living childfree or in their

journey to form an identity as a childfree individual. I am interested in the difference between

how women perceive themselves regarding their non-parenthood and how others perceive them.

Furthermore, I am intrigued by the process of forming an identity within a realm of duality –

one’s desires and self-understanding side by side with others’ expectation, criticism, and support.


I want to better understand how other women feel about themselves as individuals in a social

surrounding that may have made them feel limited in exploring who they are. The technological

era I am a part of is yet another aspect of this interest of mine.

I am biased because for me the internet has been a significant space of exploration and

expression. I am also biased as I am very passionate about the childfree topic and the need to

allow people, women in particular, to make the nonconventional choice without paying a social

price. However, I am mostly curious to hear what other women who are active online think about

this mode of conversing and its place in their remaining childfree.

Literature Review

In the Western World, it is commonly expected for both women and men to have

children. Although an increasing number of individuals and couples choose to remain childfree,

having children is considered “creating a family” and a stepping stone in becoming an adult

(Gold and Wilson, 2002; Letherby, 2002). Being a family is largely viewed as containing a

father, a mother, and their biological offspring. Motherhood is assumed to be a natural and

defining choice for women (Safer, 1996). Beyond the familial aspect of motherhood, being a

mother is ingrained in the religious, social, and political reality of the Western world. Society

expects women to bear children due to a natural and sexual inherent drive. In a world in which

women are less and less restricted in their choices in comparison to men, having children is still

an important aspect of differentiation between the genders (Hird and Abshoff, 2000)

As the notion of being childfree and not having children as a choice receives more

attention in discourse, a shift in the language used for talking and writing about this domain is

apparent. In the past, the term childless was used to describe anyone who did not have children,


regardless of the reason. The ideas of voluntary and non-voluntary childlessness were introduced

and investigated in the 1970s (Houseknecht, 1977; Houseknecht, 1979). The term childfree was

first used by the National Organization for Non-Parents in 1972 to imply a choice, or rather a

fulfilling and positive life situation, which is not embedded in the term childless (Agrillo and

Nelini, 2008).

Still, being childfree often brings social challenges. The sociopolitical notion that

‘woman’ and ‘mother’ are almost interchangeable concepts creates negative consequences for

women who do not adhere to this norm (Gillespie, 2000; Russo, 1979). A cultural pronatalistic

paradigm in the American society (and most other Western societies) reflects an explicit

expectation that all women will have children and therefore, being childfree is perceived as being

flawed (Meyers, 2001). Women who lead a childfree life, not due to infertility, are subjected to

criticism. They are considered to be being sick, insensitive, uncaring, unkind, aberrant,

immature, unfeminine, egotistical, cold, materialistic, peculiar, abnormal, and as having an

unsatisfying marital life (Calhoun and Selby, 1980; Coffey, 2005; Giles, Shaw and Morgan,

2009; La Mastro, 2001, Letherby, 2002; Mollen 2006). Not having children is also pathologized

and often explained as the result of childhood trauma, poor parental role models, oppressive

child rearing, too many siblings’ childcare responsibility, and negative identification with one’s

own mother (Reading and Amatea, 1986, as cited in Hird and Abshoff, 2000).

Research regarding the childfreedom is not limited to American society. In the Israeli

society, pronatalistic attitudes within the Jewish-Israeli hegemony are connected to the national

ethos of demographic issues of maintaining a Jewish majority (Melamed, 2002; Berkovitz, 1999,

as cited in Donat, 2007). Donat (2007) states that having children is portrayed as a national and


moral duty in Israel; not complying with the norm is considered a form of betrayal. The research

on this topic is extremely limited in Israel and information about percentile of voluntary versus

non-voluntary life without children is unavailable. However, the attitudes toward such lifestyles

are as negative and accusatory in Israel as they are in the U.S. (Donat, 2007; Remennick, 2000).

Rowland and Lee (2006) explored Australians’ perception of women who chose to live

childfree versus having children within heterosexual versus lesbian relationships. Australian

students viewed women who were planning on having children and heterosexual women more

favorably; however on some scales they viewed lesbian women who are planning to have

children as happy, mature, and individualistic. Giles, Shaw, and Morgan (2009) studied the

representation of the childfree life style in British media between 1990 and 2008. They identified

four scripts that framed this topic in media publications: as a human rights issue, as a form of

resistance, as a social trend, and as a personal decision. The study identified these scripts as

alternatives to the standard script of heterosexual marriage with children.

Similarly, Agrillo and Nelini (2008) explored trends in childfree lifestyles throughout

different communities. Although many of the studies they reviewed were from North-America,

they also looked at Italian social norms for childrearing and claimed that progressions in

women’s social rights allows more Italian women to break from traditional life styles and choose

not to have children. They also identified a rising trend in the Mediterranean, Australian, and

British societies of having fewer children, being childfree until an older age, and remaining

childfree.

Callan (1983) explored the different aspects of making the decision to remain childfree

among deciders who reached this choice at an early age versus postponing the decision until an


older age in the Australian society. He found some differences in the perceived reaction of others

to the choice among the two groups. He also identified some differences in subjects’ background

and sex-roles attitudes. Early deciders were more likely to come from a smaller family, express

concerns related to the world’s overpopulation, and to have less desirable feminine self-image.

The most distinct difference between the two groups was in their experience of discussing their

decisions with relatives and friends. Early deciders were more likely to be perceived as

nonconformists , to be confronted about their decision, and to be accused of selfishness, dislike

for children, and being infertile. Postponers were less likely to be treated in this manner because

their childfree life style was considered by others and sometimes by themselves as transitory. In

a later study, Callan (1984) categorized childless women as ‘early articulators’ (women who

made a decision not to have children before marriage) or ‘postponers’ (women who remain

childless due to circumstance). The term “early articulator” is used in today’s CF communities to

describe women who knew from young age that they did not want to have children due to Scott’s

(2009) expansion of these categories. Depending on how and when a CF person arrived to their

decision not to have children, she named the categories, Early Articulators, Postponers,

Acquiescers, and the Undecided.

In Finland, Miettinen and Paajanen (2005) explored the influence of education and

economic status of men and women who decide to postpone childbearing or decide not to have

children at all. They distinguished between individuals who decided not to have children and

individuals who relinquished the intension of having children. The first group was found to be

motivated by their childhood and the second by socioeconomic stressors or lack of suitable

partner with whom to parent. Male deciders were more likely to have parents with higher level of

education, to be an only child, and to come from a non-religious family. Female deciders were


more likely to have less educated parents and to be affected by parents’ divorce. Deciders were

more likely to perceive childrearing as inconsistent with their life style and to have doubts about

their parenting skills. People who relinquished the intention to have children were more likely be

economically unstable and to not be a part of a couple. Among older responders, health issues

were also among the reasons to relinquish childrearing intensions.

Despite the stigma attached to childfreedom (CFdom), living childfree is becoming more

common in the Western world (Agrillo and Nelini, 2008; Gillespie, 2003; Gold and Wilson,

2002; Somers, 1993) and the topic is receiving more attention from the academic community. A

variety of disciplines, including sociology, gender studies, feminist theory, psychology, political

science, communication, and biology, have produced studies investigating different aspects of

this phenomenon. These studies examine the reasons for the choice to remain childfree (Agrillo

and Nelini, 2008; Coffey, 2007), perceptions of people who are childfree, childless, and parents

(Hird and Abshoff, 2000; Lampman and Dowling-Guyer, 1995; Rowlands and Lee, 2006), and

characteristics, gender differences, representations, myths and truth of people who are leading

childfree life (Boyd, 1989; Giles, Shaw, and Morgan, 2009; Kenkel, 1985; Seccombe, 1991;

Somers, 1993). Some of these studies address topics such as counseling issues for this population

through the lens of people’s characteristics and reasons for the choice, as family counselors

should be culturally aware of the special needs of such clients (Gold and Wilson, 2002; Mollen,

2006).

In the last two decades, popular avenues of discussion and exploration became available

for a wider range of people. Amazon.com offers layman’s books that address a variety of aspects

regarding childfree life and the challenges people and couples who make this choice face. For


example, “The baby-boon: how family friendly America cheats the childless” (Burkett, 2000)

reveals the frustration of childfree individuals who are expected to work more or cover for

colleagues who have children. “Childfree and loving it!” (Defago, 2005) discusses the reasons to

remain childfree and the advantage of such a choice for those who do not want to have children.

“Beyond Motherhood: choosing a life without children” (Safer, 1996) is a personal story of

making a decision not to have children. These are but few examples of books touching on this

topic and allowing modern readers to become informed and to feel they have a community of

like-minded people around them. The comments about these books on the Amazon.com website

often reflect a sense of relief from feeling isolated due to this nonconformist choice and an

excitement for the opportunity to explore one’s identity on the matter in a nonjudgmental

atmosphere.

Making the Decision

Jeanne Safer (1996) shared with her readers the journey she took when making a decision

to not have children. Unlike a common misnomer, Safer made her decision within the realm of a

happy marriage with a partner who would have supported her decision either way. She

proceeded to interview other women who made the same choice and explored the decision-

making process. For some, this is a painful process due to their own personal conflicts. Others

find the decision problematic because of others’ expectations and demands. Safer claims that

most women experience conflicted feelings and uncertainty during the decision-making process.

Some women make this decision effortlessly and at a relatively early age; however, Safer

suggests that they are the minority.


Naturally, biological constrains put a known limit to the time a woman has to allow for

such uncertainty and for weighing the options of this life decision: “Motherhood obviously has

very different meaning for someone who rejects it at forty-four or four” (Safer, 1996, p.59).

Safer found that the earlier a woman made the decision, the more easy and painless it was. She

found that older women often develop a stronger and more central concept of motherhood, which

leads to a decision making process that may be more complicated and perhaps even more

painful. Bartlett (1995) makes a similar claim, saying that such a decision is greatly influenced

by what motherhood means to a woman and by what it means to not be a mother.

Safer (1996) describes a back and forth process regarding having children that can be

concluded by lingering into an age of infertility. Bartlett (1995) also showed that many women

postpone the decision until they reach menopause, which creates a decision de facto. Although

women were able to identify key moments in their decision making process, most declared that

indeed it was a process that took a long time. Bartlett’s interviewees found it hard to identify a

specific moment in time or an experience that led to the decision not to have children. Much like

Safer’s observation, Bartlett found that women have made this decision again and again,

reassessed their commitment to the CFdom, and sometimes had to choose it “on a daily, weekly,

or yearly basis” (Bartlett, 1995, p. 97).

Ireland (1993) created three distinctions within the childless women group and labeled

these three subgroups. The first group is “traditional.” These are women who did not choose to

be childless. The second is “transitional.” These are women who delay the decision making until

it is too late to have children. And lastly, the third group is the “transformative.” Ireland gives

this last label to women who actively chose to be childfree, often at a young age. Kamalamani


(2009) indicates that women reach this decision in many different ways. These different authors

also identify a myriad of reasons to make that choice.

In her book Two is Enough Laura Scott (2009) describes an interviewing project she

named “The childless by choice project.” Within the interviews she conducted she identified 18

reasons to make the choice to remain childfree. The most common reason couples mentioned for

making such a choice was enjoying life and the romantic relationship as it is. Additional reasons

were: valuing freedom and independence, not wanting the responsibility, having no wish to have

children and lacking parental instinct, and having goals that are hard to accomplish with children.

Feeling the world is overpopulated and feeling that not being a parent will allow one to better

serve the world were also mentioned. These reasons and many others are reflected in the words

of the women Bartlett (1995) and Safer (1996) interviewed as well.

Mollen (2006) found that women who made this choice had different influences that

contributed to it. They felt a resistance to comply with their expected gender role and gender

identity; they received messages from their parents and families through early interactions and

relationships; and they experienced the responsibilities of childcare at an early age. In addition,

Mollen’s interviewees mentioned their personal freedom as a factor, a fear for their body safety

or their child’s genetic heritage, or a view of the world as an unsafe place to raise children.

Unlike the negative stigma childfree women suffer from; the reasons that guide their decision do

not reflect immaturity, mental illness, selfishness, negative marital life, or coldness. In fact, the

interviews reveal a group of thoughtful, mature, and attentive people who are well aware of their

goals, needs, and limitations.


Regardless of how or why women reach this decision almost all of them report that

having a supportive community and an outlet to explore their feelings and thoughts about this

issue is a crucial aspect of their process (Bartlett, 1995; Donat, 2011; Durham, 2008; Durham &

Braithwaite, 2009; Mollen, 2006; Safer, 1996). In fact, in the rare examples considering the

clinical needs of couples or women who are trying to reach that decision the researchers chose a

group model for their work. Russell, Hey, Thoen, and Walz, (1978) created a model of a group

process in which couples would meet other couples for a three- session intervention designed to

provide group support in making such a decision. Daniluk and Herman (1983) created a similar

program designed to assist career women in making an informed decision about parenting. These

researchers created a program which consisted of a 20 hour group process for women trying to

reach this decision. Pelton and Hertlein (2011) discussed the unique challenges of the childfree

couple in our time. They addressed their exploration of the topic to potential therapists and are

among the rare examples of current writers who acknowledge the need to form an identity

regarding this aspect of life within a supportive relationship – such as the therapeutic

relationship. This is a significant initiative to speak to the challenges embedded in talking to

others about being childfree.

Discussing the Childfree Lifestyle with Others

The decision making process of whether or not to live a childfree life, generally requires

the support and attention of empathetic others. However, others are often unsupportive and

critical of those who wish to be childfree. As mentioned above, CFdom carries with it various

stigmas and judgments. This is especially true for women (Park, 2002). The issue of fundamental

difficulty in discussing this topic with others has been addressed by a few researchers who


explored the communication of childfree individuals and couples. These studies touch upon

issues of identity, feminine identity, and communication with one’s social milieu, some of which

are especially dedicated to telling women’s stories of their experience (Donat, 2007; Donat,

2011; Durham, 2008; Durham & Braithwaite, 2009; Gillespie, 2000; Gillespie, 2003; Letherby,

2002). Durham (2008) and Donat (2007) conducted studies that directly examine the experience

of communicating with others about childfree identity in American and Israeli communities,

respectively. The debates regarding this topic are rich and diverse. They examine the mere

language use of terms such as “childfree,” “childless,” and “choice,” through the stigma attached

to CFdom. They both explore the positive and negative experience of discussing the issue with

others and listening to others’ reactions.

Negative reactions are frequently colored by views of childfree life as deviant. This view

stems not only from not having children but also from not wanting them (Durham, 2008; Park,

2002). Wanting children but being unable to have them for medical or biological reasons is

viewed differently. Park (2002) claimed, ‘‘those who are childless by choice are stigmatized by

their blemished characters, while the sterile or infertile are stigmatized by their physical

abnormalities,’’ (pp. 30–31). When childfree individuals share the information about their

lifestyle with others they are at risk for being criticized, insulted, and creating a rift in important

relationships (Durham, 2008).

Talking about difficult issues and fearing others’ reactions is addressed in Durham’s

research through a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective (Petronio, 2002, as

cited in Durham, 2008). This perspective explores the process of sharing private information

with others. It is an assessment of people’s feelings, expectation, and choices when sharing


something about themselves with others. In his study, Durham observed the different reasons to

disclose or conceal the decision to remain childfree. Through the CPM model, he identified

situations and communities that make disclosure harder or easier for couples. Among these

factors are cultural issues regarding the disclosure of personal information, as well as the gender

of the person talking and the person listening, as women often disclose various issues in different

ways (Petronio, 2002, as cited in Durham, 2008).

Also, Durham (2008) found that perceived similarity between the person revealing

information and the listener were of importance, together with the anticipated reaction. He

addressed these issues as motivation and contextual factors, which are reasons to reveal

information at a given moment in time and to a specific person. Finally, he discussed the risk

criteria for disclosure, which is one’s expectation to receive a negative or adverse reaction prior

to revealing private information. He found that when couples perceived others as similar (e.g.

friends who do not have children) they were more inclined to discuss their childfree lifestyle

freely and amicably. A fear of a negative reaction or a fracture to the relationship made couples

choose to conceal their choice.

In her study of childfree life in Israel, Donat (2007) found that in the past decade the

ability to discuss and explore the pronatalist approach became more acceptable. Israeli media

gave room for talking about the less appealing and charming aspects of parenthood – a topic that

up until recently was a well kept secret in the Jewish-Israeli social discourse. In her work with

women and couples who are childfree, this new openness was perceived as less than sufficient to

allow for comfort in sharing the childfree aspect of their identity. Donat reflects on her subjects’

experience and argues:


While the subjects in this study describe their choice not to be parents, as producing a

tremendous amount of freedom in their personal life – most of them report a subsequent

reduction, or even a total loss of freedom in the public arena, due to the explicit and

implicit restrictions of the people around them, that point them out as ‘out of place’

anomalies (p. 9).

Donat perceived this group experience as “living in the closet,” and the discussion with others

who comply with the pronatalist hegemony in Israel, as a “coming out” process. Durham (2008)

reported similar wording within his subjects’ testimonies of telling others of their choice.

In such an atmosphere, individuals who are living childfree may need to look for like-

minded others to discuss their choice, rather than talk to the people in their immediate

surroundings. If they are scared of being met with criticism, scrutiny, mockery, or dismissal, they

may find it hard to disclose. This may be even more difficult when one is in the process of

making the choice. Also, if they fear damaging their relationships with important others, such as

family members and close friends, this may add additional stress to such disclosures. However,

such a decision is not usually made lightly and often requires much self exploration and identity

development. This is a hard task to complete in isolation. The support and input of sympathetic

others may be essential in such a process (Safer, 1996).

Internet Communication as an Outlet for Discussion and Identity Formation

“Taking responsibility for the social relations of science and technology means refusing an anti-

science metaphysics, a demonology of technology, and so means embracing the skilful task of

reconstructing the boundaries of daily life, in partial connection with others, in communication

with all of our parts.” (Haraway, 1985, p. 100)


In a recent article, Basten (2009) identified numerous websites dedicated to describing

CFdom and providing information and support to individuals either considering choosing such a

course or actively living their decision to remain non-parents. Basten identified this increase in

available support as a positive force that contributed to the ongoing decline in negative

perceptions of childfree individuals. He also mentioned how important it is to have a community

of people who share one’s experience. In that, the childfree community joined other groups who

converse about their identity and give support to like-minded others online.

In her classic paper, A manifesto for Cyborgs, Haraway (1985) suggested that the barrier

between what is organic and what is mechanic has been broken. Human beings are living in a

world that allows or even demands a hybrid between the machine and the human body. This new

realm may be a liberating opportunity. Haraway’s cyborg is an entity that combines binaries and

challenges old divisions of gender. Through years of writing, her cyborg metaphor became a tool

to deconstruct and reconstruct women’s possibilities within the realm of politics, body, and

reproduction. While taking into account many problems and even dangers that virtual

communication entails, nevertheless it also opens possibilities for exploring different aspects of

the self, sometimes aspects that has no other outlet. In this sense, the internet is a space for

playful exploration of identity for those who are fortunate enough to have it in their everyday

lives (Wayatt, 2008).

Bargh and McKenna (2004) discussed the place of internet within the history of

technological developments that enhanced human communication. The internet’s interactive

qualities put it in a category of mechanical communication means that expanded people’s ability

to connect with each other. In that, Bargh and McKenna equated it to the telephone and telegraph


that eliminated the reliance on human physical movement and speed to deliver messages from

afar. When such novelties became available to the public, different sectors of society had

reservation regarding their potential influences, fearing that they would damage face-to-face

relationships and that the power of the governing leaders would be impeded by people’s new

communication options (Span 2001, as cited in Bargh and McKenna, 2004). However, like

Haraway (1985), others were optimistic about these new technologies, thinking that they would

change humanity’s future for the better. Bargh and McKenna quote an editorial from the era of

telegraph saying: “it is impossible that old prejudices and hostilities should longer exist, while

such an instrument has been created for the exchange of thought between all the nations of the

earth” (Standage 1998,pp. 82–83, as cited in Bargh and McKenna, 2004.) While both

governments and humans’ hostility to others have not lost their power due to technological

advances, the internet evokes similar concerns and hopes today as these past inventions did.

These hopes and concerns become important as the use of internet becomes more and

more ubiquitous. Its unique traits have been studied to try and assess how they influence

communication and interactions among users. Chandler (2007) identified the immediate

recording aspect of writing as a qualitative difference between speech and writing. When writing

online, he adds, one is not only recording her writing, in most cases she is also immediately

publishing it. Indeed, publically writing online is an invitation for others to read and respond.

Peter and Valkenburg (2006) identified different aspects of Computer Mediated Communication

(CMC) (p.214, Peter and Valkenburg, 2006) that explain the internet’s popularity as a

communication means. First, the internet offers an element of controllability (p. 214) due to the

time for reflection and making choices that it allows. Second, reciprocity (p.214) is greater

because people are less concern with face-to-face social cues that they would have consider in a


real-life interaction. In addition to that, the anonymity may help some people to overcome

shyness and social anxiety, and by that, increasing the breadth and depth (p. 214) of discussions.

Peter and Valkenburg (2006) explored the difference in perception of internet

communication among adolescents web-users. They focused on text-based communication

looking at patterns of CMC in relation to people’s age, gender, and psychological components:

social anxiety, loneliness and need for affiliation. They found that younger users were more

inclined to view CMC as controlled, reciprocal, and deep than older users; however, the subjects

in the study were all between the ages of 12 and 15, and so the aspect of age was quite limited.

Contrary to their expectation they found that male users perceived CMC as more reciprocal than

female did.

In addition, Peter and Valkenburg (2006) found that anxious and lonely adolescents

found CMC to be more reciprocal, deep, and broad in comparison to face-to-face interactions.

They also valued the controllability of CMC more than adolescents that were not anxious or

lonely. High need for affiliation had no relationship with the controllability or reciprocity traits

of CMC, but it did show a connection to perceived depth. Peter and Valkenburg attributed that

finding to the tendency of people who are high in need for affiliation to be more emotionally

involved in relationships. Because CMC makes self-disclosure easier, it might be appealing to

those with high need for affiliation. Although their research was done in the Netherland and on a

limited age group, it does shed some light on important features of CMC and why is might

appeal to certain groups.

Bareket-Bojmel and Shahar (2011), studied the phenomena of Strangers on the Internet

(p. 733), in which the anonymity of the interpersonal situation contributes to the ease of self-


disclosure. They manipulated the content of online written conversations between two

participants who either maintained anonymity or revealed their identity. Each dyad discussed a

neutral, negative or positive issue when one participant was instructed to talk and the other to

listen. They also measured the participants’ self-criticism, openness to experience, and

willingness to further interact with each others.

Bareket-Bojmel and Shahar (2011) found that both partners of the conversation

experienced more negative or positive emotions after the negative or positive disclosure

condition, respectively. When anonymity was kept, self-criticism was strongly associated with

negative emotions after the interactions not only for those who shared information, but also for

the listeners. Additionally, those who were high on a measure of experiential avoidance

experienced lower levels of emotions – positive or negative – after disclosing information. Those

who were highly opened to experience suffered less negative emotions after negative self-

disclosure. This affected the listeners as well: the higher the openness to experience of the person

disclosing, the less negative emotions the listener experienced.

This study shows the emotional effects of self-disclosure online. It reveals the influence

on both sides of an online conversation, exposing the importance of personality traits such as

self-criticism, openness to experience, and experiential avoidance in the consequences of using

CMC to discuss personal issues with others. Additionally, this study points to the importance of

anonymity in the formation of relationships online. The finding showed that only non-

anonymous or non-disclosing partners were willing to further interact. Bareket-Bojmel and

Shahar claimed that these results reflected the fact that these participants had “nothing to lose”

(p. 753) as they did not expose personal information or were not anonymous to begin with. These


results are important when thinking of internet communication, especially when personal and

delicate information is being shared. However, this study allowed its participants to have a one-

time short interaction. It did not measure the effects of a long term slowly built relationship

online, which is often the case for internet users who are using CMC in their everyday social

lives.

Among young people the use of internet communication in the Western world is highly

prevalent. They often rely on such technologies to initiate and maintain close and intimate

relationships. The majority of young people between the ages of 12 and 17 use the internet for

instant communication through written messages (IM). Some of them use IM as their main form

of communication with friends. These users may communicate through IM on an everyday basis

for hours at a time. The content of these IM sessions is often intimate and sensitive, revolving

around meaningful issues, discussing unpleasant things, or starting and ending relationships.

Almost half of IM users reported using IM to write something they would not have said in

person. Although these statistics are related to younger people, the same pattern of

communication is found among adults (Lenhart, Rainie & Lewis, 2001).

Carter (2005) explored an online social community and their relationships within a virtual

world called “Cybercity.” She found that the users of this cyberspace created true friendships

that were often more intimate and profound than some of their offline connections. Her

interviewees actually named anonymity and being removed from the others’ body image as

positive factors in their ability to form close and personal contacts with others in “Cybercity.”

These positive traits of the internet have opened up the stage for many groups who

wanted to share a safe space on the basis of mutual interests, problems, identities, and other


communality areas. One group that often needs such support is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender community (LGBT). It is interesting to see the myriad of ways this diverse group

uses the internet for information, support, and connection, especially since women who live

childfree often regard their experience of telling others about their choice as “coming out of the

closet” (Donat, 2011).

Finlon (2002) surveyed the web resources available for the LGBT community. He

identified the internet as a means for people who are isolated geographically or socially to

connect with similar others and gather information. Among these numerous outlets to explore

aspects of self and others one might find some unusual spaces in which he or she can examine

questions of identity, both as an individual and in a group. For example, Walker (2009) explored

different online fan fiction sites devoted to the TV show “The L Word.” She used these

discussion groups as a platform to observe the subgroups of lesbians and transgenders in a

political reality that render them unequal to heterosexuals. As a marginalized group fighting for

its image and rights, different voices were represented in the virtual space. Walker viewed this as

a potential venue for individuals to gain self understanding as well as human rights.

Online communities as an information fund and identity formation platform for LGBT

are highly important for adolescents who are trying to understand and get comfortable with their

own sexuality. Bond (2009) performed content analysis on LGB teens’ on virtual chat rooms.

She claimed that the active members of such chat rooms were able to explore their sexuality

without the risks associated with revealing their sexual identity in the real world. In addition, the

desire to converse with others who share the same dilemma was a significant factor in teens’

online communication. Another compelling feature that may draw conflicted individuals to


converse about their predicament and share their search for self-understanding was the relative

ease in which people opened up when talking about themselves online. Virtual relationships

often become intimate much more rapidly than real life connections (Walther, 1996).

Bargh and McKenna (2004) examined different aspects of CMC for individuals and

groups who use this means to form connections online. They observed that especially for those

who have no equivalent off-line group to socialize with because of some aspect of their identity,

the internet could provide a relevant social outlet and become an essential community of

sympathetic others. They named stigmatized social identities and support for debilitating or life

threatening illnesses (p. 582) as two specific general groups that might benefit from seeking

interactions online. They observed, for example, that members of CMC groups “came out” to

their loved ones directly because of their participation in the group. Bargh and McKenna

claimed, therefore, that participation in internet social groups “can have powerful effect on one’s

self and identity” (p. 583).

In a rare example of exploring this venue of communication among childfree women,

Donat (2007) wrote about a group of Israeli internet users who discussed their childfree lifestyle

online. Donat explored the content of women’s discussions in an online forum dedicated to this

issue (Donat, 2011). She looked at the conversations published online by women who live

childfree in Israel and also conducted personal interviews. The women in the forum talked about

how they made the choice to live childfree, issues of being a couple without children, the

reactions of others, how and when they decided to share their choice, and the function of the

forum in this aspect of their life. Similarly, in English written forums, blogs, and message

boards, women and men debate and explore issues of making the choice to be childfree and how


others react to it. For example, on a popular dating site, a male prescriber post the question “50%

of women don't want children?” The discussion that followed contained a range of reactions:

from disbelief that a woman would not want children, to women replying by telling their story of

choosing a childfree life.

The purpose of my study is to draw from previous reports, while adding to the growing

body of knowledge regarding the lives and challenges of childfree individuals. I am interested in

examining the identity exploration and social support one might seek in leading a childfree life

within a pronatalist limiting social surrounding. How does a woman develop clear understanding

of herself when she is different from the norm and when talking about this aspect of her identity

is frowned upon and criticized? Specifically, due to the evident stigma and difficulty finding a

community of supportive others, I am interested in learning about the difference between how

childfree women perceive themselves and how they were accepted by others. My main interest is

in better understanding the relationship between self presentation and others’ reactions in online

communication platforms. Since prior research on that aspect of the issue is scarce and only one

study has examined the content of an online community devoted to this issue, I am interested to

learn whether this modern and growing venue of communication is significant in the lives of

these individuals.

Aside from the benefits of understanding the road taken to talk about this issue and its

challenges, I believe clinical psychology can profit from such insights as well. The traditional

family structure is changing and people have more options to make unusual choices. However,

there is a price to pay for being nonconformist, especially for women who do not comply with

the pronatlist hegemony. Another goal of the study is in understanding how these identities are


formed, how they are discussed, and what is the place of technology in such self exploration

endeavors. These results can assist professionals in the field in providing quality care for women

who do not want children as well as their significant others.

Finally, expanding awareness of this issue is an important question that this study will

address. Although living childfree is a growing topic of interest both in academic and popular

writings, the attention clinical psychology has given it is minimal. Most of the studies on this

issue were conducted within the domains of womens’ studies, family studies, and

communication. Our society continues to change both in the structure of families and in the lives

of women. Our communication and relationship building avenues have become computerized,

which has both advantages and disadvantages. If women who do not want children actually

experience difficulty in communicating that sentiment, and if internet communication is indeed

an important outlet for them, it behooves clinical psychology to further explore this topic and

expand the understanding of this unique population and its needs. This study attempts to provide

such understanding.

Method

Participants

Given the fact that the study involved human participants, the principal investigator

obtained institutional review board approval prior to recruiting participants and obtained signed

consent forms from each participant in the study.

Thirty childfree women were recruited from internet forums, blogs, facebook groups, and

message boards dedicated to discussing childfree life. Due to an overwhelming number of


women who asked to participate in the study, subjects were included in the study on a first-

comes first-served basis to complete five groups of five to seven participants. One subject

dropped out and although she was assigned to a group, she did not participate or responded to

further correspondence, leaving the total number of participants at 29. Participants were included

in the sample according to their self-report of living childfree and intending to continue with this

life style and of being active online in a site dedicated to CFdom. Participants were excluded

from the study if they ever had children or if they were actively parenting children, as step-

parents or otherwise.

Among the participants there were 23 Americans (about 80%), two English, one

Canadian, one German, one Danish, and one Finish. Their ages ranged from 21 years old to 50

years old, with a mean age of 32 years old. Their demographic backgrounds are specified in

Table 1 bellow.

Table 1: Participants’ Demographic Information

Sexual

orientation

Heterosexual Bisexual Pansexual Hetro-Flexible Asexual

20 (69%)

6 (20.5%) 1 (3.5%) 1 (3.5%) 1 (3.5%)

Marital

Status

Married Single Cohabitating

with a

significant other

Divorced other

13 (45%)

5 (17%) 7 (24%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%)

Ethnicity White Biracial Hispanic Black


24 (82.5%) 3 (10.5%) 1 (3.5%) 1 (3.5%)

Religious

affiliation

None Christian Agnostic

Atheist Other*

13 (45%)

9 (31%) 3 (10.5%) 1 (3.5%) 3 (10.5%)

Political

views **

Very Liberal

Somewhat/

Slightly

Liberal

Neither Liberal

or Conservative

Somewhat/

Slightly

Conservative

9 (31%) 8 (27.5%) 6 (20.5%) 5 (17%)

Education High school

graduate

Undergraduate

Degree

Graduate degree

Professional

diploma

Did not finish

high-school

6 (20.5%) 9 (31.%)

12 (41.5%) 1 (3.5%)

1 (3.5%)

Income *** Less than

10,000

10,000-30,000

31,000-50,000

51,000-80,000 81,000 or

more

3 (10.5%)

6 (20.5%) 2 (7%) 12 (41.5%) 5 (17%)

*None-religious Spiritual, Panentheisitic, Secular Humanist

** One person did not answer this question. The only “Very Conservative” identified subject

dropped out of the study.

*** One person did not answer this question.


Design

A narrative investigation was the focus of this qualitative research design. The study

employed the qualitative methodology developed by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) in which a

step-by-step system is used to develop a theoretical understanding of the phenomena in question

that is grounded in the participants’ experience. The objective of qualitative research is to listen

to the voices of participants in order to develop a greater understanding of their subjective

experience (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). In the case of this study, online message boards

served as a platform for group discussions. These message boards were opened specifically for

the purpose of anonymous focus groups. Auerbach and Silverstein claimed that groups were

preferable to the traditional individual interviews. Since focus groups have multiple participants,

individuals might feel more at ease, as the power differential between researcher and participant

is less distinct. Consequently, the researcher’s conscious and unconscious desires, biases, and

preconceived notions will not influence as much with the emergence of the participants’

narrative. In addition, using group discussions rather than individual interviews is efficient; it

allows the researcher to study the unique and collective experience of several participants at

once. In focus groups, the participants respond to the researchers open-ended questions and can

add aspects of their experience to the discussion even if those were not addressed by the

researcher’s questions.

In the case of this study, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire assessing their

demographic background prior to logging in to their assigned groups online. All information

collected through the questionnaires and the message board was anonymous. Participants were

able to use first names or pseudonyms and their identity was only known to the main researcher.


All participants elected to use a pseudo-name as their user name for the study. Each five to seven

women were allocated to a different message board, which allowed for a more intimate

discussion. The message boards were open for 10 days and posed the probe: Please describe

your experience of talking with others online about your childfree lifestyle.

Other open ended questions were:

1. How have your personal actions, feelings, attitudes, and identity been affected by

talking/writing/reading online about childfreedom? In what ways? Can you give

examples?

2. Were there any differences in your discussion about being child-free between your online

community and other settings?

3. Why did you first start being a part of such a community?

What did you mostly do (read, write, make connections, find friends, argue...)?

What made you stay and remain active, if you did remain active? What made you stop

being active if that's what you did?

Procedures

Recruitment was done by a snowball sampling and samples of convenience. The websites

managers or owners were contacted and informed prior to posting a notice about the research. In

open forums such as facebook groups the main researcher posted a flier with a call for subjects to

join the study. On sites belonging to a closed group or an individual, managers and authors who

agreed to assist in recruitment published a similar note providing the main. A notice was also

sent out to the main researcher’s electronic community with a request to forward the information

to others. The recruitment notices described the research study as investigating the experience of


discussing and sharing the choice of living childfree for women. The study’s aim was described

as an attempt to better understand the social and personal challenges of receiving social support

and exploring one’s identity on this issue.

The forums’ managers informed the main researcher of potential participants who

showed interest in the study. Other participants contacted the main researcher directly by using

the contact information provided in the original posting. The main researcher exchanged an

initial email with each participant, assessed whether she met the inclusion criteria, and presented

the study’s objectives to her. All the participants who were suitable for the study and express

interest in taking part in the study were sent a hardcopy of the written consent form to sign with a

stamped return envelope, aside for international participants who were sent an electronic copy

that they scanned and returned electronically. Participants were reassured that they were

volunteers and may decide to stop their participation in the study at any time. They were also

informed about the confidentiality of the study and its limitations.

Access to the message boards was granted once all the participants return their signed

consent forms and were fully aware of the details of the study, their participation, and

confidentiality. At that point, the participants were able to choose a user name and to converse by

texting with other participants on the message board. During that time, the main researcher

presented the initial probe and allowed the participant to further share any information they

believed was relevant, including posting their own questions. The texts from the message boards

were then used for qualitative data analysis.

This course of action was embedded in Auerbach’s and Silverstein’s (2003) approach to

qualitative research. The personal experiences and narratives of the participants were used to find


recurring themes. The data was collected through the texts written on the message board. The

transcriptions were then analyzed and coded and themes emerged from the stories told during the

focus groups. Auerbach and Silverstein identified the conclusion of this process as “theoretical

saturation” (p. 20), when no new themes emerge from the data and ideas that came up from prior

transcripts are repeated. By the end of the 10 days of the study, no new materials were

introduced in the five discussion groups and the data were ready for analysis.

Data Analysis

The main researcher and three additional graduate students conducted all the data

analysis procedures. In a joint preliminary session, the main researcher provided the three

assistants with training that introduced them to the details of the coding method. In addition, the

main researcher explained the research’s concern and the theoretical framework to be employed.

Auerbach’s and Silverstein’s (2003) coding method was used. As instructed by this

method, the texts collected on the message board were served as the transcripts for analysis.

Subsequently, the main researcher and her assistants reviewed the transcriptions and identified

statements related to the study’s research concerns. These passages were selected according to

their relevance to the research interest, their ability to increase knowledge regarding the research

interest, and their perceived importance. In this case the relevance to the issue of online

conversing and about CFdom with others was the determining component for choosing passages

from the transcripts.

To create a theoretical narrative (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003), the texts were

reviewed independently, by the main researcher and her assistants. Each coder looked for

fragments of texts that are relevant to the study’s interest. Subsequently, the coders looked for


repeating ideas within each group; namely, they attempted to identify ideas that are presented

with the same wording or similar wording. These were collected by the main researcher in order

to assess which are the most significant and germane for the purpose of this study. The repeated

noteworthy ideas were compiled into a master list (Appendix A.)

To organize these ideas into larger themes, the research team worked individually and

independently again. The goal was to identify “an implicit idea or topic that a group of repeating

ideas have in common,” (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003, p. 62). After establishing themes in the

data, each assistant coder reported her or his findings. A joint session took place in which these

findings were discussed by the team and a final master list of themes was agreed on (Appendix

B.)

The themes that emerged through the careful exploration of the participants’ discussions

were then further examined by the main researcher and her advisor in order to generate

theoretical constructs and explain them from within a theoretical framework. At this stage, some

repeated ideas and some themes were further consolidated to more general and inclusive terms in

order to prevent unnecessary repetition and duplicities. The conclusion of this stage of the

analysis was reached when all themes were organized in a theoretical framework including all

the theoretical constructs that surfaced through this process. The final narrative that references

the participants’ original discussions is presented in the result and discussion sections (Auerbach

and Silverstein, 2003).

Results

The data generated four constructs, which were formulated by the main investigator and

her adviser. These theoretical constructs are presented below in Table 2, each with its supporting


themes, repeating ideas, and text segments. Theoretical constructs are presented in the head of

the table (depicted in bolded and capitalized letters). They are then supported by related themes

(depicted in bolded letters). The themes are supported by repeating ideas (underlined and

presented in the left column). Each repeating idea is supported by two examples of relevant text

(presented in the two right columns), which are direct quotations of the participants. Although

most repeating ideas were generated from numerous quotations within the original texts, only

two examples are presented in the table for the sake of brevity.

The following four theoretical constructs were generated from message board

discussions: The CF identity is complex and dynamic; Being a childfree woman influences

interpersonal relationships; Childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication,

support, information, and socialization; and For childfree women, the personal is political.

The CF Identity is Complex and Dynamic

The first construct (Table 2) was supported by four themes that touched on identity

features and their consolidation. Each of the women in the study appeared to have a CF identity

that was unique to her. Although being CF sometimes influenced their lives in similar ways, it

had a different place and meaning for each. Their CF identity evolved, grew, and changed. For

some it became a central aspect of their self and for others it became increasingly less important.

It was influenced by others’ reactions and by communicating with other CF individuals, many

times, in an online platform.

Becoming a self-aware CF is a process. The first theme that supported this construct

focused on the different stages a woman might go through in deciding not to have children

(Table 2 – first supporting theme.) It is important to note that for some, not wanting children was


not exactly a choice or a decision, but rather being CF felt natural and organic. In other words,

these women had an internal knowledge that they did not want children. Their identity formation

was focused on becoming comfortable with it or on coping with external pressures, not on

making a choice.

Thirteen subjects (44.83%) said they knew from a young age that they would not want

children. However, being aware of their desire to not have children did not necessarily translate

into planning to not have children: seven subjects (24.14%) assumed they would have them and

did not realize that parenting was a choice. They believed having children was unavoidable and

dreaded that future. One woman said she had met non-CF women who were planning to have

children although they did not want them because they did not perceive any other options.

Not all of the women had such clarity about their wishes. Nine women (31.03%) said that

identifying as CF was a journey. These women contemplated their choices, had long discussions

with their partners, if they were deciding as a couple, and in some cases went to therapy to better

understand themselves as they were deciding on their options.

Five (17.24%) of the women wondered if giving child or adult care impacted their desire

to remain CF. These five participants talked about themselves and other Childfree people (CFers)

that had to provide ongoing care for family members. Having to raise siblings or attend to elderly

parents provided an exposure to parenting, allowing for an assessment of the parental role, and in

this case, the decision that this was not a role they wanted to perform.

Finally, sterilization was mentioned by nine women (31.03%) as an act that cemented the

choice to be CF. Sterilization brought relief from fears of an unwanted pregnancy, in addition to

happiness and a sense of confidence about not wanting children. The reactions of friends, family,


and the professionals involved in sterilization were often insulting, rejecting, or critical. These

responses stood in direct contradiction to the support and advice the women found in online CF

websites. One woman said that it became important to her to share her sterilization story on such

forums, and another said that she received the information about the doctor that helped her from

the CF website participants.

CF is just one aspect of personality. The second theme that supported the construct The

CF identity is complex and dynamic focused on the fact that a woman’s identity was not limited

to being CF, nor was her identity wholly determined by that part of herself (Table 2 – second

supporting theme.) Eleven women (37.93%) mentioned that being CF was just one part of their

identity. Not having children was central to some women's identity, but others did not perceive it

to be the most important characteristic of their personality or life. The participants of this study

reflected a variety of personalities and characters, life stories, and life situations. They also

claimed that they found the online CF community to be a group of people who were CF but not

necessarily otherwise similar. Nine women (31.03%) declared that when they met other CFers

they sometimes had nothing else in common.

These understandable differences meant, among other things, that the CF websites these

women frequent did not always feel like a community. Six women (20.69%) felt that the Internet

was not a place to find likeminded people, necessarily, but rather a platform for discussions, a

place to talk about a topic that was not acceptable in most other settings. In these cases, the

websites were not used to establish close relationships or to expand the communication outside

of the website.


Mixed feelings about kids and parents among childfree women. The third theme that

supported the first construct focused on the feelings participants expressed about parents and

children (Table 2 – third supporting theme.) Identifying as CF might have meant that one did not

like children but it was not inevitably so. Six women (20.69%) acknowledged the variety in

attitudes towards children among CF women. One woman discussed her special relationship with

one specific child, while admitting that by and large she did not enjoy the company of children.

Another mentioned that just like adults, children are different from each other and therefore she

could not say she “did not like children.”

Parenting evoked strong feelings for the CF women as well. Thirteen women (44.83%)

claimed that they felt uncomfortable with, disliked, or even hated children. They elaborated and

expressed their frustration with bad parenting that resulted in children’s disruptive behaviors and

of parents’ assumption that others should accept their children’s presence. The women in this

study reported that despite having expressed their dislike for children, friends and relatives who

were parents often assumed that their child was “special” and therefore would be the exception

to the rule. This disrespect of their preference not to interact with children has put these women

in difficult positions, especially in sensitive environments (e.g. professional settings).

Thirteen participants (44.83%) expressed some strong emotion toward mothers or

motherhood. These emotions ranged from curiosity, because they knew they would not

experience motherhood firsthand, to frustration due to cultural perceptions of women and

mothers as being synonymous. Moreover, they reported feelings of alienation from other women.

Five of the participants (17.24%) lamented the changes they saw in women who had children,

stating that they did not want their own identity to change or rather be lost as the identities of


mothers in their environment. These participants saw women around them become focused on

their children and neglect almost all other areas of interest. More than half (51.72%) of the

participants made it a point to emphasize that having children is a choice and as such it should

not entail special treatment or considerations. It was important for these participants that both

having and not having children would be equally respected and equally available in society.

Negative self-view because of CF status. Finally, the fourth supporting theme for the

theoretical construct the CF identity is complex and dynamic focused on the negative aspects of

having a CF identity (Table 2 – fourth supporting theme.) Not all women experience these

negative self-views, but nearly half of the participants (13 subjects – 44.83%) felt that they were

“weird,” “a freak of nature,” or “abnormal.” Ten subjects (34.48%) said they experienced self-

doubt about their CFdom, thinking there was something wrong with them. These feelings might

explain the phenomenon called “breeders-pleasers” – CFers who are apologetic about not

having children. They make self-deprecating statements such as calling themselves “selfish” or

giving technical reasons for not having children rather than admitting they do not want them.

Seven of the subjects (24.14%) mentioned this phenomenon. They either met CFers who were

“breeder pleasers” or admitted to have been apologetic and vague about their CFdom themselves.

Those who admitted to avoiding full disclosure of their feelings and views about children

confessed to feeling anxious about non-CFers reactions to their CFdom and to fearing that they

might be ostracized or rejected. These fears caused them to conceal their true emotions about

having children or to present themselves as less sure about their CFdom than they really were.

Seeing these attempts to appease those who criticize CFdom was offensive to participants who

thought such behaviors contributed to the negative stigma associated with being CF.


Being a Childfree Woman Influences Interpersonal Relationships

The second theoretical construct was compiled from themes that focused on interpersonal

relationships and the effect that being CF had on them (Table 3.) The CF women in this study

often found that their choice not to have children influenced their interactions with others,

sometimes individuals who were very close to them. While some CF women felt accepted in

many of their close relationships, others experienced tension in interpersonal connections due to

being CF.

Honesty vs. self-censorship when talking about CF in real life (IRL). The first theme

that supported this construct focused on the difficulties that CF women encountered when they

talked about CF in real life (“IRL”) rather than online (Table 3 – first supporting theme.) More

than half of the participants (16 subjects – 55.17%) felt that they needed to censor themselves

and withhold their true views when talking to non-CFers in their offline relations. They were

unable to be honest, felt unsafe, or avoided the topic of children altogether. This was particularly

difficult in familial settings.

Eleven subjects (37.93%) mentioned feeling criticized, rejected, or guilty due to family

members’ and friends’ reactions to their CFdom, which led to behaviors such as hiding their

status, avoiding conversations with certain family member or friends, or being pushed to

unpleasant interactions when they chose honesty. It appeared that in social and familial settings

these CFers often put others’ comfort before their own. But this was not true for everyone. Nine

subjects (31.03%) said they either always made it a point to candidly express their views or that

they grew to become more honest with time. They coped with negative reactions from others by

giving information or by deciding to keep their distance from people who were unsupportive.


In-real-life CF friendships and support or lack thereof. The second theme focused on

having versus lacking friends who support or even share the CF life (Table 3 – second supporting

theme.) When such support was offered it was appreciated: seven of the subjects (24.14%)

mentioned they felt lucky to have supportive friends or family, knowing that other CFers did not

receive such support or were even afraid to tell their friends and families about being CF.

One repeated topic was the lack of any CF community offline. Twelve subjects (41.38%)

said that they had no CF friends “in real life,” and for many this loneliness incentivized them to

go online and look for like-minded CF peers. Having CF friends offline was rare at best for most

of the participants, but interestingly, the five subjects (17.24%) who did have CF communities,

said that when they socialized with CF friends the topic of CFdom hardly ever came up.

Being CF affects dating and close relationships. Finally, the theoretical structure Being

a childfree woman influences interpersonal relationships was supported by a theme focused on

CFdom’s influence on intimate relationships (Table 3 – third supporting theme.) Being CF made

a big difference in the progression of friendships and in the development of romantic

relationships. Ten subjects (34.48%) mentioned that having a CF significant other was important

to them.

This was especially noteworthy when the decision to not have children was done within

the context of an existing relationship or when participants felt that their CF significant other was

the only person in their lives with whom they could speak about this issue. Six of the subjects

(20.69%) declared that they realized not having children was a “deal breaker,” and that they

could not share their lives with someone else if it meant that the person who wanted children

could not have them or the person who did not want them would be forced to have them.


Finally, CF women often felt that their friendships with other women changed

dramatically after these other women had babies. Six of the subjects (20.69%) said that when

their friends had children they became less supportive of the CF decision, started talking mainly

about their children, had less time to invest in the friendship, and sometimes became “a different

person” altogether. One participant described how after her friends became parents they began

feeling sorry for her. Topics of discussion that were accepted and even amusing before the friend

had children became “off limits” and offensive. These issues often marked the end of the

friendship and left the CF women feeling apprehensive when another friend became pregnant.


Information, and Socialization

The third theoretical construct focused on the place the Internet played in the CF

women’s lives (Table 4.) Although the topic of CF dedicated websites was intertwined within the

other constructs, it was also a significant topic in and of itself. It provided a rich understanding of

the participants and directly addressed the heart of this study, which was conducted in order to

better understand online communication among CF women.

Online forums have a positive influence on self-development and identity. The first

theme that contributed to this construct focused on the place the CF websites had on the

development of identity and self for the CF women in the study (Table 4 – first supporting

theme.) Interacting with others online had a tremendous effect on the women in this study. The

prior theme from the first construct, Becoming a self-aware CF is a process (Table 2 – first

supporting theme), was relevant here, because online interactions were part of the identity

formation process for many of the participants (12 subjects – 41.38%). More than half of the


women in the study (16 subjects – 55.17%) said that online websites contributed to their self-

esteem, self-understanding, confidence, and the strength of their CF identity. The interaction

with other CFers online improved their sense of worth, making them feel proud of being CF,

whereas before they discovered the online CF community they were more prone to experience

doubt and shame.

In addition, self-representation changed due to the CF dedicated websites. Thirteen

subjects (44.83%) said they were better able to articulate their views regarding childrearing,

present their choice with pride and assurance, and stop being apologetic when telling non-CFers

about their decision to not have children. The ability to answer others’ questions and criticism

with clarity and confidence helped these women feel secure in and pleased with their CFdom.

Online forums are a source of mutual support, camaraderie, advice and

information. The second theme that supported this construct reflected the support, mutuality,

and information offered by CF websites (Table 4 – second supporting theme.) Communicating

with other CFers online relieved the loneliness and isolation a lot of the participants felt before

finding the online communities. This was particularly significant for participants who were

unaware that there were other women who also did not want to have children. In fact, most of the

participants (21 subjects – 72.41%) found that the rich online CF world gave them a sense of

relief because they finally realized that they were not alone.

The participants perceived the people they met online as accepting, validating, and

offering much-needed support. Thirteen subjects (44.83%) said they were excited about the

opportunity to receive support and give support to others who were still debating their choice or

who were rejected and criticized in their immediate environment. The majority of the women (20


subjects – 68.96%) said the ability to relate to things they read online was extremely important to

them. It offered participants the opportunity to communicate with like-minded people, to whom

they often had no access in other settings. Seven (24.14%) of the participants even stated they

formed friendships that evolved beyond the limits of the website in which they started. When

such friendships developed, they were appreciated and valued, even if the friends never met in

person.

The online sites were also a source of information and advice, as mentioned by more than

half the participants (16 subjects – 55.17%). On these sites, the women found articles, links,

books, lists of sympathetic doctors, and advice regarding many topics, including sterilization.

They were able to discuss CF issues with people who were better informed than they were and

who would not question their choice. The information and advice were highly appreciated,

especially because many of the women in the study had no other access to such guidance.

Another form of information found online was the terminology and language used by

CFers. Eight of the subjects (27.59%) talked about the sense of meaning they drew from the

expressions and words they encountered online – for example, the use of “childfree” as a

replacement for “childless.” Words like “breeders” (those who push others to have children

indiscriminately), “bingo” (repeated questions and statements that “breeders” say to CFers, such

as “you’ll change your mind” or “who will take care of you when you’re old”), and “fence

sitters” (those who still have not decided whether or not to have children) gave these women the

vocabulary that matched their experiences. This lingo was a powerful discovery and it also

contributed to their sense of community as the common language created a culture with which

these participants could identify.


Online CF forums are safe, comfortable places to speak freely. In contrast to the

communication with family, friends, and other social acquaintances that often required

censorship and hiding, the CF women felt safe and secure interacting online (Table 4 – third

supporting theme.) Being able to speak freely and be honest online was mentioned by 15 subjects

(51.72%.) In these websites, the CF women felt they could be blunt and direct. Twelve subjects

(41.38%) claimed that they used the online CF forums as a platform for ranting and venting

about children, parents, and being “bingoed,” because online they would not offend or hurt

anyone. Almost half of them (13 subjects – 44.83%) referred to CF websites as “a safe haven,”

knowing that they could be authentic and still accepted with support and understanding. One

woman even felt that this outlet made it easier for her to be more reserved and less argumentative

offline because she knew she had a community where she could be less guarded.

Another positive aspect of the freedom to speak online was the humor. Five of the

women (17.24%) mentioned how much they enjoyed and appreciated CF-related jokes, comics,

and wittiness found in the online sites they frequented. Laughter made it easier to handle being

criticized or misunderstood in their offline relationships and comedy brought light-hearted joy to

a topic that was often painful.

Negative characteristics of CF forums. Although most of the comments regarding the

online CF websites were positive, some criticism was presented (Table 4 – fourth supporting

theme.) Twelve subjects (41.38%) said they found some CF websites to be hostile to parents,

children, and conservative or religious participants. This criticism of the CF website culture was

interesting because the one participant in this study who identified as “very conservative” on her

demographic questionnaire, dropped out of the study before it started. Perhaps this participant


experienced unpleasant reactions to her views in the past and did not believe she would find her

voice in the focus groups of this study.

Additionally, some websites tended to criticize, ridicule, and mock parents and children.

This could clarify the feelings of some women in the study who explained they would be

uncomfortable exploring their doubts about being CF online. Four women (13.8%) talked about

the limited room doubts about CF commitments or curiosity toward motherhood had on these

websites. These participants suspected that such uncertainty would not be accepted and even

scrutinized by their fellow CFers.

Finally, four of the participants (13.8%) mentioned that the CF websites became

repetitive after frequenting them for some time. The same topics came up again and again as new

people discovered the forums and wanted to share their issues with poor parenting, discontent

with unruly children, or challenges in disclosing their CF status. The participants who mentioned

repetitiveness as a problem felt that CF websites were often as fixated on children as websites

designed for parents and families. They wished to see other topics of discussion that involved

various areas of interest and felt weary of the ongoing cycles of complaints and support.

Negative characteristics of CF forums. Although most of the comments regarding the

online CF websites were positive, some criticism was presented (Table 4 – fourth supporting

theme.) Twelve subjects (41.38%) said they found some CF websites to be hostile to parents,

children, and conservative or religious participants. This criticism of the CF website culture was

interesting because the one participant in this study who identified as “very conservative” on her

demographic questionnaire, dropped out of the study before it started. Perhaps this participant


experienced unpleasant reactions to her views in the past and did not believe she would find her

voice in the focus groups of this study.

Additionally, some websites tended to criticize, ridicule, and mock parents and children.

That could explain the feelings of some women in the study, who claimed they would be

uncomfortable exploring their doubts about being CF online. Four women (13.8%) talked about

the limited room doubts about CF commitments or curiosity toward motherhood had on these

websites. These participants suspected that such uncertainty would not be accepted and even

scrutinized by their fellow CFers.

Finally, four of the participants (13.8%) mentioned that the CF websites became

repetitive after frequenting them for a while. The same topics came up again and again as new

people discovered the forums and wanted to share their issues with poor parenting, discontent

with unruly children, or challenges in disclosing their CF status. The participants who mentioned

repetitiveness as a problem felt that CF websites were often as fixated on children as websites

designed for parents and families. They wished to see other topics of discussion that involved

various areas of interest and felt weary of the ongoing cycles of complaints and support.

Online communication’s special chacteristics. Regardless of the specific nature of the

website, whether it was focused on child-bashing or if it was a fund of information, Internet

communication offered some unique features that were highly valued by this study’s participants

(Table 4 – fifth supporting theme.) Eight subjects (27.59%) identified the act of writing as

significant to their experience online. It gave introverted individuals an opportunity to express

themselves, allowing for time and reflection before stating one’s opinion. They also appreciated

the anonymity provided by the Internet. This was mentioned by seven women (24.14%), who


explained that they did not want certain people to know about their CF status and felt freer to

express themselves under a pseudonym. In addition, the easy access to a large group of CF

people from all over the world was mentioned by nine subjects (31.03%).

Online forums provide access to a diverse group of people and conversations. Eleven

of the women (37.93%) talked about the wide range of people, opinions, and types of forums the

Internet offered (Table 4 – sixth supporting theme.) This diversity, though mostly appreciated by

the women in this study, was not always welcome. Websites that required a password and were

open only to CFers felt safer and more interesting than sites that were open to everyone. Open

sites that did not screen users allowed parents and other non-CFers to participate in the

discussions, read, and write. The difference between open and private sites was mentioned by 11

subjects (37.93%), who said that non-CFers forced their opinions and perspectives in open sites.

These opinions were usually offensive, dismissive, and unwelcome.

Despite this, in most cases the diversity offered in the Internet was appreciated and

valued by this study’s subjects. The women in this study found a myriad of gratifying

conversations and richness of opinions and ideas. More than half of the women in the study (16

subjects – 55.17%) praised the intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful discussions they took part in

or read online. They found the other website users they met online to be mostly open-minded,

interesting, well-informed, and thought-provoking.

Another point of diversity was the patterns of participation. Seventeen subjects (56.62%)

talked about the fact that their participation, roles, and needs in these forums were dynamic and

changed with time. Participation fluctuated from more active as one became more confident or

rather less active as conversations became repetitive; from simply venting to deeper, more


intellectual discussions; from seeking validation to offering advice and information to others.

Ultimately, the diversity allowed the study’s participants to find a venue that would fit their

needs. The wide range of forums: open or closed, extreme or moderate, political or humorous,

and the various participants, gave each woman the opportunity to explore her CFdom in an

environment she found most suitable.

For Childfree Women, the Personal is Political

The last theoretical construct that emerged from the data was centered on the political, economic,

and social aspects of not having children. The personal experiences of these women evolved into

a political awareness, in the broad sense of the word (Table 5.) Issues of discrimination, stigma,

social policies, economic benefits, and global political concerns came up as these women

negotiated their uncommon position on childrearing in a pronatalist ethos. This construct

corresponded with the prior construct, as becoming politically aware was commonly the result of

exposure to such ideas via online discussions.

Political, moral, and legal concerns regarding children and CF. The first theme that

supported this theoretical construct was dedicated to the political aspects of choosing to have or

not to have children (Table 5 – first supporting theme.) Seven (24.14%) of the women expressed

their concern regarding overpopulation, saying that having children, while considered the “right

thing to do,” was morally reprehensible. They said they would much rather see a smaller

population with better quality of life for everyone. As such, they were displeased with the

economic benefits and social privileges parents and families received. Fourteen women (48.27%)

protested the pronatalist culture and its dismissal of CF as a permanent choice, arguing that since


having children was economically and environmentally problematic, not having children should

be accepted.

Issues such as maternity leave, health benefits for families, and other institutionalized

endorsements of parents occupied those who objected to pronatalism. The women who

mentioned their opposition to common norms regarding procreation claimed that society

accepted attitudes of preference toward parents without questioning dogmatic stances regarding

what was natural, good, or beneficial. These participants therefore hoped to see social and

political change that would reexamine what was actually in the best interest of global society and

the individuals in it. Such a change would touch on legal, economic, and social aspects of family

planning. For example, the laws regarding sterilization were one legal issue mentioned as

important. Two of the participants specifically said they wished sterilization would be legal at a

younger age and socially acceptable because the professionals involved in the process were often

critical and judgmental.

Religious institutions or family members were also brought up by five (17.24%) of the

subjects as unsupportive and dismissive of the CF women. Religious leaders pushed women to

procreate, disregarding their desire to remain CF. Religious family and community members

were overbearing and forceful in their demand to conform and either have children or become

involved with children in other ways.

The awareness of the political aspects of CF opened a window for general political

consciousness for eight of the subjects (27.59%). In some cases the supportive and venting

functions of the websites were no longer a main interest and participants wished to find websites

that focused on a broader spectrum of issues. They sought opportunities to discuss topics such as


inequality and injustice in society, human rights, gay rights, and demographic matters that went

beyond the personal desire not to parent.

The topic of CFdom was extremely important to the participants and wanting to

contribute to change in public views of CFdom was one of the reasons they named for

participating in this study. Most of the subjects (23 subjects – 79.31%) felt passionate about

having their voices heard and about bringing attention to the discrimination they suffered. They

hoped to add to the growing body of knowledge about CF and that being CF would become a

legitimate choice, especially for women. One of the subjects said that she wanted psychologists

specifically to become aware of the needs of CF women, as she felt dismissed and stigmatized by

her own therapist when she talked about her CFdom.

Stigma, discrimination, and misunderstanding are associated with CF. The desire to

see social and political change was understandable because over and over again, the women in

this study expressed the misconceptions and prejudice they encountered (Table 5 – second

supporting theme.) Twenty-one of the participants (72.41%) experienced stigma, insults, attacks,

or discrimination at some point in their lives. They were called “weird,” “psychologically

impaired,” and “selfish.” Their choice was regarded by others as a phase, a juvenile idea, or

abnormality. Twenty-two subjects (75.86%) said they felt misunderstood, invalidated, not taken

seriously by non-CFs. In some cases this amounted to blunt discrimination in professional

situations, leading 13 subjects (44.83%) to admit of being worried of social or professional

repercussions if their CF status was exposed. One woman even said she was advised not to

disclose this information at her work place. Interestingly, this was a European participant who

worked in an American company.


Additionally, participants felt that their choice not to have children was often taken

personally by parents: parents thought that being CF in and of itself was criticism over their

choice to have children. Eleven subjects (37.93%) said that non-CFers were unable to tolerate

hearing the CF point of view. These participants felt that although the non-CFers expected their

parenthood to be accepted, they would not give the same legitimacy to CFdom. It appeared that

mothers sometimes perceived positive comments about CF as a personal insult even when the CF

woman was merely talking about her own choice.

These issues made three (10.34%) of the women note that being CF was similar to being

a sexual-orientation minority. They referred to the process of telling others about being CF as

“coming out” and the fear of being discovered as “being outed.” They felt that the Internet

served a similar function for them as it did for some LGBTQ individuals: it provided access to

like-minded and supportive others when those were not necessarily present in someone’s

immediate environment.

The pronatalist pressure affects CFers in different ways. The last theme that

contributed to this theoretical construct explored the different ways in which the pronatalist ethos

affected CF women (Table 5 – third supporting theme.) Because CFers are different from each

other and live in very different environments, the pressures to conform to the pronatalist’s

demands impact them in unique ways.

Eleven women (37.93%) talked about the tremendous pressure they felt to have children.

This pressure came from various directions: family, friends, doctors, significant others, and

colleagues. This trend differed as a function of the woman’s age and stage in life. Particularly,

nine subjects (31.03%) brought up stages in their lives, such as being in the mid-twenties to late


thirties or after getting married, as times in which they felt particularly pressured to have

children. They felt that everyone around them was preoccupied with their reproductive plans

and had presumed that reaching a certain age or developmental milestone, such as marriage,

meant that they would have children soon thereafter. In fact, one of the older participants in this

study mentioned that many of the women she encountered online were in procreation ages and

that she felt a need to give them support and advice as an older CF woman who went through the

same plight and never regretted her choice.

Seven subjects (24.14%) reflected on the effect of the parenthood-centric culture as a

function of location. These subjects claimed that women who lived in small places, traditional

communities, army bases, or far from urban centers were more likely to feel alone and to receive

negative reactions from others. Some women said they deliberately chose to live in liberal urban

areas where they might be more accepted.

Finally, six women (20.69%) mentioned their impression of CF men. Though they

generally felt that male CFers were less affected by society’s reactions to being CF, one of them

said that CF men and women alike were misunderstood and discriminated against. Another

participant disclosed that her husband was harassed by his coworkers regarding parenthood.


Table 2 – Results – First theoretical construct and its supporting data

1st THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT:

THE CHILDFREE IDENTITY IS COMPLEX AND DYNAMIC

“The childfree identity is complex and dynamic” – first supporting theme:

Becoming a self-aware CF is a process

Repeating ideas: Relevant text example Relevant text example

Early articulator:

never wanted kids,

known from young

age

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

E613 (G5S25 p. 2): I am an early articulator,

knew with perfect certainty that I would not have

children and didn't feel "broken" or unsure.

D505 (G4S19 p. 32): I have always known I wouldn't want

kids. I was still a young child when I started saying openly

that I wasn't interested in family life… when I was about 9

years old. I could go back further and remember that when I

was in kindergarten I wasn't interested in playing "house" or

with dolls.

Becoming a self-

aware CF was a

journey

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

B159 (G2S9 p. 7): Thanks to years of coming to terms

with it, therapy, and what I've read online I finally

feel comfortable with my lifestyle choice enough

to talk about it much more openly (for now with

acquaintances and co-workers, but not quite yet

with family and close friends)

C244 (G3S15 p. 5): I also had childfree tendencies when I

was young. Somewhere along the way that part of me got

buried somewhat because I forgot it until recently, but I still

never had any burning desires to start a family […] Over the

years we had many a conversation about the families and

children we met, shared our opinions about parenting, and

found ourselves more and more aware that children were just

not an experience we sought in life. I often tell people they

just aren’t part of our journey.

Assumed I would

have kids/did not

know there was an

option not to have

(7 subjects –

D515 (G4S21 p. 33): I didn't have anyone — a

mentor, teacher or family member — once tell

me, "You have a choice in the matter, and

whatever you choose is okay." I looked at

parenthood as something that was necessary —

B158 (G2S9 p. 6-7): I felt like I was wrong for not wanting

kids, a bit of an outcast, and kept waiting for the day to come

when I would change my mind.


24.14%) something to dread.

Being a care taker for

siblings or elderly

family members

(5 subjects –

17.24%)

C321 (G3S16 p. 14): It makes me feel like less of

a freak to know that so many people had to raise

their siblings because their parents refused to or

were not able to.

D503 (G4S21 p. 31): However, when I was still in my "salad

days," my dad suffered a stroke and paralysis. I was one of

his primary caregivers for many years. This was emotionally

and physically taxing, and it gave me a good idea of what

parents of disabled children go through.

Sterilization

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

B156 (G2S8 p.6): I know now that if I ever got

pregnant, I would have an abortion, no regrets. No

one has a right to my body except me, born or

unborn. I realize, however, that I wouldn't want to

have an abortion, because it's a massive

inconvenience. Therefore, I'm getting sterilized as

soon as I have the money to do so.

C279 (G3S13 p.8): Joining a CF forum was the final push

that led me to get Paraguard. I had liked the idea previously,

but the desire to remain childfree combined with an

uneasiness with hormones actually pushed me to make the

call. The birth control topics on the forums were invaluable

in guiding me through the process, and I suspect I will return

to them when I get sterilized once this Paraguard comes out.

“The childfree identity is complex and dynamic” – Second supporting theme:

CF is just 1 aspect of personality


CF is only one aspect

of personality/life

(11 subjects –

37.93%)

D390 (G4S21 p. 6): And I personally don't

consider being CF as the biggest part of my

identity. I am truly ... happily ... CF! Never a day

passes that I have 'regrets' about my decision.

C208 (G3S13 p. 1): it's not a life-style, it's one aspect of my

life. (Similar to atheism not being a lifestyle, or

homosexuality, or any other number of things. Yes, I'm being

touchy but "lifestyle" is generally a dismissal of someone's

personality or (non)beliefs.)


CFers might not have

much else in

common

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

D376 (G4S22 p.3): I had no expectation that the

CF I would encounter would be like me, why

would they be other than they have not and will

not have children.

C359 (G3S18 p. 19): I think it is important to note that you

can't paint all CF women with the same brush. We have all

made the same decision, but we have all had drastically

different paths that lead us to that decision.

Online CF sites a

community in a very

narrow sense/ not a

place to make friends

(6 subjects –

20.69%)

E622 (G5S25 p. 2-3): I regard childfree fora more

as what they objectively are - discussion groups -

than as communities. If I wanted a community

feeling, I would have to specifically seek out

people with similar views to mine, who also share

some of my other life experiences or interests and

who are in the same or a similar profession…

D368 (G4S21 p. 2): I'd like to feel like I have a more

personal connection with the people I meet on CF forums,

because everyone simply being CF isn't a basis for trust and

friendship.

“The childfree identity is complex and dynamic” – third supporting theme:

Mixed feelings about kids and parents among CF


Some CFs like kids,

some don’t, some are

neutral

(6 subjects –

20.69%)

D545 (G4S21 p. 43): I don't like or dislike kids.

How can I possibly know if I like or dislike every

single child on the planet? Some of them will turn

into wonderful adults…

D538 (G4S20 p. 42): Every now and then I can connect with

a particular child; for instance, I have five nieces and

nephews and of all five I have a really special relationship

with one nephew, whom I actually like as a person.

Disliking and

avoiding children and

\D539 (G4S20 p. 42): I get instantly

uncomfortable around kids and really wish to

avoid their company as much as possible[...] The

B147 (G2S12 p. 5): it's refreshing to see dislike/hatred of

babies, unruly children, and their so-called parental units. I,

personally, hate small children and babies and it's great to


parents

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

more tricky part, however, is my dislike for

parents - and to the mental dilapidation and the

loss of social courtesy that set in once people,

sometime people you truly care about, start

breeding. But that's a whole other issue.

vent about anything that happens to annoy me in a safe area.

Having complex

feelings about

motherhood

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

C276 (G3S13 p.8): My attitude towards mothers

is complex, and something that I'm still figuring

out.

D479 (G4S20 p. 26): As far as I am concerned, I can say that

I am highly sure of my choice not to have kids, and I don't

believe this decision stands to change. But I do consider

motherhood a road not taken, and as such I am very

preoccupied with it and thinking quite a bit what I would

have been like as a mother, what such a life would entail,

what I might be missing out on, etc.

Having kids changes

your identity

(5 subjects –

17.24%)

B166 (G2S10 p. 8): I only really became active in

CF online forums about four years ago (so my late

twenties). What online forums have offered me is

a place to vent my frustrations at the inevitable

change that comes when all of your friends start

having children. All but one of my friends who

have had kids have completely lost their identities,

interests, and ability to communicate about

anything other than their child(ren).

D586 (G4S19 p. 63): Once you have kids it seems like you're

never allowed to have your own life ever again.

Having/not having

children is a choice

(15 subjects –

51.72%)

E746 (G5S24 p. 24): And as it mentioned on CF

sites ALL THE TIME, it is a choice. They made a

CHOICE to do the "hardest job in the world" and

I made a choice to teach ESL in China where I

only work 14 hrs per week. I shouldn't have to

feel guilty about that.

A98 (G1S1 p. 15): This is a topic of great importance to me.

I think the more attention paid (in academia, in politics, in

society) to the CF the better--to get the word out that this is a

choice that is at least as valid as the choice to have children.


“The childfree identity is complex and dynamic” – forth supporting theme:

Negative self-view because of CF status


Negative feelings

towards own CF

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

B206 (G2S9 p. 14): It also helped me to stop

beating myself up for not being "normal." I felt

less like a freak of nature.

A74 (G1S4 p. 12): I now realize that I am not "inferior" or

"broken" or "messed up".

Feeling self doubt

(10 subjects –

34.48%)

C266 (G3S15 p.7): I also went through a period of

questioning myself and whether there was

something wrong with me.

B162 (G2S7 p. 7): I'm in my late 30s and the last of my

nearby childless friends had babies last year. After that I felt

very alone and questioned my choices, especially questioning

WHY I didn't want kids, what was missing in me that I didn't

have that desire.

CFs can be ‘breeder

pleasers’, apologetic,

and self deprecating

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

D387 (G4S23 p. 4): I have also met a lot of

childfrees who may be put in the category of

"breeder pleasers". They diminish their own

choice and bow down to parents and act like

parents and their choices are so much more

important than theirs. I don't get this at all. The

breeder pleasers are more frustrating to me than

the other "bad" CFs out there.

E744 (G5S25 p. 22): childfree people will create a smoke

screen when they themselves are asked by parents whether

they plan on having children - they don't have the money /

the financial or job stability / the partner / the settled lifestyle

necessary to have or raise children. So far I have only heard

one - and only one - woman other than myself

unapologetically state (when she was asked by a parent) that

there is no way she will have children.


Table 3 – Results – Second theoretical construct and its supporting data

2nd

THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT:

BEING A CHILDFREE WOMAN INFLUENCES INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

“Being a CF woman influences interpersonal relationships” – First supporting theme:

Honesty vs. self-censorship when talking about CF in real life


Being careful or

censoring when

talking about CF

outside of CF

websites

(16 subjects –

55.17%)

B170 (G2S7 p.9): I would say I'm very different

in what I would talk about in one of these forums

versus in my everyday life. Here I know I'm in a

comfortable and safe environment with people

who think like me. In my everyday life I am very

hesitant to be honest.

C307 (G3S13 p. 13): In other settings I never bring the topic

of children up, and try to deflect conversations once it arises.

Challenges of talking

about CF IRL with

family, friends, in-

laws

(11 subjects –

37.93%)

B172 (G2S7 p.9): I am very hesitant being honest

with family, too. My parents know my husband

and I do not plan to have kids, but I still hate to

mention it because I feel guilty where they are

concerned, that they won't have grandkids. With

my husband's family I am even more reluctant to

mention it because I feel guilty we aren't giving

them grandkids and worry they will blame me for

my husband and I making the decision.

E680 (G5S26 p. 12): I've never talked about CF issues with

my relatives…. I do think it would be nice to "come out" to

all my relatives and family so that they would know about

my decision. Don't know if that is going to happen someday

though.


Being honest IRL

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

B174 (G2S8 p. 9-10): telling people I'm not

having children is how I decide if I'm going to like

them/be able to be friends with them or not. Some

people react with curiosity or respect for my

choices, and I generally get along with those

people. Others bingo away, and I know then and

there that if they don't respect that life choice, they

probably don't respect other life choices that go

against what they think they know.

D409 (G4S20 p. 10-11): That said, I have to be honest and

say that sometimes I find speaking to people who take me to

be emotionally handicapped or plain insane for not wanting

children to be satisfying. Not that I can ever change their

mind, but I tend to enjoy introducing them to an option that

they didn't think existed and challenging their neat little

picture of the world.

“Being a CF woman influences interpersonal relationships” – Second supporting theme:

IRL CF friendships and support/ or lack thereof


CF IRL friends

usually do not talk

about CF

(5 subjects –

17.24%)

C285 (G3S16 p. 10): In real life, I have a few CF

friends and we don't sit around and complain

about parents or rant.

D422 (G4S21 p.13): I have a lot of CF friends IRL. I guess

the biggest difference between interacting in CF forums and

social settings is that the subject of being CF doesn't come

up. I already know my friends' reasons for being CF. There's

no reason to discuss it at length. We simply are who we are.

Feeling lucky to have

support IRL

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

C292 (G3S15 p. 11): My parents and in-laws are

all supportive of our decision and I realize that is

something to be so grateful for. I've seen a lot of

discussion online from other CF individuals who

are afraid to tell their parents, are constantly

badgered by parents or in-laws, etc.

B146 (G2S12 p. 5): I have a fairly lucky life when it comes

to having supportive parents, friends, some Childfree

acquaintances, and most importantly, my male partner in real

life.

Not having a CF

community IRL and

feeling isolated and

alienated

(12 subjects –

41.38%)

B201 (G2S10 p. 14): I also want to add that

communicating online with other child free

women is important to me since I know no other

child free women offline.

A34 (G1S5 p.4): I remain active to keep my sanity. Other

than my husband, I have no one else to really vent simply

talk about being CF with.


“Being a CF woman influences interpersonal relationships” – Third supporting theme:

Being CF affects dating and close relationships

CF significant other

(10 subjects –

34.48%)

D568 (G4S21p. 57): I was in my mid-20s when I

dated my first CF man. I remember thinking,

"Wow, this is kinda cool that he can acknowledge

this to me — and to himself." After that, I

primarily dated either devoutly CF men or men

who didn't care one way or the other.

D575 (G4S20 p.59): I realize that the question of having

children is so critical for me, that I could never share my life

with someone who doesn't feel as strongly as I do about it.

My current partner and I actually bonded over the decision

not to have kids. This came up in a random conversation

when we first met and this was a central reason in our

decision to start dating. I recommend any one who deals with

this question to target men or women who are consciously

CF - that's another advantage of online forums.

Dating people who

want kids or have

kids does not work/is

a deal-breaker

(6 subjects –

20.69%)

B152 (G2S8 p.6): I also got over my fear of being

alone, instead of assuming I'd be alone, I started

using my words and expressing my desires. I

started dating the man I'm now engaged to and I

expressed to him early on that having kids was a

deal breaker for me.

D582 (G4S22 p.61): I did challenge my own thinking and

have a relationship with a guy who had custody of a kid and

every stale old cliché you'd expect materialized. Then Mr.

S22 and I found each other, online.....The rest is history as

they say…

IRL friendships

change/lost when

non-CFs start having

kids

(6 subjects –

20.69%)

A22 (G1S2 p.3): I became active in the online CF

community when my best friend's biological clock

went off. Prior to that, she was in the "eventually,

but not now, definitely NOT now" camp. Then

one day it was like someone flipped a switch and

everything we used to joke about was off limits. I

had to find a place to vent.

D593 (G4S19 p. 69): I've found it difficult to stay friends.

The friendship does change. I just don't seem them as often

as I use to and when I did it was always about entertaining

their kids. Certain topics are also off limits around the kids so

you can't even be yourself or have any real adult time. I'm

still friends with those who had kids but they don't feel like

the close relationships they use to be.


Table 4 – Results – Third theoretical construct and its supporting data

3rd


CHILDFREE DEDICATED WEBSITES ARE POWERFUL TOOLS OF COMMUNICATION, SUPPORT, INFORMATION,

AND SOCIALIZATION

“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – First supporting theme:

Online forums have a positive influence on self-development and identity

Repeating ideas: Repeating ideas: Repeating ideas:

A better sense of self

and a more rounded

identity due to online

CF participation

(12 subjects –

41.38%)

E727 (G5S26 p. 19): They have affected me a lot.

I think I know myself better, my identity is

stronger and I feel confident in so many ways.

B157 (G2S9 p. 6): My personal identity has been positively

affected by what I've read in online communities from others

who wish to remain childfree.

Building self esteem,

pride, and confidence

through online

participation

(16 subjects –

55.17%)

D436 (G4S20 p. 16): I dare say that the main

thing that interacting online with other CF did for

me was make me proud of this choice.

C267 (G3S15 p.7): I also agree that learning about the

childfree community gave me the confidence to own my

decision and to feel good about it. I have grown a little more

bold as a result.

Responding

differently to others

IR due to the

influence of CF

online communities

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

B161 (G2S7 p. 7): the online community has

helped me in my reactions to people, most of all. I

never knew what to say to people when

questioned about having kids, and felt like I was

offending them if I said I didn't want kids, and

worried about them judging me.

E722 (G5S25 p. 19): The effect this has had that on me... I

would say I am no longer inclined to be the least bit

apologetic.


“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – Second supporting theme:

Online forums are a source of mutual support, camaraderie, advice and information


“I am not alone” -

Feeling relieved,

understood, and

validated

(21 subjects –

72.41%)

C314 (G3S13 p. 15): I stay because I like the

companionship of shared experiences – when

someone rants about a noisy baby in a restaurant it

might make me think of a similar situation I

encountered recently and lets me know I’m not

alone in my perspective of the situation.

A84 (G1S2 p. 12): I realize I wasn't fighting a battle of one,

and return to my daily grind without the need to defend

myself. The number one benefit for me personally is

knowing that I am not alone.

A65 (G1S1 p. 11): At the most fundamental level, access to a

CF community lets you know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

There are others like you, others who have gone through

similar experiences and who are very happy with the choices

they've made.

Receiving and giving

support online

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

A12 (G1S3 p. 1): Another aspect of

communicating online about being childfree is

being able to help other people who might be

having difficulty "coming out" or holding their

ground in the face of pressure to breed, or who

perhaps didn't even realise that not having kids

was an option.

E609 (G5S24 p. 1): Some of the first replies I received to my

introductions were things like, "I completely understand,"

"There's nothing wrong with your decision," etc. At the time

I was very insecure with myself and I just needed emotional

support.

Relating and

connecting to like

minded others online

(20 subjects –

68.96%)

A53 (G1S6 p.10): I can relate with what others are

stating. I am completely outnumbered in my real

life, when I post on a message board it seems as if

the entire community can relate instead of a select

few in my non-virtual world.

E733 (G5S26 p.20): I sometimes feel that we (childfree)

share a secret when communicating online.

Sometimes I wonder the thoughts of those people who are

childfree, but never communicate through these forums or

other way online, and never discuss their childfreedom. What

do they think of themselves? I even think they might lack

something, as they don't have the CF "culture" in which to

discuss various things with others.


Online

communication led to

friendships IRL

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

C217 (G3S15 p. 2): from the few times I have

chimed in on some conversations, it led to more

personal communications one-on-one via email

with some of the other list-serve members whom I

consider friends, even though we’ve never met

face to face.

C313 (G3S13 p. 15): I have made a few connections that

lead to private conversations via email and those new

friendships have been warmly appreciated.

Online sites as a

source of information

and advice

(16 subjects –

55.17%)

B111 (G2S8 p.1): They're a wonderful source of

birth control advice, retorts to various Bingos,

articles and advice for explaining my choice to

those I really want to understand, and solidarity

and community.

C234 (G3S18 p. 4): Another positive aspect of

communicating with others online is the limitless sources of

humour, cartoons, videos, links, and news stories that I

wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.

Discovering

terminology, lexicon,

and CF language

(8 subjects –

27.59%)

C237 (G3S14 p. 4): I only learned of the term

"childfree" about five years ago by coming across

a childfree website. In that respect, the very

vocabulary I use with respect to my reproductive

choice has changed dramatically. I love and stress

the FREE in childfree, for as I have learned

through online forums, we are not "less" anything

in our lives.

E637 (G5S27 p. 4): I found my first childfree message

board/forum about 10 years ago. This was also the first time

that I had ever heard the terms "childfree" and "fence sitter".

It was a relief to know that there were so many others out

there who felt the same as me about not wanting kids.

“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – Third supporting theme:

Online CF forums are safe, comfortable places to speak freely


Speaking freely and

honestly on CF

websites

(15 subjects –

51.72%)

A52 (G1S6 p.10): I can be honest and open when

involved in an online community because I don't

need to worry about offending someone with a

child or children.

A44 (G1S1 p.7): It's a huge relief to have an online

community where I can go and be as blunt as I like about

how I feel, and know that (even if--as previously mentioned-

-some of the people in the community feel more charitable

toward children than I do) I'm not going to be hurting

anyone's feelings and I won't be taken to task for my

opinions.


Being able to vent

and rant online

(12 subjects –

41.38%)

C235 (G3S18 p. 4): It also gives me a place to

rant...I'm a very positive person but sometimes I

just have to rant about the super child-centric

society that we live in.

C225 (G3S16 p. 3): These sites are also a support group of

sorts for those of us that simply need to rant a bit…

Online CF sites are a

safe haven

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

B143 (G2S7 p. 5): It's a safe haven for me.

A71 (G1S3 p. 11): …the safe haven provided by CF forums

means that I can let the breederishness I encounter in the real

world wash over me a bit, since I know I will have a friendly

place to whine about it later. In fact, sometimes a horrible

breeder encounter during the day is welcome, as it will make

a good story online later!

Humor

(5 subjects –

17.24%)

A35 (G1S4) p.5: I too love STFUParents.com,

because it's light-hearted and prevents me from

getting too hostile. If nothing else, it definitely

keeps me laughing!

C226 (G3S16 p. 3): Most of all, I enjoy the humor I find on

these sites. . Someone is always posting a joke or a silly

image that would probably be removed from any other site. I

look forward to these bright spots in my day.

“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – Forth supporting theme:

Negative characteristics of CF forums


CF forums can be

hostile and intolerant

(12 subjects –

41.38%)

D457 (G4S21 p. 19): One thing that can turn me

off to CF forums are the more hostile members

who say downright cruel and appalling things

about parents and kids. I myself understand being

misunderstood, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I find that aspect of CF groups alienating.

C212 (G3S14 p.2): I have found other online forums to be

extremely hostile to anyone who is politically non-liberal or

who is a person of faith. I have been attacked for espousing

free market economic principles in ways that I have never

experienced in other forums, online or in person. There was

one forum in particular I left because there seemed no place

for a childfree woman who did not fit an "atheist, anti-

religion, political liberal" model.

There is no place for

doubt about CF in

forums

D497 (G4S22 p. 29): I feel that there's a need in

CF forums to be really "staunch" about everything

— sort of like parents who frequent parenting

D484 (G4S23 p. 27): childfree boards can be a little rigid. I

believe this is because the childfree choice is already not

accepted by society or recognized by society. People who are


(4 subjects – 13.8%) forums who are expected to be absolutely sure

about their choice to have kids. I'm sure that there

are at least some CF women who wonder what

motherhood is like. My own curiosity is extremely

mild — I've looked after friends' children before,

so I've had a taste of what it must be like, but I

realize that this isn't the same thing as actually

being a bona-fide mother.

not firm make childfree people look like wishy washy folks

who cannot make up their minds. They may feel that this

causes childfree people not to be taken seriously.

The same topics

repeat themselves

again and again on

forums

(4 subjects – 13.8%)

D471 (G4S20 p. 23): At this point I'm pretty

inactive, don't really write anymore and barely

read (I recently joined a new forum to see if I'll

get the drive to be active again, but that hasn't

really happened). It's a combination of lack of

time and also a bit of been-there-done-that, since

some of these online discussion can be tediously

repetitive.

D450 (G4S22 p. 18-19): I'm not as active as I was and will

likely become less so. The nature of these sites is that new

members bring up the same issues time and time again,

there's only so many times you can offer sympathy, tell your

stories, give your opinion or make the same suggestions.

“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – Fifth supporting theme:

Online communication’s special characteristics


Expressing oneself in

writing

(8 subjects –

27.59%)

C306 (G3S13 p. 13): I generally express myself

better via the written word but the mere fact of

being surrounded by other childfree men and

women allows for a greater depth of discussion on

matters relating to children and parenthood.

D461 (G4S23 p. 20): I am an introverted person. I have

always expressed myself better in writing than in person. So,

becoming a member of any online forum that interests me is

a no-brainer.


Internet provides

anonymity

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

C358 (G3S18 p. 19): The anonymity offered by

the internet is a plus as well, since being childfree

is still considered deviant and immoral by some

people.

E739 (G5S27 p. 22): Additionally, for me personally, I am a

shy and very introverted person in my regular life, so I

appreciate the anonymity that online forums provide. I feel

like I am more free to speak openly about the subject and

share my true feelings, which is something I can't do

anywhere else other than with my husband. And since most

people do not use their real names on these forums, I don't

have to worry about my overly religious family members or

others who know me surfing these websites and coming

across things that I've said that I wouldn't want them to see.

Internet provides

access to many

people from diverse

locations

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

A100 (G1S2 p. 15): I think it's incredible that we

can discuss things with people from different

areas of the world, from different backgrounds,

different ages, etc.

B203 (G2S8 p. 14): The internet can connect large groups of

people across vast expanses even if they haven't met in

person. I have been able to speak to all kinds of people of all

ages from all around the world, and it has done nothing but

make me more and more certain of my choice.

“childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support, information, and socialization” – Sixth supporting theme:

Online forums provide access to a diverse group of people and conversations


Open vs. closed

forums / non-CF sites

(11 subjects –

37.93%)

E683 (G5S26 p. 14): I see a huge difference

between the CF forums which are set up by CF

people or associations and those which just

happen to exist as part of bigger forums where

everyone can post. On these open forums, the

fight always starts at some point. There are always

people who want to mock CF people.

C220 (G3S13 p.2-3): When I've espoused the same views on

the same topics on other forums (even counter-cultural

forums), I've been perceived as anti-child and extremist.

Participation in

online CF sites varies

B140 (G2S7 p. 5): I am typically a lurker, but feel

much more comfortable posting on a CF blog or

C216 (G3S15 p. 2): I don’t participate often, I’m not

comfortable defending my position if challenged by another


and fluctuates

(17 subjects –

56.62%)

forum than talking to family or friends because

here I don't worry that I'll be judged.

opinion so I am often more of a “lurker” but just this past

week I posted my own vent, for the first time, on the email

list-serve and it was really nice to have a safe haven type

place where I could do so.

Diverse and wide

range of people,

opinions, and types

of forums

(11 subjects –

37.93%)

D373 (G4S22 p.3): my experience has been that

(after the initial flurry of using the forum to vent

my spleen) I spent most of my time discussing the

general interest elements and I think this is very

typical of the way membership evolves. Like most

'specialist' sites the same topics come up time and

time again as new members join. Now the site has

become, to me, a melting pot of thoughts, ideas,

experiences from a bunch of people from all over

the world.

A58 (G1S1 p. 10): And within an online CF community

there will be a wide spectrum of opinions about CF topics

(from "kids are great but not for me" to advocates of

voluntary human extinction, and everything in between).

A59 (G1S1 p. 10): The exposure to that variety of opinions

educates and expands one's thinking about CFdom in the

same way that going to a university expands one's thinking

about the world in general.

Open minded, non-

conventional, and

interesting people

and conversations

online

(16 subjects –

55.17%)

E639 (G5S27 p. 4): Also - and this might sound

trivial - but I have noticed that people on CF

boards seem to be more well-spoken and well-

educated than people on most other message

boards I have participated on.

A28 (G1S3 p. 4): Not following the life-script seems to be

associated with being more open-minded and less bothered

by tradition with regard to many other aspects of their

lifestyle, more likely to question the status quo.


Table 5 – Results – Fourth theoretical construct and its supporting data

4th


FOR CHILDFREE WOMEN, THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL

“For childfree women, the personal is political” – First supporting theme:

Political, moral, and legal concerns regarding children and CF


Being concerned

about overpopulation

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

D430 (G4S22 p. 16): The impact of

overpopulation, not only on natural resources, but

the whole economy and infrastructure which is so

crippled by too many people. It's broadened my

thinking from thinking just about me, but about

humanity in general and how humanity is

exterminating itself just through sheer weight of

numbers.

A42 (G1S1 p.6): In reality I think having babies is morally

reprehensible in light of overpopulation.

Objecting to the

pronatalist culture

and wanting political

and economic change

(14 subjects –

48.27%)

D465 (G4S22 p. 22): I really do get angry at the

support thrown at parents and children from tax-

payers and administered by the state. I don't

understand why something that is a choice and is

easily preventable is subsidised to such a huge

extent, especially when I can't see any good

economic reason to do it I would much rather see a

much smaller population and better quality of life

for all.

C222 (G3S13 p.3): "Lifestyle" in the political sphere is a

derogatory term to devalue that aspect of a person's life,

turning matters of biology and belief into a choice

understood to be going against that which is "good" and

"wholesome". Given today's political climate, I think the

phrase "childfree lifestyle" is more indicative of an

immature phase not to be taken seriously than a permanent

decision against having children. Maybe I'm being sensitive

about this, but I'm hesitant to give the radical right any more

reason to dislike family planning.


Struggling with

religion due to CF

(5 subjects –

17.24%)

D528 (G4S19 p. 40): A Mormon group once asked

what I thought god thinks of women because of the

“have lots of babies,” “can't speak in church or

hold priesthood” thing and I said what ever god I

believe in wouldn't force me to live a life I hate and

do a job I'm not good at in the first place. So if

your church tells me I have to do certain things but

can't do others because of my gender than your god

isn't for me.

D402 (G4S21 p. 8): I'll never forget when the priest told me

that if I quit my job, stayed home and had babies, things

between me and my ex would be OK and he would

"change" and be nice to me. I wasn't stupid enough to buy

that line. Not from a man who doesn't even have sex

himself!

Being more

politically aware and

involved

(8 subjects –

27.59%)

E728 (G5S26 p. 19-20): It is a bit hard to see

whether it all has happened because of the CF

communities or partly because of my age, but I've

become more interested in social questions and in

the society on the whole. I've started to become

interested in human rights in other areas as well.

Freethinking, atheism, gay rights and equality in

general are important to me. It is not just that I

know for sure I don't want children, it has affected

a lot more. I am interested in sociology in general

and demographic issues. I've found many

interesting researches online and read them.

D464 (G4S22 p. 22): I guess I should really be looking for a

site which is more of a political platform, rather than just a

support forum.

Wanting to

contribute to CF

advocacy and

education in hope to

legitimize CF

(23 subjects –

79.31%)

C329 (G3S13 p. 16): I responded [volunteered for

the study] because I want to help bring attention to

being childfree. I'm hoping to bring attention to the

cruel and dismissive remarks ('bingos' and

otherwise) we childfree experience on the web and

real life, and to dispel the myths behind the most

common bingos. I hope her research shows that we

are just as human as the next woman, that there is

nothing missing or wrong with us, and that

parenthood is not for everyone nor should it be.

A95 (G1S4 p.14): I responded to the ad because we need to

get our voice heard. It is important that people understand

that there are other lifestyles out there that are just as natural

as starting a family and that every lifestyle is a choice I hope

that by being part of studies that look at objective, empirical

research, it will help dispel common myths that are often

attached to CF women.

B131 (G2S7 p. 3): Participating in this gives me the chance

to help in research on a topic that is just starting to get more

exposure, and it reinforces to me that my opinions and


choices are not so abnormal.

“For childfree women, the personal is political” – Second supporting theme:

Stigma , discrimination, and misunderstanding are associated with CF


Suffered stigma,

insults, attacks, or

discrimination

(Getting bingoed)

(21 subjects –

72.41%)

D400 (G4S20 p. 8): Some years ago, I was seeing a

therapist (male therapist, in case that matters) for a while.

During that time, my sister was pregnant with her second

child. I was 24 at the time and was still thinking that one

day I'll have children because it didn't seem possible to do

anything else, but I remember myself being profoundly

disturbed, even disgusted, by her pregnancy. The thought

of having to go through that one day myself was just

distressing me to no end. One day, I shared these thoughts

with my therapist; his response was "you are still young

and you're not in a serious relationship. I'm sure that once

there will be a man you'd love you'd also want to have a

baby with him. If that's not the case, seek therapy." The

year, by the way, was 2003, not 1953.

D418 (G4S22 p. 11): Put it this way, I've never had a

CFer accuse me of being psychologically disturbed

because I don't like and don't want kids....I've had

that from a parent though, now tell me , how do you

have a reasoned discussion with that attitude??

Feeling

misunderstood,

invalidated, not taken

seriously by non-CFs

(22 subjects –

75.86%)

A96 (G1S5 p.14): I feel the child-free, both male and

female, are very unheard, misunderstood, and disliked. I

hope that her research, at the very least, sheds some light

on us as a group.

C322 (G3S16 p. 14): It's INCREDIBLY frustrating

when people IRL don't understand me.

Fear of social or A20 (G1S4 p. 3): I worry that my opinions will be D411 (G4S22 p. 11): I worked for a US company for


professional

repercussions if CF

status is exposed

(13 subjects –

44.83%)

discovered on the internet and it will hurt me

professionally.

a while and was told to not mention anything about

my CF views to the higher ups as this could be

'career limiting'. Throw in being an atheist then it

seemed I'd be making Charles Manson look like

Snow White. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that

something that's unimportant to my job could have a

negative impact, to me that's blatant discrimination

and bigotry.

Non-CFers take CF

status personally, as

criticism of them, or

feel threatened by CF

decision

(11 subjects –

37.93%)

A8 (G1S2 p. 1): People who, a few years ago, were totally

supportive now seem to get offended at the drop of a hat.

Now that they are having babies, they take it personally

that I haven't changed my stance on the subject, even

though I have expressed nothing but joy and

encouragement for them.

C309 (G3S13 p. 13): a good portion of women are

mothers, and they tend to take any positive statement

about childfreedom as a personal insult. It's easier

not to mention it in real life.

Being CF is similar

to sexual minority

(3 subjects –

10.34%)

A66 (G1S1 p. 11): In some ways, it's similar to having

access to a GLBT community versus dealing with being a

member of a sexual-orientation minority all alone. Of

course one can develop a healthy self-image without the

support of a like-minded community, but it is much easier

if there are others around to say you *aren't* a pervert or a

freak...

E734 (G5S26 p.21): I also feel there's a "coming

out" feeling among CF people: coming out

personally as childfree, and expecting, awaiting and

hoping that one day we are understood and heard in

a decent way.

“For childfree women, the personal is political” – Third supporting theme:

The pronanlist pressure affect CFers in different ways


Pressure from the

child-centered

environment to have

children

(11 subjects –

E653 (G5S25 p. 6): When I got into my late

twenties, the pressure mounted and when I got

married, I thought I had entered an alternate

universe. The preoccupation of others with my

uterus and what I was to do with it and my life

D601 (G4S21 p. 72): I've felt pressured into having kids, and

I'm sure that to most people my response to the whole child

issue might have seemed really cagey, now that I think about

it.


37.93%) was unreal.

It’s harder being CF

in child-rearing

ages/certain stages of

life (after getting

married)

(9 subjects –

31.03%)

D511 (G4S20 p. 33): I certainly share the

experience that that younger you are, the less

seriously people take your decision not to have

children.

E649 (G5S29 p. 6): Once I was married, I was bombarded

with "you're next!" or "soon enough..." and couldn't ignore

them. They started to bother me - was I broken? Was

something wrong with me? I Googled "I don't want kids,"

and discovered the online communities.

Where a person lives

has everything to do

with it (little places,

army bases)

(7 subjects –

24.14%)

D383 (G4S21 p. 4): So I feel that where a person

lives has everything to do with it. A lot of people

hail from small little 'burbs, where everyone is up

in everyone else's business all of the time. I

actually live in a small town for a while, and

people do sit around and gossip about the most

inane things that really aren't any of their

business. I cannot imagine being CF in this type

of environment, and I suspect that the more

conservative the living environment, the more

flack they get.

A101 (G1S2 p. 15): I'm happy I don't live in an area where

women are expected to get married right out of high school

and pop out a baby by 21. There are others that do live in

towns like that, and I think being able to connect and

communicate online has been extremely helpful. We are

lucky to live in a time when this thing I'm typing at makes it

so easy.

Men’s experience of

CF is different

(6 subjects –

20.69%)

E741 (G5S25 p. 22): As I said before - for a lucky

few it's genuinely a non-issue that being male

hugely contributes to, in my opinion. But I have

also run into people (both female and male) who

are childfree who have bingoed me just the same

as any parent or wannabe parent.

C271 (G3S17 p. 8): I always kept the choice to be Childfree

to myself in fear of being ostracized, not so much by my

family, but by other women. It was fine for me to tell a men

that I didn't want kids, but to come out to a group of women,

is a whole different story. The women were always

downright hateful or looked at me with those sad eyes and

shake their heads. Women also question my sexuality too….

For the most part, men where always more accepting.

Childfree Women 75


Discussion

Before discussing the results of the research, it is important to comment on the

commitment childfree women demonstrated to this research and to CF advocacy at large. Unlike

many of my peers who were struggling to recruit subjects for their dissertation projects, I was

flooded with volunteers who expressed interest in my project. They explicitly articulated their

desire to contribute to CF research, to have their voices heard, and to present their positions to

the professional community. It was remarkable to hear their reasons for volunteering, for

example:

S16 said: “If clinical research were done, then people would (hopefully) have an

unbiased, truthful picture of who the CF are. I hope I can help the CF and the researcher

in this instance.”

S4 said: “I responded to the ad because we need to get our voice heard. It is important

that people understand that there are other lifestyles out there that are just as natural as

starting a family and that every lifestyle is a choice. I hope that by being part of studies

that look at objective, empirical research, it will help dispel common myths that are often

attached to CF women.”

S22 said: “My reason for volunteering was to broaden out the pool of respondents and to

show that you can get to disgraceful middle-age being CF and have no regrets, you can

still find CF love as an older CFer and live life with no fear of the future.”

Childfree Women 76


The dedication and loyalty these women showed was incredible and their responses

directly related to the research question that this project sought to answer: “what are the

functions of internet communication for CF women?” as the answers the women provided

demonstrated how the internet contributed in different ways to their deep desire to be heard by

others and to listen to their CF peers.

Four theoretical constructs were generated from the message board discussions: The CF

identity is complex and dynamic; Being a childfree woman influences interpersonal

relationships; Childfree dedicated websites are powerful tools of communication, support,

information, and socialization; and For childfree women, the personal is political. These four

constructs are focused on four aspects of the participants’ lives: the individual and her personal

identity, social and interpersonal life, the internet and its effect on both the individual identity

and the social life, and finally the global and political implications of becoming an individual,

relating to others, and being different.

Each theoretical construct will be explored below in an attempt to explain its importance

for CF women as they grapple to form an identity and to claim an inner and external space for

childfreedom (CFdom) in their lives. Intersubjective psychoanalytic theory will be the main

theoretical lens through which these constructs will be analyzed, although other psychodynamic

theories of identity and gender will be used as well. In addition, a discussion of the hypotheses

generated from these data, the clinical implications, the limitations of this study, and directions

for future research will also be presented.

Childfree Women 77


The CF identity is complex and dynamic

When talking about the place of CFdom in their lives, the participants reported unique

journeys, each presenting its own sensitivities and challenges. Each woman found her own

meaning of CFdom, how central it was to her specific identity, and the way CFdom manifested

in her everyday life. The women in the study used terms and expressions such as “early

articulator,” “journey,” “motherhood as a road not taken,” and “ownership of choice,” when

talking about becoming a self-aware CF woman. Some viewed CFdom as a defining element of

themselves while others claimed it was not necessarily the most significant part of their identity.

As one of the subjects said,

S18: “I think it is important to note that you can't paint all CF women with the same

brush. We have all made the same decision, but we have all had drastically different

paths that lead us to that decision. It's very interesting to speak with other women who

have had very different life experiences than I have, but who have also decided not to

bring another person into this world.”

Becoming a self-aware CF is a process (Table 2 – first supporting theme) focused on the

different stories the women told about gaining the self-knowledge regarding not wanting to have

children or making the decision not to have them, whether for themselves alone or for them and

their life partner. Almost half of the participants (44.83%) realized at a young age they did not

wish to parent. These participants described a sense of clarity and self-knowledge. They talked

about early memories of disliking games that imitated parenting and feeling uninterested in dolls

or “playing house:”

Childfree Women 78


S17: “Growing up, I knew that I never wanted children and playing with dolls or ‘house’

was not my idea of a good time.”

S22: “I'm one of those 'early articulator' sorts, I've always known I didn't like or want

kids and I knew with 100% clarity and certainty that nothing (and I really mean

NOTHING) would shake me.”

The self-identified “early articulators” expressed confidence in their lack of desire to have

children; however, they did not necessarily believe they would be able to follow that desire.

Growing up, these individuals were aware that their choice was de-familiarized as they did not

have examples of women who elected not to mother in their respective cultures. Others’

reactions were often dismissive or critical, leaving the CF child or teenager without role models

or mentors to guide her in discovering the CF side of herself.

The lack of familiar examples such as famous people, pop-culture references, or texts that

normalized CFdom, could account for the above mentioned assumption of some participants that

parenting was a must, expressed by about a quarter of the participants (24.14%). The lack of CF

cultural content may also explain the experience of participants who were not sure about their

CFdom from an early age. For them, the decision was more complicated, requiring deep self-

exploration before coming to terms with not having children. Almost a third (31.03%) of the CF

women in this study reported a long decision-making process rather than a clear knowledge that

they did not want children. They sought therapy, talked to friends and family, had long

discussions with their spouses, and sometimes had to cope with emotionally challenging soul-

searching processes. Such an emotional process was presented in Safer’s (1996) account of her

Childfree Women 79


decision not to have children. She described a long journey in which she and her spouse engaged

in continuous conversations until they decided to remain CF. Safer also talked about a period of

mourning over the lost opportunity of motherhood, although she was content with her choice to

remain CF.

It is not surprising that as mentioned above, almost a quarter of the participants (24.14%)

said that although they realized that they did not want children, they did not know that this was

an actual option:

S20: “I absolutely dreaded the possibility of having children and felt no desire

whatsoever for it, but I still assumed that it was going to happen someday, simply

because there seemed no other option.”

S21: “I didn't have anyone — a mentor, teacher or family member — once tell me, "You

have a choice in the matter, and whatever you choose is okay." I looked at parenthood as

something that was necessary — something to dread.”

The CF aspect of their identity, which floated in a strange abyss internally and culturally,

was certainly missing from psychological literature and discourse as well. Psychoanalysis and

psychology in general has placed tremendous focus on motherhood, mothering and the child-

parent relationship. Even in more modern psychoanalytical theories such as feminist theories, the

focus did not change; rather, the perspective on parenting expanded to include fathers to a larger

extent, and to incorporate ideas that viewed motherhood in social, political, and cultural contexts

(Chodorow, 1978; Benjamin, 1988, Fast, 1984). But mothers and their children continued to be

Childfree Women 80


the topic of discussion and the idea of women who do not wish to take part in motherhood was

notable only in its absence.

In this cultural and social void, the participants’ journeys toward becoming CF were

essentially done on their own. Most participants (72.41%), realized there were other CF women

in the world for the first time when they joined an online CF website. About a third (31.03%) of

the participants felt strongly enough about their CFdom that they wished to “cement” their

choice to be CF and make their bodies and their identities aligned through a process of elected

sterilization. Sterilization gave them security that they would not have to cope with an unwanted

pregnancy. It also gave them a way to actualize their choice; much like having a child would

have been the actualization of the decision to parent.

Sterilization is fascinating when considering queer theories (Hird, 2004, Sullivan &

Stryker, 2009) that discuss changes to the human body as an act of claiming one’s identity

despite biology. In this sense, sterilization could be understood as a bold act of self-actualization

that allows a CF woman to be authentic despite cultural and social boundaries imposed on her

because of her biological sex. In her discussion of body-transforming art, Knafo (2009)

examined the transformative and defensive qualities inherent to a decision to defy the limitation

of the body and use technology to modify it. As Knafo claimed, the act of changing one’s body

could be a defensive solution to some unresolved pain but it could also be “a postmodern brave

refusal to be bound by traditional and cultural definitions of femininity, health, and beauty” (p.

156).

Childfree Women 81


The participants who chose sterilization expressed positive and reaffirming feelings

regarding their choice. Sterilization often required the approval of a therapist (or a few

therapists). The women’s accounts of their sterilization process did not describe a defensive act,

but rather they talked about sterilization with pride and joy:

S27: “Well unlike some of you, I have not always known that I was CF. When I was in

my early to mid 20's, I always just assumed that I would eventually want kids later on

when I was older. Finally at age 35, I came to terms with the fact that I did not want kids

at all, and I was not ever going to want them, so I made an appointment for a tubal

consult and got permanently sterilized a few months later. That was 3 years ago, and it

was one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life.”

S12: “I was one of the lucky ones, apparently. I only had to go through 2 psychologists

before being approved for the procedure. I planned ahead and started ~6 months before I

turned 21 (my state, Illinois, pays for sterilization with the healthy woman's card.) and

only got hassled in the form of 'are you sure?' (all the way up to the operating table...)

after laying down all the reasons why I don't want offspring in the bluntest manner.”

The second supporting theme for the construct The CF Identity is Complex and

Dynamic was CF is just one aspect of personality (Table 2, second supporting theme). Although

being CF influenced participants’ lives and often colored their interactions with certain others,

more than a third (37.93%) mentioned that it was just one aspect of their whole identity. As one

subject said: “I personally don't consider being CF as the biggest part of my identity.” These

Childfree Women 82


statements emphasized that participants’ lives did not necessarily revolve around the issue of

children and that they had other significant aspects and parts to themselves .

When meeting other CFers online, the participants discovered that being CF did not

automatically create closeness or a wide enough basis for friendships. Participants found that

other CFers were different than them in terms of personality, background, or preferences. Other

CFers had different reasons for wanting to be CF, different world views, and different characters.

In fact, 31.03% of the participants said that they have met other CFers online with whom they

had nothing else in common.

Because the CF population was so diverse, six (20.69%) of the participants said that for

them, the online website did not produce a sense of community. That was not to say that they did

not benefit tremendously from the online interactions, as was demonstrated in the third construct

Childfree Dedicated Websites Are Powerful Tools of Communication, Support, Information, and

Socialization. However, these participants felt that the personal differences and the limitation of

the Internet as a medium prevented the kind of closeness that people who shared more in

common might develop. As one participant said:

S28: “I agree with those who said that we are a community in the loosest sense of the

term and that most of us will find that we have almost nothing in common with each

other. However, being CF alone affects so many aspects of our lives – work, romantic

and platonic relationships, even our politics – that sometimes it's just really great to know

that there are people I can talk to who are on the same page, even if we are complete

strangers.”

Childfree Women 83


The diversity among CFers reported by the participants is important because it implies

that being CF is not the result of one, specific life trajectory. Much like parenting, non-parenting

is a choice that evolves in a myriad of ways and is uniquely executed in each individual’s life.

This variety could attest to the wellbeing inherent in this choice. It is not the product of some

misfortune or failure, but a natural outcome for a range of life routes. Having children has been

theorized as the healthy resolution of gender identity formation, especially for girls (Freud, 1933;

Fast, 1984). However, when the women in this study talked about their complicated identities

and about the richness of their lives it became evident that being CF could be as healthy as a

choice as parenting. The participants refused to be treated as homogeneous, seeing CFdom as

one point of similarity that did not imply that they could be grouped otherwise. Participants

contested the stigma of being abnormal, saying that treating CFdom as the sole measure of their

health, maturity, and character would mask their uniqueness and complexity.

The diversity of personalities, attitudes, and preferences was evident within the group of

participants in the current study. For example, participants differed in their feelings toward

children, parents, and motherhood (Table 2, third supporting theme). Six (20.69%) participants

mentioned that some CFers liked children, some were indifferent, and some disliked them:

S20: “Every now and then I can connect with a particular child; for instance, I have five

nieces and nephews and of all five I have a really special relationship with one nephew,

whom I actually like as a person.”

S21: “I would never say, ‘I hate kids’ for the same reason I'd never say ‘I hate gay

people’ or ‘I hate blacks.’ It's discriminatory.”

Childfree Women 84


However, it was interesting to note that almost half of the participants (44.83%)

participants reported a strong dislike or even hatred of children and parents. Thisidea is beyond

the scope of the present study, but for the sake of this discussion, it was evident that the women

differed in their sentiment toward children. Another repeatedly mentioned issue was the desire of

those who did not like children to be accepted. They protested the societal demand to coo over

babies or family photos, complaining that they were perceived as offensive because they did not

want to interact with children or talk about them. In fact, much of the negative feelings reported

in this study focused on the perceived entitlement that parents often exhibit. Specifically,

parents’ assumption that their children should be allowed in locations designed for adults

activities, their demand that their schedule or preferences should get precedence due to their

children’s needs, and other examples of indulgence and a lack of boundaries were perceived by

these participants as offensive. For example:

D542 (G4S22 p. 43): “I go out of my way to actively avoid kids and parents if they're

with their kids and I refuse to smile sweetly and pretend. But like others have said what's

probably even worse is the sense of entitlement that some parents ooze, it's hardly

surprising we see such inappropriate behaviour nowadays when parents are so woefully

inadequate at their chosen role. What of course is so ludicrous is that even saying to

someone 'I don't like kids and that includes yours' and openly going out of my way to

avoid them, people still seem to think that their kid is somehow special and that my

opinions don't matter in regard to their bundle of joy.”

Childfree Women 85


Additionally, the CFers were frustrated when parents presented parenthood as easier and

as more enjoyable than it really was. According to participants, parents tended to present a rosy

picture of their experience with their children. More than half of the participants (51.72%)

emphasized that having children was a choice as was being CF. They stressed that both choices

might have challenges and both could bring happiness or misery, depending on the individual:

S16: “Why don't parents actually admit that the job is VERY hard and how depressing it

can be? (It's very easy to Google ‘I hate being a mom’ and find all kinds of anonymous

posts about how terrible it can be.)”

Motherhood also had various meanings and implications for different participants,

evoking statements such as: “my attitude towards mothers is complex, and something that I'm

still figuring out” (S13). Participants’ emotions toward mothers and motherhood ranged from

curiosity and interest to frustration and alienation. Almost half (44.83%) of the participants

expressed strong emotions regarding motherhood. Knowing that motherhood was “the road not

taken” made some participants think about motherhood and engage in self-inquiry, at times,

making them wonder if something was wrong with them. Participants reported feeling distant

and disconnected from other women because they did not have much in common with mothers.

Even women who were close with the CFers changed after having children, as five women

(17.24%) mentioned:

S10: “I only really became active in CF online forums about four years ago (so my late

twenties). What online forums have offered me is a place to vent my frustrations at the

inevitable change that comes when all of your friends start having children. All but one of

Childfree Women 86


my friends who have had kids have completely lost their identities, interests, and ability

to communicate about anything other than their child(ren). Most of them even go so far

as to give away their clothing, music and even books! That just devastates me because I

feel bad for them.”

Cfdom was therefore just one part of the participants’ lives and their dismay in light of

their friends changing after having children was an implicit wish that children too, would be just

one part of parents’ lives. They wanted others to acknowledge that having children was a choice

much like not having them; that being CF was as natural and healthy as parenting, and for some

people, a better choice. Since this was not the case and parenting was acceptable and valued;

considered as “the most important job in the world,” CFers felt that their choice was not only

unknown as an option, it was also stigmatized as implying some inherent flaw:

S24: “And as it mentioned on CF sites ALL THE TIME, it is a choice. They made a

CHOICE to do the "hardest job in the world" and I made a choice to teach ESL in China

where I only work 14 hrs per week. I shouldn't have to feel guilty about that.”

S1: “This is a topic of great importance to me. I think the more attention paid (in

academia, in politics, in society) to the CF the better--to get the word out that this is a

choice that is at least as valid as the choice to have children.”

G1S3: “People, especially women, need to know that being CF is a valid option”

Participants felt that CFdom was not treated as equal to parenting. This feeling was in

accordance with past studies (Calhoun and Selby, 1980; Coffey, 2005; Giles, Shaw and Morgan,

2009; La Mastro, 2001, Letherby, 2002; Mollen 2006), showing that CFdom was often perceived

Childfree Women 87


as negative, strange, unfeminine, egotistical, uncaring, or abnormal. The negative attitudes from

the environment influenced the emotional well-being of the CFers. In intersubjective terms, the

environment did not offer a safe and containing space that would enable both CFers and parents

to meet and make meaning of their differences.

Benjamin (1988) claims that in order for a person to develop a full and healthy sense of

self, she needs another person who would be able to reflect back humanity and acceptance. To be

human, for Benjamin, means being able to feel one’s individuality while accepting someone

else’s individuality as well, even if that acceptance requires tolerating painful differences.

Participants in this study often felt that others wanted them to change reducing them to their CF

choice. In these cases, others reflected back to the CFers a picture of abnormality and flaws. Not

surprisingly, 13 participants (44.83%) expressed some negative self-view and 10 (34.48%)

reported feelings of self-doubt:

S6: “My husband and I had been undecided for years and it still felt ‘selfish’ to be ok

with not having children.”

S21: “Sometimes I still get that feeling that there's something ‘wrong’ with me for not

wanting to be a parent. Checking in with other CF folks makes me feel more ‘normal’."

S9: “It [CF websites] also helped me to stop beating myself up for not being ‘normal’. I

felt less like a freak of nature.”

S15: “I also went through a period of questioning myself and whether there was

something wrong with me.”

Childfree Women 88


S5: “I struggled with feelings of, ‘Am I not bringing anything to the family?’ I then

decided to seek out people with views like my own and found a childfree website.”

The desire to be accepted and to avoid critical reactions from others may be one of the

reasons for a phenomenon the participants referred to as “breeder pleasers.” This term describes

CFers who are apologetic or self deprecating regarding their choice not to have children. Seven

(24.12%) of the participants either met other CFers who exhibited these behaviors or admitted to

behaving that way themselves. “Breeders Pleasers” called themselves “selfish” or “not fit to

parent.” They endorsed parenthood as the preferred choice and therefore implied that there was

indeed something wrong with being CF. They did not have children themselves but they

explained it using the hegemonic rhetoric, pointing to some failure rather than proudly claiming

their right to choose CFdom. In other cases, “breeder pleasers” gave excuses for choosing

CFdom such as not having financial stability or not finding the right partner. These are, of

course, valid reasons to not have children, but in these cases the actual reason was their not

wanting children at all. As such these excuses were perceived by the participants as “smoke

screens” utilized to escape societal judgment:

S25: "Childfree people will create a smoke screen when they themselves are asked by

parents whether they plan on having children - they don't have the money / the financial

or job stability / the partner / the settled lifestyle necessary to have or raise children. So

far I have only heard one – and only one – woman other than myself unapologetically

state (when she was asked by a parent) that there is no way she will have children. All

Childfree Women 89


other ‘childfree'ers’, though definitely not planning to ever have children, have done one,

several or all of the other things I described."

Being a Childfree Woman Influences Interpersonal Relationships

CF women’s identities, much like all humans’, develop in the context of interpersonal

relationships. Indeed, the participants discussed their social and familial relationships at length,

noting challenges they encountered and support they received as they disclosed their choice not

to parent. The conflict CF individuals experienced regarding disclosure of their choice was

addressed by Durham (2008). He looked into CF couples’ feelings, expectations, and choices

when deciding to share this aspect of themselves with others. Durham found that when couples

perceived others as similar (e.g. friends who do not have children) they were more inclined to

discuss their CFdom freely and amicably. A fear of a negative reaction or a fracture to the

relationship pushed couples to conceal their choice.

While Durham’s (2008) research was focused on privacy management and

communication and was not constructed around psychodynamic concepts it remained in

congruence with intersubjective theories. It is of note that Intersubjectivity is a process, a

dynamic interaction, and not an end result. Meaning, for each person it is not created

independently, but it is rather entangled in the inevitable interactions with others (Benjamin,

1988, 1995, Gerson, 2004). According to Benjamin, in order for an intersubjective encounter to

unfold, individual similarities and differences must be tolerated.

CF individuals who shared the information about their CFdom with others were at risk of

being criticized, insulted, and of creating a rift in important relationships. In intersubjective

Childfree Women 90


terms, others wanted to control the CFer, to change who she was, and to demand that she be

more similar to them. Others wanted to subjugate her so that her choice would no longer threaten

them.

Masking the CF part of a woman’s identity can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid

having to contain the existence of more than one possibility. The idea that someone could be

happy without children can be understood as intimidating because it suggests multiplicity. Old

social order is less restricting and the idea of choice, more available. For those who cannot

tolerate closeness to someone radically different than them, that multiplicity was unbearable. For

them, the solution was to cancel the uniqueness of the CFer and label her as deviant. In that, the

CFer’s subjectivity was denied and she became an object used to restore a sense of control and

safety for others. The human wealth of alternatives was decreased, and with it the anxiety

stemming from the need to acknowledge that one’s mode of operation was not the best and only

one. In other words, denying the legitimacy of CFdom prevented the narcissistic injury from the

loss of omnipotence.

Indeed, the women in this study disclosed that they had to continuously negotiate whether

to mask their CFdom or demand that others would acknowledge their identity. They had to

decide between honesty and censorship when talking about CFdom in real life (IRL) (Table 3,

first supporting theme). More than half of the participants (55.17%) claimed they had been

censoring themselves when talking about CFdom outside of the CF websites. They were hesitant

to be open and honest, anticipating that others would try to impose the notion that parenting was

the only legitimate choice. In fact, even in a group with a majority of CF friends, participants

Childfree Women 91


evaded the topic if they feared that the topic would make NON-CFers uncomfortable. As one

participant mentioned: “I have other friends that are CF, but as we all usually hang out together,

even [with] the over sensitive future mom, we tend to censor ourselves” (S2).

Participants resorted to avoiding the topic all together at times, fearing that being

authentic would inevitably create conflict. More than a third (37.93%) of the participants said

that they feared criticism and rejection from family members and close friends. They limited

their self-disclosure or avoided the topic of children all together to escape such uncomfortable

conversations with close others. Experience taught them that they could not expect a rational

discussion because there was rarely a potential to expand upon and touch on related issues such

as taxation, insurance, and maternity leave because the mere legitimacy of not having children

was questioned by the non-CFers and the conversation did not evolve any further:

S25: “Discussions are less restricted on childfree boards because you don’t need to start

at square one every time (‘Being childfree is valid because …’) and only then go on to

whatever aspect of it you wanted to talk about, if you can manage to get that far. That’s

what I’ve often had to do when making childfree points in non-childfree settings. I’ve

tried, and it felt kind of like I was trying to discuss an advanced math problem, but I first

needed to convince everybody of the validity of basic arithmetic.”

Even when loved ones knew about participants’ CF status, the topic was described as

delicate. Subjects in the study felt guilt and shame because their parents or in-laws would not be

grandparents. Parents and in-laws were sensitive about the CF couple’s choice even when they

already had grandchildren from their other children. Similarly, friends who were seemingly

Childfree Women 92


supportive would nevertheless question the CF woman regarding her decision not to parent,

assuming that she was making a mistake. Although these reactions were often the result of

genuine concern and were not necessarily hostile, they limited the CFer’s sense of freedom,

giving her the message that part of her had no place in the relationship.

These friends and family might have been unable to imagine a happy life without

children. Participants felt that their friends and family members perceived parenthood as crucial

to self-fulfillment and maturity. If indeed these non-CFers denied the legitimacy of CFdom, that

denial could be interpreted as an attempt to maintain the non-CFer’s sense of self on the expense

of the richness of the relationship, as well as the CFer’s space in it. The CFers felt that there was

only room for one reality – the reality that demanded all women to be mothers. They had to

decide whether to present a false picture of themselves or to risk friction within important

relationships.

With that said, other participants were honest IRL. Almost a third (31.03%) of the

participants either declared their CFdom or at least answered questions about procreation plans

without hesitation. These participants were proud of their honesty, and one of them added that

she wished more CFers were as open. CFers women were continuously asked if they had

children and if they were planning to have any IRL, sometimes by people who were practically

strangers. Allowing themselves to be known and owning their full identity was an empowering

way of coping with such intrusions. Giving information and introducing others to CFdom

became important, meaningful, and at times, even enjoyable. One subject actually said that

talking about CFdom was her litmus-test for assessing new people she met:

Childfree Women 93


S8: “Telling people I'm not having children is how I decide if I'm going to like them/be

able to be friends with them or not. Some people react with curiosity or respect for my

choices, and I generally get along with those people. Others bingo away, and I know then

and there that if they don't respect that life choice, they probably don't respect other life

choices that go against what they think they know.”

In light of the Durham (2008) study and the stories provided by the current study’s

subjects, it was not surprising that having support offline was appreciated by the CFers who

received it. Seven (24.14%) of the participants talked about their appreciation for the support

they received offline. The reliable allies who acknowledged their CFdom as valid and identified

it as an integral part a complete self, were open, in intersubjective terms, to engaging in a mutual

and equal interaction, an interaction that had room for differences. When such interactions were

scarce their importance for one’s well-being became evident:

S15: “My parents and in-laws are all supportive of our decision and I realize that is

something to be so grateful for. I've seen a lot of discussion online from other CF

individuals who are afraid to tell their parents, are constantly badgered by parents or in-

laws, etc.”

Interestingly, the five (17.24%) participants who had CF friends IRL and had ongoing

relationships with them, reported that they actually rarely talked about CFdom. Apparently,

when CFdom was accepted it became a moot point that did not require constant revisiting. In

intersubjective terms, CFdom became part of the “third” (Benajmin, 2004, p. 13). The ability to

sustain the tension evoked by individual differences and of holding multiple possibilities as

Childfree Women 94


optional, opened up the space between individuals. It gave room for movement toward the other

without restrictions on that other’s freedom. That space of possibilities and freedom was one

definition of the inetrsubjective “third.” When the topic of CF became an organic part of such

co-created space it did not need to be addressed repeatedly. Paradoxically, when CF was

accepted it required less room than when it was a point of contention.

The comfort participants found in offline supportive interactions was unfortunately not

available to all. Only seven (24.14%) subjects mentioned the presence of friends and family who

accepted their CFdom and even among that small subgroup, there were some who said that the

support was limited. In fact, 12 (41.38%) of the subjects said that they had no support outside of

the Internet or their spouses. That void was one of the reasons they looked for an online CF

community:

S7: “I have a few close friends who are hugely supportive and I can be very open with

them, but not with most.”

S10: “I also want to add that communicating online with other child free women is

important to me since I know no other child free women offline.”

S15:” We have often felt isolated because of this and spent time with only each other.

That used to bother me before finding other CF people online. Simply having that

connection to other like-minded people has helped me be more comfortable just the two

of us.”

Another type of close relationships affected by CFdom was romantic relationships (Table

3, third supporting theme). Ten (34.48%) women said that having a CF life partner was an

Childfree Women 95


important aspect of their lives and sometimes one’s significant other was the only CF other with

whom they had an ongoing close relationship with in person. Six (20.69%) participants realized

that they could not become romantically involved with someone who wanted children. Those

participants looked for a CF partner because not having children was a “deal breaker:”

S1: “I first found a CF online community when my (then-) husband and I were deciding

whether to split up because he wanted kids. The community gave me support and helped

me make the OH-SO-RIGHT choice to end the marriage.”

CFdom remained misunderstood and unfamiliar to most people these subjects met.

Potential partners thought that they could change the CF women’s minds or that having children

from previous relationships “didn’t count.” Having to explain the meaning of being CF became

part of the dating experience for the participants. Additionally, as stated before, just being CF

was not enough to ensure compatibility. As one subject said: “What I've found is that it's not

enough to be on the same page when it comes to having kids (or not)” (S21). Still, when the

other person was equally adamant about wanting to remain CF, there was a mutual starting point

that gave the relationship a better chance of succeeding:

S20: “I realize that the question of having children is so critical for me, that I could never

share my life with someone who doesn't feel as strongly as I do about it. My current

partner and I actually bonded over the decision not to have kids. This came up in a

random conversation when we first met and this was a central reason in our decision to

start dating. I recommend any one who deals with this question to target men or women

who are consciously CF - that's another advantage of online forums.”

Childfree Women 96


Finally, six (20.69%) participants said that close friendships, especially with other

women, changed or were even lost when non-CFers started to have children. When people

around them became parents, the CFers started feeling alienated, judged, and even pitied.

Talking about CFdom became off limits and the study’s participants found that bonds that had

previously been central to their social lives were lost. Sometimes this was due to logistical

reasons, such as parents’ schedules changing. Sometimes parents became so absorbed in their

parental roles that they were unable to make room for non-parents in their lives. Parents no

longer wanted to engage in activities they had previously enjoyed, they became offended by

topics that were considered legitimate and even funny before they had children, and they began

criticizing the CF woman even if they had been supportive of her choice before. Although

parents felt entitled to talk about their pregnancies and children without ever feeling that they

were imposing or offensive, CFers did not enjoy the same privileges when talking about their

reproductive choices.

It appeared that once other women made the choice to follow the path of motherhood,

they were no longer able to contain the CF choice made by their female peers. This process was

painful and left CF women on the outskirts of their social circles. The capacity for creating

mutual space was lost, leaving no room for the coexistence of both options. In many cases the

relationship did not just change, becoming less comfortable or enjoyable; it became hostile or

ended. This was traumatizing for the CF women, leaving them anxious when yet another female

friend became pregnant:

Childfree Women 97


S25: “The first CF forum I signed up for was a little over two years ago. Two good

friends had disappeared after I mentioned to them that I was planning to get sterilized.

These two had been my pillars of support through some serious family drama some years

prior - and seeing them disappear because of this was unsettling, disappointing,

depressing and a whole lot of other things.”

S2: “People who, a few years ago, were totally supportive now seem to get offended at

the drop of a hat. Now that they are having babies, they take it personally that I haven't

changed my stance on the subject, even though I have expressed nothing but joy and

encouragement for them.”


Information, and Socialization

The third theoretical construct was also the construct that most directly answered the

research question: “what are the functions of internet communication for CF women?” The study

revealed a myriad of ways in which the internet functioned in the life of CF women. The

powerful influence of CF dedicated websites on these women’s sense of self-actualization and

sense of ownership over their choice was remarkable. In addition, the participants reported

diverse patterns of online activity and involvement in different subareas of interest within the CF

online world. The rich personal and communal experience these women had online was often in

direct opposition to the restricted and superficial interactions they had in real life (IRL). Twelve

participants (41.38%) specifically said that participating in online CF dedicated sites influenced

the formation of their identity.

Childfree Women 98


In intersubjective terms, the internet offered CF women a space in which they were able

to explore aspects of themselves that were otherwise hidden. Even when they were open about

their CFdom outside of the Internet, the participants were “the other” and their environment did

not allow for variations or nuances in their identities. Finding a community in which they were

the majority and their CFdom was accepted and even assumed was empowering in and of itself.

In that atmosphere the participants could examine the subtleties within their identity, measuring

themselves from a position of twinship (Kohut, 1971), that is, a relationship with someone like

them that they identified with. Twinship offered a connection rooted in similarity rather than in

contrast. They were also able to be mirrored by others who accepted their qualities and choices.

According to Kohut, such twinship and mirroring relationships were both needed for the

development of their authentic self. Offline and in person, others mirrored the CF women as

peculiar at best. Often the mirrored reflection was a distorted picture, portraying CFdom as

abnormal, sick, and unnatural. Online, however, that aspect of themselves was not only accepted

but celebrated:

S20: “The first time I joined an online childfree forum I simply felt elated. I expected a

group of people feeling united by a sense of persecution and loneliness, conceiving of

themselves as freaks and misfits, and I found a lively and cheerful community whose

members basically conducted themselves as if they are the norm and those who wish to

have children are those whose actions are unfathomable and even morally questionable.

This is what I love the most about the forum in which I'm a member – the feeling of

complete normality that governs it. We may be exceptional in our families and in our

Childfree Women 99


workplaces, but in the discussion forums our choice of a childfree life is the only one

taken for granted, the only one that makes sense. It is so liberating and refreshing.”

As noted before, the CF identity is complex and rich. Such an identity could not develop

in isolation. Indeed, more than half (55.17%) of the participants said that their online

communication with other CFers had positively influenced their identity by elevating their self-

esteem, self-understanding, and confidence. They felt that their CF identities were strengthened,

instilling them with a sense of self-worth and pride. Before they found the CF websites they were

prone to feel shame and confusion. Conversing with like-minded people made them feel

dignified and happy in their choice:

S17: “I'm a better rounded person because of the online Childfree community.”

S14: “Writing about childfreedom has given me a fuller understanding of what that

means and how it permeates my life.”

S26: “They have affected me a lot. I think I know myself better, my identity is stronger

and I feel confident in so many ways.”

Others felt liberated, experiencing freedom and a more sophisticated understanding of

themselves:

S15: “It has been wildly liberating for me to learn about the childfree community, share

in other people’s feelings and frustrations, lean on people who are like-minded and who

won’t think I’m inhuman for not wanting to spawn children.”

S8: “The online community has helped me SO much in accepting that I really don't want

them, and like others, has helped me be a little more vocal and comfortable with the

Childfree Women 100


decision.”

S23:” My personal actions, ideas and feelings have been influenced by posting on online

childfree forums. As a result of these forums, I feel a greater sense of self esteem. I don't

feel so weird or different. In a world where everyone around me (even the celebrities) are

dropping babies, it lets me know that I am not the only one who doesn't want kids and

that there's nothing wrong with that.”

The positive effect the websites had on CF women influenced more than just their

personal feelings and inner realities. It also impacted their relationship with others and how they

presented themselves to their real life communities (Table 4, first theme, third repeating idea).

Almost half (44.83%) of the participants felt that writing and reading online enhanced their

ability to talk about their choice, providing them with articulated arguments and organized

frames of reference, whereas before they only had their inner feelings as a guide. Participants felt

more courageous when it came to disclosing their CF status to non-CFers and a new sense of

confidence when they were questioned and challenged. Having clarity regarding the meaning of

CFdom and how it manifested specifically for each of them helped them intelligibly

communicate about it even with unsympathetic others:

S17: “Knowing that I'm not alone in my feelings towards not wanting children has given

me the confidence to answer questions by parents. I felt a sense of empowerment coming

clean about how I have felt my whole life and that I should never feel guilty about my

choice.”

Childfree Women 101


Even for those who were still unable to feel completely comfortable talking to non-CFers, there

was a marked improvement in their capacity to share:

S7: “I usually joke about it, but try to get my point across to my friends about how I feel.

When friends are talking about babysitting I always comment that they wouldn't want me

because I know NOTHING about kids and don't know what to do with them. Or when

asked about having kids, I now joke ’oh, I couldn't give up alcohol for nine whole

months.’ I still am not comfortable just being brutally honest, but joking about it has let

me be more comfortable talking about it, at least. It's a step!”

The positive changes in participants’ confidence and self-advocacy as a result of their

online communication was impressive. The CF sites and forums came to be a source of support,

camaraderie, advice, and information that were not available elsewhere. One of the strongest

points of agreement among the women in this study was the sense of relief and validation they

felt when they discovered that they were not alone. In fact, 21 subjects (72.24%) claimed that

discovering others who shared their CF preference was a tremendously positive experience:

S21: “The most profound impact interacting with CF groups online has had is that it

reinforces the fact that I'm not the only one out there who didn't want to become a

parent.”

S13: “I stay because I like the companionship of shared experiences – when someone

rants about a noisy baby in a restaurant it might make me think of a similar situation I

encountered recently and lets me know I’m not alone in my perspective of the situation.”

S24: “When I first found the online communities I was just relieved that there were other

Childfree Women 102


people out there who shared my feelings and experiences.”

S2: “I realize I wasn't fighting a battle of one, and return to my daily grind without the

need to defend myself. The number one benefit for me personally is knowing that I am

not alone.”

S8: “When you make a choice that goes against the "norm" it's important to know that

you are not alone.”

The painful loneliness and isolation of being the “other” in both private relationships and

in the social and political realm narrowed the freedom of CF women to be authentic. As Donat

(2007) stated, being CF facilitated a tremendous sense of freedom in CF women’s private lives;

however, it minimized their public freedom. The space for self-exploration with a positively

reflective other was missing and because of that, CF women lacked an intersubjective space; a

place in which they could be themselves, the other could be herself, differences were respected

and tolerated, and similarities were enjoyed without erasing variations. Twenty participants

(69.96%) stated that being able to relate to others and feeling understood was an important part

of their online experience:

S29: “I was so happy to find other people who didn't want children, and who didn't judge

one another for it.”

S2: “It's nice to have a place to go to get things off my chest with like-minded people. I

spent the entirety of my 20's being told I was ’still young"’, but now that I'm in my 30's

people think there's something wrong or that I'm weird. The CF forums prove that's not

true.”

Childfree Women 103


S6: “I can relate with what others are stating. I am completely outnumbered in my real

life, when I post on a message board it seems as if the entire community can relate

instead of a select few in my non-virtual world.”

Because so many CF women suffered isolation, loneliness, and alienation, they placed

high value on giving and receiving support online. Almost half (44.83%) of the women in the

study mentioned both giving and receiving support as inspiring, saying that being able to help

other CFers tolerate the tremendous pressure to have children was helpful to them as well:

S3: “Another aspect of communicating online about being childfree is being able to help

other people who might be having difficulty "coming out" or holding their ground in the

face of pressure to breed, or who perhaps didn't even realise that not having kids was an

option.”

Older participants mentioned that their presence in online forums was a proof that CF

women do not regret their choice, even though non-CFers constantly claimed that they would. In

fact, Chodorow (2003) notes that she does not believe motherhood is a “natural destiny” (p.

1185) for all women. Furthermore, she states that she does not believe that not-mothering is

inherently pathological. This said however, she explored the experiences of women who

regretted choosing not to mother and analyzed the psychological dynamics that played a part in

their arriving to the conclusion that they wanted children when it was too late. Chodorow can

hardly be accused of seeing motherhood through a traditional and patriarchal lens (See

Chodorow, 1978) and one could safely assume that she would support CF women and

Childfree Women 104


legitimatize their choice. As a result, her decision to focus on regret sheds light onto the lack of

space to explore the CF choice as positive and promising of happiness:

S21: “I think that younger women need us older gals to step up and say, ’Hey, you CAN

get through this stage of life. Don't let it get you down!’ Hence, why I drop into CF

forums.”

The choice to study a certain population, or rather, a certain field’s neglect to study and

write about certain populations is not always calculated or planned. However, it does provide

some information about the commitment to provide a group with the tools that a field could

potentially offer. Psychoanalysis has presented Western people with rich and meaningful tools

for understanding themselves and expending what they believed was possible both in their inner

world and in their communities. Like Chodorow (2003), other writers expressed support for the

idea that motherhood was not necessary for all women. Benjamin (1988) in her criticism over

psychoanalysis’s association between femininity and nature, stated that some feminists’ equation

between womanhood, motherhood, and nature was a problem rather than a way to empower

women, because just like men, women were social not just biological, and their intersubjectivity

lied within their social interactions (p. 80). However, this argument did not address CFdom

directly and in fact, I could only find one article that did concentrate on women who chose not to

mother from a psychoanalytic perspective: Hird’s (2003) article titled Vacant Wombs. In this

article Hird explored the psychoanalytic approaches to reproduction and motherhood and gives a

psychodynamic view point to her prior work on childfreedom (Hird & Abshoff, 2000). She

Childfree Women 105


advocated for an inclusive approach that took into account CF women within psychoanalysis,

claiming that such inclusion would enrich the field and create space for diversity.

This one example, though important and valuable, cannot single handily change the

otherwise complete invisibility of CF women in psychoanalytic writing. That invisibility is

remarkable, especially in light of the emphasis psychoanalysis placed on wanting a child as the

only healthy end result of powerful and delicate maturation processes for girls (Freud 1933, Fast,

1984). It would be interesting to reassess the many theories that dealt with female gender and

social maturation while entertaining the thought that CFdom is an equally healthy outcome of

development.

This lack of resources left CF women in a social and intellectual void. It was therefore

understandable that they were excited to discover the rich exchange of ideas, sharing of

information, and freedom to ask questions available online. They were able to create in-depth

discussions because they did not have to first convince others that CFdom was a valid choice.

Within this online forum, others were not trying to change their minds or judge them, but rather

offered them genuine advice. These online interactions provided access to several sources of

information, including articles, pregnancy prevention, affective answers to “bingoes”, and an

enriching variety of personal stories and opinions. More than half (55.17%) of the participants

mentioned information and advice when talking about the positive advantages of communicating

with CFers online.

One unique aspect of finding information online was the exposure to CF lingo. More than

a quarter of the participants (27.59%) mentioned the discovery of the language used by other

Childfree Women 106


CFers as significant. Although some women thought that words like “breeders” could be

offensive to non-CFers and elected to not use it, the language still facilitated a sense of

community and culture that they could identify with. Knowing that others referred to not

parenting by using the word “FREE” rather than “LESS” was refreshing. As one of the

participants said:

S14: “I only learned of the term "childfree" about five years ago by coming across a

childfree website. In that respect, the very vocabulary I use with respect to my

reproductive choice has changed dramatically. I love and stress the FREE in childfree, for

as I have learned through online forums, we are not ’less‘ anything in our lives.”

Another point of agreement regarding the online communication resources for CFers was

the safety and comfort they offered; safety that was often lacking from real life interactions

(Table 4, third supporting theme). More than half of the participants (51.72%) said that they felt

they could be honest and direct online while being hesitant to be as open IRL. On the internet,

they knew that they would not offend anyone and that they would not be offended themselves.

The online forum was experienced as a unique space, one that offered tremendous freedom of

speech without having to censor oneself for the sake of mainstream others. In fact, almost half

(44.83%) of the participants specifically used the term “safe haven” to describe the online

websites they frequented.

One of the main aspects of the culture of safety was finding a space where ranting and

venting was acceptable. Twelve subjects (41.38%) talked about the significance of that safety

and freedom. Being allowed to complain about pronatalism enabled the participants to be more

Childfree Women 107


patient with non-CFers IRL and aided them in tolerating the constant questioning and disbelief

they encountered outside the internet. Especially for those who did not like children or those who

had political and social criticism of parenting, criticism that was mostly unacceptable in other

settings, the ability to be bluntly honest was liberating:

S1: “It's a huge relief to have an online community where I can go and be as blunt as I

like about how I feel, and know that (even if--as previously mentioned--some of the

people in the community feel more charitable toward children than I do) I'm not going to

be hurting anyone's feelings and I won't be taken to task for my opinions.”

S18: “It also gives me a place to rant...I'm a very positive person but sometimes I just

have to rant about the super child-centric society that we live in.”

Finally, humor was an aspect of communal discourse that was mentioned by the

participants. Humor is known to be a positive and powerful defense mechanism and mature tool

of coping with difficulties and conflicts (Freud, A., 1946). The internet offered a variety of

cartoons, jokes, and witty blogs, dedicated to the humorous side of being CF. Being able to laugh

and enjoy the lighter side of CFdom was mentioned by five (17.24%) of the participants, who

said it gave them strength or at least a different perspective when facing the difficult social

reality of being CF. It helped them maintain a positive stance and reduced their hostility towards

others who criticized them, especially when the laughing matter was taboo in other settings:

S4: “I too love STFUParents.com, because it's light-hearted and prevents me from getting

too hostile. If nothing else, it definitely keeps me laughing!”

Childfree Women 108


S16:”I continue to get joy out of it. I love laughing with them at things that society will

not allow me to otherwise laugh at.”

Although the freedom to vent and laugh, often at the expense of parents or children, was

appreciated by participants, almost half of them (41.38%) mentioned that that attitude sometimes

amounted to too much hostility. The forums tended to be rejecting of other CFers as well, for

example, right-winged or religious CFers. Apparently, the majority of CFers identified as more

liberal on issues outside of CFdom. This characteristics of CFdom will be furthered explored in

the discussion of the forth and last theoretical construct For the CF women, the personal is

political. The participants who claimed that the websites were hostile at times wanted to see

respect for choice, including the choice to have children. Four women (13.8%) mentioned that

having doubts about being CF was not always accepted on the CF websites. Those who were

unsure of themselves sometimes felt that there was no room for their conflict and therefore felt

not as welcomed as they hoped to be:

S4:”Unfortunately, there are some online CF communities that are very hostile towards

those who decide to have children. I find this discouraging, as the hostility towards my

CF opinions was what brought me to CF forums and the online community in the first

place.”

S21: “I don't feel that I really fit into these sites because I'm not anti-child or anti-parent,

and there seems to be a lot of hostility directed at relative/total strangers' choices, which

is really none of my business.”

Childfree Women 109


S20: “…What I would have been like as a mother, what such a life would entail, what I

might be missing out on, etc. I never felt comfortable sharing that in an online forum.”

Because many of the CF websites were focused on disliking parents and children and

because they demanded certain conformity, they did not always evolve and changed enough to

remain relevant. After a while the conversation on certain websites became repetitive, according

to four (13.8%) of the women in the study. They understood why new members wanted to vent

and express their dismay about “bingoes,” (repeated questions and statements that “breeders” say

to CFers, such as “you’ll change your mind” or “who will take care of you when you’re old”),

discrimination, and children; however, veteran members felt these topics were exhausted and

therefore no longer interested them as much. Additionally, these topics focused on children and

parenting, two topics that CF women often did not wish to talk about at all. They hoped to talk to

other CFers and to avoid these subjects. These participants were disappointed that children and

parents were so often the focus of exchanges within the CF community:

S22: “I'm not as active as I was and will likely become less so. The nature of these sites is

that new members bring up the same issues time and time again, there's only so many

times you can offer sympathy, tell your stories, give your opinion or make the same

suggestions.”

Some websites offered participants a place to vent and express opinions that were not

accepted in other settings. Other websites offered information, advice, and insightful

conversations. Some of them were focused on support and some were focused on humor but all

Childfree Women 110


shared special characteristics reserved to the medium of internet that the participants valued

(Table 4, Fifth supporting theme):

S22: “The ease with which you can find people with the same interests/mindset/values

The ability to communicate across time-zones, cultures, continents, countries

The cost (or lack of) i.e. it's very cheap to email or post thoughts on the internet

The ability to ignore people if you decide they're not your 'cup of tea'

The ability to hide behind an alias and speak very freely on your thoughts and feelings

The ability to dip in and out when it suits

The flexibility and ease of use, anytime, anyplace, anywhere

If it weren't so easy to track down an internet community on the CF subject, I just

wouldn't have done it.”

The act of writing itself was identified as a powerful tool of expression by more than a

quarter (27.59%) of the participants. Chandler (2007) identified the immediate recording aspect

of writing as a qualitative difference between speech and writing. He further states that when

writing online, one was not only recording her thoughts, but in most cases she was also

immediately publishing it and by that, she implicitly invited others to read and respond. The act

of writing was especially beneficial for women who described themselves as introverted or shy

and therefore felt more secure expressing themselves in writing than in a face to face

conversation:

Childfree Women 111


S13: “I generally express myself better via the written word but the mere fact of being

surrounded by other childfree men and women allows for a greater depth of discussion on

matters relating to children and parenthood.”

S23: “I am an introverted person. I have always expressed myself better in writing than in

person. So, becoming a member of any online forum that interests me is a no-brainer.”

These compelling traits of writing online created rich discussions within the CF forums

because anyone who participated was at liberty to read and respond. However, this was also a

problem in some cases when others’ comments were unpleasant, attacking, or offensive. “Trolls”

(People who deliberately attempted to create a negative and hostile atmosphere in an online

discussion) were a bigger problem for some than for others:

S25: “I'm kind of divided on it - I think there need to be German-language childfree sites

(there aren't any dedicated sites that I have found so far) and I've already put quite a bit of

time and effort into writing content and into basic design (though everything's done with

what's available for free), but on the other hand I just don't feel up to dealing with the

hatred that it will attract.”

S28: “If an inflammatory comment is thrown my way, I can ignore it. That's the beauty of

the internet. Obviously this is not so easy when discussing something face-to-face, so this

is probably where I see the biggest difference. On the internet you can take time to come

up with a well-planned response to someone - a list of facts or statements to calmly

support yourself in an argument or confrontation, if and when one occurs.”

Childfree Women 112


Part of what made the internet a safer and more comfortable medium to express

unpopular beliefs and opinions was the fact that even if one would find themselves attacked by

“trolls” or by non-CFers who were unable to tolerate the idea that parenting was not a must, all

communication could take place anonymously. Being able to use an alias name to protect one’s

privacy was highly appreciated, as mentioned by almost a quarter (24.14%) of the study’s

subjects. This was especially the case when someone’s family or professional ties were

conservative and exposing their CF status could have damaged important IRL relationships:

S18: “The anonymity offered by the internet is a plus as well, since being childfree is still

considered deviant and immoral by some people.”

S20: “Of course, the anonymity is also an important component of it - no need to think of

every word you're saying and the way it may impact your social and professional

relations.”

Although participants mentioned various aspects of online communication when

describing what drew them to the internet, specific attention was given to one unique aspect of

internet communication – the tremendous diversity found online, in terms of locations, people,

opinions, styles of forums, and topics discussed. Different aspects of the diversity found online

were discussed by more than a third (37.93%) of the study’s subjects.

By going online, participants gained access to communication with a diverse group of

people and by that they were exposed to various conversations, types of forums, specific niche

interests, and optional participation patterns. The internet connected people from all over the

world, which allowed the women in this study to learn about the unique challenges and

Childfree Women 113


advantages of being CF in different places. For example, European participants in this study

repeatedly talked about long maternity leave as an imposition for other workers and as an

unjustified privilege. This specific criticism of pronatalist culture was not expressed by

American participants because in most States of The United States, employers are not mandated

to give any maternity leave at all (Finnigan, 2011).

A particular type of difference between websites, discussed by more than a third

(37.93%) of the participants in this study, was that of open websites which are accessible to any

user, versus password protected websites, which are open only to registered members (Table 4,

Sixth supporting theme, first repeating idea). On the open forums, fights with parents and

“breeders” were almost inevitable. At some point, the CF women using that type of website were

bound to be subjected to criticism. When forums or facebook groups were private, people were

more accountable and the discussion seldom became unpleasant. In open forums, participants

found that they needed to invest time and effort explaining why CFdom was legitimate and why

they were CF personally. They often found themselves attacked, having to defend themselves

from mockery, blame, and scrutiny:

S24: “I typically try to avoid non-CF groups for discussing my CF lifestyle however. I

really don't like wasting my energy answering the ’why‘ questions and defending my

choice to parents and/or breeders. The only thing I can ever come up with is, ’I don't want

to be a parent for the same reason I don't want to be firefighter; I have no interest in doing

either’.”

Childfree Women 114


S12: “Online: I'm open about being Childfree and hating children, and get a large amount

of backlash when I don't post on a childfree private group. I can handle attacks like that,

since it's just online. They're usually ’you're going to hell,’ (oh goody, someplace I don't

believe in) ’you'll never be a complete person,’ ’you'll regret it,’ and a plethora of other

things.”

Fortunately, the internet offered CF women a choice regarding where, how, and with

whom to communicate. In CF websites they found conversations that dealt with the variations

and nuances within CFdom, allowing them to assess their own distinctive place in a culture that

was rich in options. This explained why more than half (56.62%) of the participants talked about

the changes in patterns of communication over time or according to personalities. Those who

enjoyed venting could continue doing so if they wished, others debated whether or not to have

children, discussed the political implications of CFdom, or talked about areas of interest that had

little or nothing to do with children at all. Within any subgroup or subtopic, there were still a

myriad of opinions and points of view, which created vibrant and stimulating interactions:

S1: “The exposure to that variety of opinions educates and expands one's thinking about

CFdom in the same way that going to a university expands one's thinking about the world

in general.”

Aside from the ability to enjoy a wide range of opinions and a mixture of websites, the

quality of conversation itself impressed the study’s participants. More than half (55.17%) of

them mentioned that by and large they interacted with others that were open-minded, intelligent,

and thought-provoking, who offered a non-conventional perspective on many issues aside from

Childfree Women 115


CFdom. They were happy to get involved in eloquent, thoughtful, and invigorating discourse

with others that they valued and viewed as smart, witty, and insightful:

S25: “But the primary reason I have stuck around on childfree fora nonetheless is,

ironically, the same one that prevents me from considering them communities in the sense

of ’places that will support me‘: the relative objectivity where most topics are concerned,

which allows for very reasoned and interesting discussions that are of much higher quality

than almost anywhere else on the internet that I have found.”

For Childfree Women, the Personal is Political

The fourth and last theoretical construct presented in this discussion addresses the

political aspects of CFdom. The construct’s title is drawn from the feminist phrase “the personal

is political,” which is a phrase attributed to different writers of the second feminist wave.

Although its exact origin might not be clear, its meaning is important. The phrase indicates that

people’s personal decisions and private conduct have profound political implications. When a

woman makes a decision regarding work, family, dress code, or choice of language, she is

choosing to express her acceptance or rejection of social norms. This is, of course, a simplistic

view, as the choice to do a similar act can have different meanings for different people. For

example, choosing to get married could be a rebellious act if one married an immigrant to

provide a legal status; marriage could also be an act of submission to the most rigid and

oppressive social norms.

Benjamin (1988) talks about the social and political implications of her intersubjective

theory. She claims that in our society, the narcissistic fear of surrendering one’s power over other

Childfree Women 116


humans is the source of political, social, and personal cruelty and oppression. Our society

idealizes the father-image complied of individualism, separation, and domination and devalues

the mother-image of connectedness, closeness, and dependency. However, both needs exist in

every human, regardless of their sex and gender. The masculine image requires men to maintain

rigid separation from others, and in doing so, rejecting their need for connectedness and

closeness. If they address these “feminine” needs they will have to acknowledge their

identification with the maternal. They therefore can only tolerate rigid definitions that will

simplify their relationships with others. Such definitions help maintain hierarchy and they enable

people to feel omnipotent because they are the only thing they could be in the absence of other

choices and possibilities. Other options can be classified as deviant or in some cases can be

rejected all together. Allowing others to be different but similar, close but separate, independent

but needed is impossible when one depends on narcissism and a fantasy of omnipotence in order

to maintain a coherent sense of self.

Allowing others to be different requires a capacity to tolerate pain because seeing other

options puts a spotlight on one’s limitations. This, according to Benjamin (1988), is true on the

individual level, the community level, and the state and country level. Throughout history, the

inability to tolerate the “other” and the need to make “me” the only option have pushed nations

to wipe out other groups, to deny human rights, and to demand conformity explicitly and

implicitly. Benjamin states that both patriarchal hegemony and some feminist theories demand

that women be mothers and color the maternal role and the private sphere as the source of

feminine power. If a woman is not a mother, the patriarchal social order is in danger. Also, the

unique power of reproduction celebrated by some feminists can no longer be used as a symbol of

Childfree Women 117


female power. However, the participants of this study conveyed in their narrative that having

CFdom as an equal option will not ruin humanity or take away feminine power. In fact, it will

allow for the definition of what is human to be expanded and offer greater choice for women.

The participants expressed moral and political concerns (Table 5, First supporting

theme), saying that while the pronatalist culture focuses on children it actually centers on the

concept of future children rather than already living human children that are in need. Almost a

quarter (24.14%) of the participants expressed their concern regarding overpopulation, saying

that they would prefer to see a smaller population and a better quality of life for everyone.

Almost half (48.27%) said that they opposed pronatalism, expressing legal, social, and moral

concerns for people. When thinking of the consumption of resources created by every Western

child in comparison to children in third world countries, the moral implications of pronatalism in

industrial countries is disconcerting. Promoting motherhood as the preferred choice for everyone

is actually a failure to recognize the needs of millions of other, less visible children:

S21: “I would definitely rather see my world with a smaller population, too, for many

reasons.”

S3: “There are too many people on the planet. People need to stop making more people,

who will simply be burdens on resources, due to some ill-considered need to conform to

an outdated life-script.”

Participants were critical of the blind public support of reproduction. They pointed to

their online communities as what provided them with a framework to critically examine social

truisms and dogmas. The political, legal, and economical investments in parenthood infuriated

Childfree Women 118


many of the participants because having children was a choice, and as such, should not be

weighted above CFdom:

S22: “I really do get angry at the support thrown at parents and children from tax-payers

and administered by the state. I don't understand why something that is a choice and is

easily preventable is subsidised to such a huge extent, especially when I can't see any

good economic reason to do it. I would much rather see smaller population and better

quality of life for all.”

Public and political forces are involved in reproduction. That involvement manifests in

pro-life campaigns, economic benefits, work-place preferences and benefits, and just general

assigning of higher value to parenting and children than to CF individuals. Because the CF

choice is not valued or even accepted in many cases, CF women suffer discrimination both

socially and legally. For example, sterilization laws do not support women’s desire to cement

their CFdom:

S26: “I'm even more interested in juridical issues because of the sterilization law. So, I

have a really increased interest in information about anything that vaguely has something

to do with childfreedom and other issues, which I feel belong to my identity and are

important to me. I've joined the CF association we have in Finland and I've had my

Essure done.”

Religion is another public sphere that blindly supports reproduction and by doing so

erases the legitimacy of CFdom. Participants expressed their need to conceal their decision from

religious relatives, reporting a sense of alienation from religious communities. This can explain,

Childfree Women 119


though not justify, the intolerance of religious CF women in certain online forums. However,

four of the five (17.24%) participants who talked about their conflict with religion felt criticized

and rejected by the religious people around them rather than the other way around:

S21: “I'll never forget when the priest told me that if I quit my job, stayed home and had

babies, things between me and my ex would be OK and he would ’change‘ and be nice to

me. I wasn't stupid enough to buy that line. Not from a man who doesn't even have sex

himself!”

The political implications of their private choice created a higher level of interest and

awareness to other political issues among the CF women in this study. They noticed that

women’s rights issues were often limited to “mothers’ rights,” leaving younger women and CF

women on the outskirts of what was considered politically relevant. They became concerned

with the rights of other minorities such as the LGBTQ community and others:

S26: “I've started to become interested in human rights in other areas as well.

Freethinking, atheism, gay rights and equality in general are important to me. It is not just

that I know for sure I don't want children, it has affected a lot more. I am interested in

sociology in general and demographic issues. I've found many interesting researches

online and read them.”

S29: “I stayed active for a good while. The political climate helped a lot - every day, it

seemed like there was something new to be outraged about.”

S22: “I guess I should really be looking for a site which is more of a political platform,

rather than just a support forum.”

Childfree Women 120


Whether they talked about their dismay regarding pronatalism or were outraged by its

political implications, an overwhelming number of participants expressed their passion and

commitment for promoting the legitimacy of CFdom. Twenty-three(79.31%) of the participants

expressed a desire to contribute to the growing knowledge about CF women, adding that they

wanted their voice to be heard. They hoped to dispel misconceptions and misunderstanding,

helping non-CFers, policy makers, religious leaders, and mental health professionals to see

CFdom for what it really was – a diverse and rich community with culture and values, compiled

by individuals that cannot be fully understood or explained by their CFdom alone. They hoped

that social acceptance would reduce the resentment and bitterness some CFers felt and would

invite people who might benefit from CF life to entertain it as an option:

S8: “On a less realistic note, I'd like to think that research like this is a big step in

changing the way people talk to and about the childfree and the choice to reproduce. It

would be nice if people asked ’are you going to have kids?’ instead of ’when are you

going to have kids?’ and say ’If you have kids‘ instead of ’when you have kids‘. If the

dreaded "Bingo" went away tomorrow, it would make life so much easier.”

S13: “I want to help bring attention to being childfree. I'm hoping to bring attention to the

cruel and dismissive remarks ('bingos' and otherwise) we childfree experience on the web

and real life, and to dispel the myths behind the most common bingos. I hope research

shows that we are just as human as the next woman, that there is nothing missing or wrong

with us, and that parenthood is not for everyone nor should it be.”

Childfree Women 121


S15: “I am eager to see more exposure of the experiences of those living childfree. My

hope is that as information about CF living grows, that more young people will take the

time to consider the choice to have children rather than just having kids without thought.

So many people are brainwashed into thinking it's a rite of passage…”

S18: “In a way I feel a bit like a crusader, maybe someday I'll go on tour of high-schools,

touting the childfree life...”

The eagerness to show the true and diverse nature of CFdom was understandable due to

the stigma associated with CFdom. Most (72.41%) participants talked about being discriminated

and misunderstood and those who did not feel this way still mentioned incidents in which they

were met with bewilderedness and disbelief. All participants reported that other CFers they met

online constantly talked about the discrimination, insults, and rejection they felt. Participants

were called weird, psychologically impaired, and selfish. Others were told that they would regret

their choice, that they would “go to hell,” and that they were juvenile and sick. They often felt

that they had to defend their choice and that others did not believe them and even pitied them.

Twenty-two subjects (75.86%) said they felt misunderstood and invalidated by others:

S16: “It's INCREDIBLY frustrating when people IRL don't understand me.”

S22: “Put it this way, I've never had a CFer accuse me of being psychologically disturbed

because I don't like and don't want kids....I've had that from a parent though, now tell me ,

how do you have a reasoned discussion with that attitude??”

Childfree Women 122


The negative social perception of CFdom had painful consequences. Almost half (44.83%)

of the participants admitted that they were concerned about revealing their choice not to parent in

certain settings:

S4: “I have to keep quiet about my CF beliefs when in professional settings or around my

family.”

S6: “I do not want people to judge me because of the choice I've made to be CF. Even if

they are not verbal about their thoughts and feelings, I just don't want to take the chance

because I've been hurt before.”

S22: “I worked for a US company for a while and was told to not mention anything about

my CF views to the higher ups as this could be 'career limiting'. Throw in being an atheist

then it seemed I'd be making Charles Manson look like Snow White. It's a pretty sad

state of affairs that something that's unimportant to my job could have a negative impact,

to me that's blatant discrimination and bigotry.”

Part of the problem in disclosing one’s CF status was the fact that parents perceived

CFdom as a personal attack on their choice to have children. More than a third of the participates

(37.93%) stated that parents were offended when they disclosed their CF status. Even people

who were supportive before becoming parents became offended and confrontational once they

had children of their own. CFers were called rude and insensitive if they questioned the idea that

having children was necessary or expressed their belief that one could be equally happy without

children. When CFers tried to explain their point of view, parents became defensive as if the

CFer attacked their personal decision to have children, even if the CFer explicitly expressed

Childfree Women 123


support and joy for the parents. In fact, part of the appeal of the CF website was the reassurance

that expressing CF ideas would not offend any parents. Receiving such conservative reactions

was a form of socialization, educating CF women about how child-centric society really was. As

such, this became an additional venue where their subjectivity was denied and their space limited

by others who refused to accept them:

S3: “I think until then I hadn't really twigged how child-centric the vast majority of people

were, and how defensive they were on the issue. After that, I basically retreated to posting

only on CF forums for a while. People seemed much more normal and less concerned with

being conventional.”

The social hardships of CF women were similar to those of other minorities. Much like

other minorities, they had limited social space, they were minimized to that one aspect of

themselves, robbed of legitimacy, and were constantly challenged. Three (10.34%) of the women

made the comparison between being CF and the LGBTQ community. They referred to disclosing

the CF status as “coming out,” mentioning the potential social and professional price to pay for

being CF. The unquestioned dogma that having children was natural, needed, and superior, left

CFers marginalized, outside of what others could identify as equally human:

S26: “I've often made the comparison to sexual minorities, we need peer support as well

and we need to hear that there are other people like us. This is no handicap, on the

contrary. Sometimes I wonder the thoughts of those people who are childfree, but never

communicate through these forums or other way online, and never discuss their

Childfree Women 124


childfreedom. What do they think of themselves? I even think they might lack something,

as they don't have the CF ’culture‘ in which to discuss various things with others.”

Finally, the last theme that supported this theoretical construct focused on the individual

differences in the pronatalist culture’s effect on CF women. Over a third of the women (37.39%)

spoke of being pressured to have children by their environment. Family and friends constantly

asked about the participants’ plans to have children and directly stated that participants would

regret their choice. However, family and friends were not the only people who felt at liberty to

tell participants that they should have children. Coworkers, doctors, psychologists, and complete

strangers also felt comfortable enough to push CFers to alter their decision:

S27: “I was constantly being asked when my husband and I were going to have kids. I had

one co-worker tell me that if we wanted kids we had better start trying ASAP because it

took her 4 years to get pregnant once she started trying. Another co-worker asked me if I

had kids, and when I told her no, she responded, ’Well that's OK, you still have plenty of

time, how old are you anyway, like 22?’ When I told her I was 28, she didn't even

respond, she just stared at me with this blank look on her face like she was shocked that a

28 year old didn't have kids yet!”

Although all participants were well aware of the stigma and the discrimination that not

having children entailed, they did not all experience it in the same way or to the same degree.

Internal factors such as character, preferences, and sensitivities changed the way CFers reacted to

their environment. But external issues were also important. Participants claimed that their age,

location, and life-situations either protected them or exposed them to pronatalist pressure.

Childfree Women 125


Almost a third of the participants (31.03%) named either age or life-situation when explaining

differences in how others reacted to their CFdom. When CF women were children or teenagers,

they were met with dismissive remarks and disbelief. As they grew older and reached their mid-

twenties, others started to be increasingly pushy. Similarly, finding a life partner, moving in with

a boyfriend, or getting married also invited increased intervention from others, who assumed that

these factors meant that the CFers were supposed to procreate. Finally, women in their late

thirties and early forties were not bothered by others about having children; however, they often

felt that others pitied them:

S20: “I certainly share the experience that the younger you are, the less seriously people

take your decision not to have children.”

S25:” When I got into my late twenties, the pressure mounted and when I got married, I

thought I had entered an alternate universe. The preoccupation of others with my uterus

and what I was to do with it and my life was unreal.”

S21: “Now me and my CF gal pals are all 40+, and we don't get the bingoes. I have

noticed that a lot of women participating in CF groups are younger — of ’childbearing

age,’ so to speak. They tend to be more vocal. That really is a tough time. I remember it

quite well. But once you get over the hump, it's smooth sailing!”

S29: “Once I was married, I was bombarded with ’you're next!’ or ’soon enough...’ and

couldn't ignore them. They started to bother me - was I broken? Was something wrong

with me? I Googled ’I don't want kids,’ and discovered the online communities.

Childfree Women 126


About a quarter of the women (24.14%) in this study mentioned location as another

factor contributing to the pressure to procreate. Living in rural areas, small towns, the American

bible-belt or other conservative areas, and army bases was associated with an increased push

from the surrounding population to have children. Living in big cities, liberal areas, and in places

known for their LGBTQ tolerance was associated with less pressure and more acceptance of

CFdom.

This last note was relates to CF women’s interest in other human rights and political

issues. It appears that when other minorities were respected and when other unusual aspects of

personality or life were accepted, CF individuals received more space and were treated as equal

subjects:

S21: “I've never been criticized for my choice or treated like an outcast either. But I also

live in a very large, liberal, gay-friendly, racially diverse city in the most urban part of

town. I specifically chose this area of town specifically because it has the most

singles/couples without kids.”

S7: “I live in a relatively small town and having kids is just what you do. I have friends in

New York and LA and people are single and in their 30s and not even close to thinking

about the decision to have kids, but where I live, it's just assumed you get married in your

20s and then have kids. It has been a hard environment to date in, and to be married in,

because everyone here assumes that's the goal.”

S27: “We lived in military housing and I also worked on post. The military is a very child-

centric community, and even though my husband and I were still fence-sitters at the time,

Childfree Women 127


I felt very out of place living there. I was surrounded by women who were my age or

younger and already had at least 2 or 3 kids.”

Only one participant mentioned that she both lived in a conservative area and that she did not

suffer much discrimination or pressure:

S18: “I live in an area of Canada that is extremely traditional, and though I do get ’bingo-

ed’ from time to time, many people are just genuinely curious about what has made me

decide not to procreate.”

Finally, six women (20.69%) mentioned men in relation to CFdom. Interestingly, they

were in disagreement regarding whether or not men suffered the same level of discrimination and

pressure as they did. Additionally, they were in disagreement regarding how men react to a

woman’s declaring she is CF. Of the six, three claimed that men were equally discriminated

against, two said it was easier for men, and one said that men were less accepting of a CF woman

than women and were more likely to tell her she would change her mind. These different

impressions imply that CF men cannot be “painted by the same brush” as S18 said about CF

women. CF people are part of a diverse group and they are surrounded with a variety of

environments. Their experience of themselves and others are colored by the unique road they

took in creating complete and fulfilling lives without children.

Clinical Implications

There is much to be gained in the psychology field from the present study’s results. The

present study not only provides in depth analysis of the experiences of women who identify as

Childfree Women 128


CF but also highlights what might be a healthy resolution of the female gender identity formation

in general. Psychoanalysis has repeatedly referred to wanting and having a child as the desired

outcome of grappling with the Oedipus complex and with separation and individuation

processes. Entertaining the idea that not wanting and not having children is an equally healthy

result of human development may help to create a new space for CF women and possibly expand

the choices that psychology as a field endorses as healthy.

It is clear that the CF women who participated in this study had, by and large, rich and full

lives. They did not report regrets, did not exhibit psychological pathologies, and seemed to live

relatively normal lives. Clinical psychology should be informed on this matter in order to

educate mental health professionals in psychology and other disciplines to not judge or

pathologize CF women. In addition, deciding to have a child should not be considered a healthy

and appropriate choice for all women.

Assuming that people who do not want children should have them is presumptuous and

likely offensive to CF women. Exploring both wanting and not wanting children with impartial

curiosity would allow people to make an emotionally informed choice regarding parenthood.

Those who want to parent would understand that it is a choice and those who do not want to have

children would understand that that is choice as well and would not be pushed to assume a role

that would negatively impact their lives and the lives of their future children.

In addition, therapists should be informed about the CF online culture and what it offers to

women. Any mental health provider might encounter a woman who either identifies as CF or is

currently debating whether or not to live CF. The pride, joy, and confidence that this study’s

Childfree Women 129


participants gained from their online interactions on CF websites was remarkable. Women who

feel defected or abnormal because they have been told for years that they are unfeminine, sick,

wrong, or childish should be referred by therapists to the web, where they can find a community

that will normalize their CFdom.

Therapists should also be aware of the diversity of CF websites available. Some websites

might not accept doubts or may focus mainly on “parents-bashing,” and/or rejecting religious

people. Mental health professionals should advise CF clients to explore the rich CF community

in order to identify the group or forum that best fits their needs. Especially in conservative areas,

during peak reproductive ages, or when a romantic relationship has been consolidated, therapists

should be aware of the tremendous pronatalist pressures CF women might suffer. Therapists

should not become yet another agent of the client’s child-centric surrounding. They should create

a safe haven in their practices and inform women about the support that the internet can offer

them.

Another clinical implication of this study is the powerful and positive effect of groups.

The social group of CF peers could aid women in accepting their own CF status and becoming

proud and self-aware. Therapists should consider group therapy for CF clients because many of

them do not know that there are other CFers out there. In areas where such a group might be hard

to facilitate, the internet can provide a tool that can help provide CF clients with peer support.

Therapists who are adventurous enough could potentially facilitate some group discussions

online and even run a group with the aid of a webcam and microphone. Although this might not

Childfree Women 130


be as rewarding as a face-to-face group, it would introduce CFers to each other, while letting

them know that CFdom is accepted by mental health professionals.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. In qualitative research, the theoretical

constructs obtained from one sample should not be automatically generalized to other samples

even if one reaches theoretical saturation. However, the theoretical constructs obtained from this

study can be either quantitatively or qualitatively studied in future studies. Additionally, the

subjects of this study were all involved in CF websites where communication was conducted in

the English language only. As such, CF groups that communicated in other languages were not

represented.

An additional limitation of the study is the fact that no conservative CF woman

participated in the study. The one subject who identified as “Very Conservative” dropped out of

the study and the majority of the remaining participants identified as having opinions that were

toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Although there were some self-identified “slightly

conservative” subjects, they might have felt uncomfortable sharing their views because of the

progressive trend of the conversations. In fact, many of the participants stated that CF websites

tended not to tolerate religious or conservative opinions and this research might have been

affected because of this issue.

Finally, the focus groups in this research were conducted on an online message board and

were done in writing. This was an unusual way to execute a qualitative study, and although it

carried with it many advantages, it also created limitations. One advantage was the sophistication

Childfree Women 131


of talking about a medium by using it. This method also contributed to the ease of recruitment as

it opened the study to women from all over the world, allowed for flexible participation times,

and created a high level of confidentiality. However, the interpersonal quality of face-to-face

interaction was lost and with it the immediacy of responding to one another. Moreover, the use

of focus groups as opposed to individual interviews might have influenced the nature of the

information revealed. The group process may have exerted undue influence on the participants to

agree with what was being said by more vocal members of the group, even if what was being

said was not consistent with their experience, especially for those conservative participants.

With that said, the internet mediated communication probably ameliorated these issues and

provided the ease and safety needed for all participants to express their views.

Hypotheses and Suggestions for Future Research

Qualitative research is designed to generate hypotheses. These hypotheses can then be

tested via subsequent studies. The data in this study can yield many potential directions for future

research. Specifically, the internet medium can be used in a myriad of ways when studying the

CF community.

The participants of my study reported that internet communication had a positive effect on

their identities, sense of self, confidence during interactions with non-CF others, and pride in

their choice. Therefore, I would hypothesize that CF women who partake in internet forums or

discussion groups dedicated to CFdom would show an increase in their self-esteem and

confidence in comparison to CF women who do not participate in such online communication. I

would also hypothesize that women who converse with other CFers online will be more likely to

Childfree Women 132


feel proud of their choice in comparison to CF women who do not use the Internet CF websites

for such interactions.

Participants in this study also said they felt proud and confident talking about their CF

status after communicating with other CFers online, whereas before they tended to be more shy,

hesitant, and apologetic. Thus, I would hypothesize that those who are active online would be

more likely to discuss their choice with others and to do so without being apologetic in

comparison to those who do not participate in online CF forums and websites.

The data collected in the current study provided me with a basis for a more nuanced

hypothesis, focusing on the interaction between being a CF woman and being a certain age, in a

specific life-stage, or living in a specific location. The women in the study mentioned that being

in reproduction age, being newly-wed, and living in a conservative environment was associated

with more pressure to procreate and with more criticism from non-CF others. I therefore

hypothesize that internet positive effect on CF users will be greater for women in the age range

of early 20s to late 30s in comparison to women that have reached menopause. Internet

communication will also have a greater positive effect on women in certain life stages (e.g.

marriage or moving in with a significant other) and in certain location.

Finally, because the participants in this study reported that interaction with religious

figures, institutions, and people was often offensive and rejecting, I would hypothesize that

having religious or conservative friends and family members will decrease the likelihood of

disclosing one’s CF status to others. Furthermore, I would hypothesize that CF women who are

part of a conservative religious environment, who would join an internet group dedicated to CF

Childfree Women 133


women in such a position, would experience an increase in their ability to disclose their CF

status and discuss it with their friends and family.

Finally, future studies could address some limitations of the qualitative study. Theoretical

constructs that emerge from a qualitative study cannot necessarily be generalized to other

samples. Several follow up studies could be conducted to complement the current study. First, a

similar qualitative study might be conducted for both CF men and CF couples. Additionally, this

study points to a connection between being CF and certain political tendencies. As such, a future

qualitative study could examine the political aspects of CF women’s lives.

Childfree Women 134


References

Agrillo, C., & Nelini, C. (2008). Childfree by choice: a review. Journal of Cultural Geography,

25(3), 347-363.

Auerbach, C.F., & Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative Data. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Bareket-Bojmel, L. and Shahar, G. (2011). Emotional and Interpersonal Consequences of Self-

Disclosure in a Lived, Online Interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,

Vol. 30, No. 7, 2011, pp. 732-759

Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of

Psychology, 55573-590.

Bartlett, J. (1995). Will you be a mother? Women who choose to say no. New York, NY: NYU

Press.

Basten, S. (2009). Voluntary childlessness and being childfree. Retrieved from

http://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/research/oxford-centre-for-population-research/papers-to-

download.html

Benjamin, J. (1987). The decline of the Oedipus complex. In J. M. Broughton (Ed.), Critical

theories of psychological development (pp. 211-244). New York: Plenum Press.

Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love. New York: Pantheon Books.

Benjamin , J. (1995), Like Subjects, Love Objects. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

Childfree Women 135


Benjamin, J. (2004). Beyond Doer and Done to: An Intersubjective View of Thirdness.

Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. 73, Issue 1.

Boyd, R. (1989). Minority status and childlessness. Sociological Inquiry, 59(3), 331-342.

Burkett, E. (2000). The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless. NY:

The Free Press.

Calhoun, L., & Selby, J. (1980). Voluntary Childlessness, Involuntary Childlessness, and Having

Children: A Study of Social Perceptions (Book Review). Family Relations, 29(2), 181.

Callan, V. J. (1983). Factors affecting early and late deciders of voluntary childlessness. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 119(2), 261-268.

Callan, V. J. (1984). Voluntary childlessness: Early articulator and postponing couples. Journal

of Biosocial Science, 16, 501–509.

Carter, D. (2005). Living in Virtual Communities: An ethnography of human relationships in

cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 148-167.

Chandler, D. (1997). Writing Oneself in Cyberspace. Retrieved from

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/homepgid.html

Chodorow, N. J. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of

gender. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press.

Chodorow, N. J. (2003). 'Too late': Ambivalence about motherhod, choice, and time. Journal Of

The American Psychoanalytic Association, 51(4), 1181-1198.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/homepgid.html

Childfree Women 136


Chodorow , N. & Contratto , S. (1989), The fantasy of the perfect mother. In: Feminism in

Psychoanalytic Theory, ed. N. Chodorow. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press ,

pp. 79-96.

Coffey, K. (2005). Selected factors related to a childfree woman's decision to remain childfree

and her self-identified sexual orientation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66.

Daniluk, J. C., & Herman, A. (1983). Children: Yes or no, a decision-making program for

women. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 62(4), 240-243.

Donat, O. (2007). Split pronatalism: The choice of life without children in Israel. (Master thesis,

Tel Aviv University at Ramat Aviv, Israel). Personal communication.

Donat, O. (2011). Taking a choice: Being childfree in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Miskal – Yediot Ahronot

books and Chemed books.

Defago, N. (2005). Childfree and loving it! NY: Vision.

Durham, W. (2008). The Rules-Based Process of Revealing/Concealing the Family Planning

Decisions of Voluntarily Child-Free Couples: A Communication Privacy Management

Perspective. Communication Studies, 59(2), 132-147.

Durham, W., & Braithwaite, D. (2009). Communication Privacy Management within the Family

Planning Trajectories of Voluntarily Child-Free Couples. Journal of Family

Communication, 9(1), 43-65.

Fast , I. (1984). Gender identity. A differentiation model. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Childfree Women 137


Finnigan, A. (2011). Everyone but U.S. Working Mother, 34(7), 77-82.

Finlon, C. (2002). Internet resources. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in

Practice, Policy & Research, 14(1), 99-107.

Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures On Psycho-Analysis. Standard Edition (Freuds), 22

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities

Press. (Original work published 1936)

Gerson, S. (2004). The relational unconscious: A core element of intersubjectivity,

thirdness, and clinical process. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73(1), 63-99.

Giles, D., Shaw, R., & Morgan, W. (2009). Representations of voluntary childlessness in the UK

press, 1990-2008. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(8), 1218-1228.

Gillespie, R. (2000). When no means no: Disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of

voluntary childlessness. Women's Studies International Forum, 23(2), 223-234.

Gillespie, R. (2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of voluntarily

childless women. Gender & Society, 17(1), 122-136.

Gold, J., & Wilson, J. (2002). Legitimizing the child-free family: The role of the family

counselor. The Family Journal, 10(1), 70-74.

Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for Cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the

1980s. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65-108.

Childfree Women 138


Henderson, S., & Gilding, M. (2004). `I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life:’

Trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society,

6(4), 487-506.

Hird, M. J. (2003). Vacant wombs: Feminist challenges to psychoanalytic theories of childless

women. Feminist Review, (75), 5-19.

Hird, M. J. (2004). Naturally queer. Feminist Theory, 5(1), 85-89.

Hird, M., & Abshoff, K. (2000). Women without children: A contradiction in terms? Journal of

Comparative Family Studies, 31(3), 347-366.

Houseknecht, S. (1977). Reference Group Support for Voluntary Childlessness: Evidence for

Conformity. Journal of Marriage & Family, 39(2), 285-292.

Houseknecht, S. (1979). Timing of the decision to remain voluntarily childless: Evidence for

continuous socialization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4(1), 81-96.

Ireland, M.S. (1993). Reconceiving motherhood: Separating motherhood from female identity.

New York: Guilford Press.

Kamalamani. (2009). Choosing to be childfree. Therapy Today, 20(6), 30-33.

Kenkel, W. (1985). The desire for voluntary childlessness among low-income youth. Journal of

Marriage & Family, 47(2), 509.

Childfree Women 139


Knafo, D. (2005). Castration fantasies, sexual difference, and mind–body matters. In:

Unconscious Fantasies and the Relational World, D. Knafo, & K. Feiner, (Ed) Hillsdale,

NJ: Analytic Press, pp. 125–142.

Knafo, D. (2009). Castration and Medusa: Orlan's Art on the Cutting Edge. Studies In Gender &

Sexuality, 10(3), 142-158.

Knafo, D. (2012). Alone Together: Solitude and the Creative Encounter in Art and

Psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 22(1), 54-71.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

La Mastro,V. (2001). Childless by choice? Attributions and attitudes concerning family size.

Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 231–244.

Lampman, C., & Dowling-Guyer, S. (1995). Attitudes toward voluntary and involuntary

childlessness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2), 213-222.

Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage Life Online: The Rise of the Instant-

Message Generation and the Internet's Impact on Friendships and Family Relationships.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=36

Letherby, G. (2002). Childless and bereft? Stereotypes and realities in relation to 'voluntary' and

'involuntary' childlessness and womanhood. Sociological Inquiry, 72(1), 7-20.

Childfree Women 140


Loewald, H. W. (1979). The waning of the oedipus complex. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 27, 751-775.

Mahler, M. S., & Furer, M. (1963). Certain Aspects of the Separation-Individuation

Phase. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 321-14.

McMillan, S., & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration

of how the internet has become an integral part of young people's lives. New Media &

Society, 8(1), 73-95.

Meyers, D. (2001). The rush to motherhood—Pronatalist discourse and women's autonomy.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 26, 735-773.

Miettinen, A., & Paajanen, P. (2005). Yes, No, Maybe: Fertility Intentions and Reasons Behind

Them Among Childless Finnish Men and Women. Yearbook of Population Research in

Finland, (41), 165-184.

Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Harvard University Press.

Cambridge, MA.

Mollen, D. (2006). Voluntarily childfree women: Experiences and counseling considerations.

Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28(3), 269-282.

Park, K. (2002). Stigma management among the voluntary childless. Sociological Perspectives,

45(1), 21-45.

Childfree Women 141


Parker , R. (1995). Mother love/mother hate: The power of maternal ambivalence. New

York: Basic Books.

Pelton, S. L., & Hertlein, K. M. (2011). A proposed life cycle for voluntary childfree couples.

Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 23(1), 39-53.

Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Research Note: Individual Differences in Perceptions of

Internet Communication. European Journal of Communication. 21(2), 213-226.

Remennick, L. (2000). Childless in the land of imperative motherhood: Stigma and coping

among infertile Israeli women. Sex Roles, 43(11/12), 821-841.

Rich , A. (1976). Of Woman Born. Motherhood as Experience and Institution. London: Virago.

Rowlands, I., & Lee, C. (2006). Australian Psychologist, 41(1), 55-59.

Russell, M., Hey, R. N., Thoen, G. A., & Walz, T. (1978). The Choice of Childlessness: A

Workshop Model. Family Coordinator, 27(2), 179.

Russo, N. (1979). Overview: Sex roles, fertility and the motherhood mandate. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 4(1), 7-15.

Safer, J. (1996). Beyond Motherhood: Choosing a life without children. New York. NY: Pocket

Books

Sand, S. (2007). Future considerations: Interactive identities and the interactive self.

Psychoanalytic Review, 94(1), 83-97.

Scott. L. (2009). Two is Enough. Berkeley. CA. Seal Press.

Childfree Women 142


Seccombe, K. (1991). Assessing the costs and benefits of children: Gender comparisons among

childfree husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 53(1), 191-202.

Somers, M. (1993). A Comparison of Voluntarily Childfree Adults and Parents. Journal of

Marriage & Family, 55(3), 643-650.

Steinberg, Z. (2005). Donning the Mask of Motherhood: A Defensive Strategy, a Developmental

Search. Studies in Gender & Sexuality, 6(2), 173-198.

Sullivan, N.& Stryker, S. (2009). King’s member, queen’s body: transsexual surgery, self-

demand amputation, and the somatechnics of sovereign power. In Sullivan, N. & Murray,

S. (Ed.), Somatechnics: Queering the Technologisation of Bodies. 49-64. Ashgate

Publishing. Farnham, United Kingdom.

Thelwall, M. (2009). Homophily in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science & Technology, 60(2), 219-231.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1-43.

Winnicott , D. W. (1947), Hate in the countertransference. In: Collected Papers: Through

Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis. New York: Basic Books , 1958 , pp. 194-203.

Winnicott, D. W. (1969). The child, the family, and the outside world. Oxford England: Penguin

Books.

Childfree Women 143


Wood, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, and culture

(2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Wyatt, S. (2008). Feminism, technology and the information society: Learning from the past,

imagining the future. Information, Communication & Society, 11(1), 111-130.

Childfree Women 144


Appendix A – Final list of repeating ideas generated from five groups

1. Early articulator: never wanted kids, known from young age

2. Becoming a self-aware CF was a journey

3. Assumed I would have kids/did not know there was an option not to have

4. Being a care taker for siblings or elderly family members

5. Sterilization

6. CFers might not have much else in common

7. Online CF sites a community in a very narrow sense/ not a place to make friends

8. CF is only one aspect of personality/life

9. Some CFs like kids, some don’t, some are neutral

10. Disliking and avoiding children and parents

11. Having complex feelings about motherhood

12. Having kids changes your identity

13. Having/not having children is a choice

14. A better sense of self and a more rounded identity due to online CF participation

15. Building self esteem, pride, and confidence through online participation

16. Responding differently to others IR due to the influence of CF online communities

17. Negative feelings towards own CF

18. Feeling self doubt

19. CFs can be ‘breeder pleasers’, apologetic, and self deprecating

20. Being careful or censoring when talking about CF outside of CF websites

21. Challenges of talking about CF IRL with family, friends, in-laws

22. Being honest IRL

23. CF IRL friends usually do not talk about CF

24. Feeling lucky to have support IRL

25. Not having a CF community IRL and feeling isolated and alienated

26. CF significant other

27. Dating people who want kids or have kids does not work/is a deal-breaker

28. IRL friendships change/lost when non-CFs start having kids

Childfree Women 145


29. “I am not alone” - Feeling relieved, understood, and validated

30. Receiving and giving support online

31. Relating and connecting to like minded others online

32. Online communication led to friendships IRL

33. Online sites as a source of information and advice

34. Discovering terminology, lexicon, and CF language

35. Speaking freely and honestly on CF websites

36. Being able to vent and rant online

37. Online CF sites are a safe haven

38. Humor

39. CF forums can be hostile and intolerant

40. There is no place for doubt about CF in forums

41. The same topics repeat themselves again and again on forums

42. Expressing oneself in writing

43. Internet provides anonymity

44. Internet provides access to many people from diverse locations

45. Open vs. closed forums / non-CF sites

46. Participation in online CF sites varies and fluctuates

47. Diverse and wide range of people, opinions, and types of forums

48. Open minded, non-conventional, and interesting people and conversations online

49. Being concerned about overpopulation

50. Objecting to the pronatalist culture and wanting political and economic change

51. Struggling with religion due to CF

52. Being more politically aware and involved

53. Wanting to contribute to CF advocacy and education in hope to legitimize CF

54. Suffered stigma, insults, attacks, or discrimination (Getting bingoed)

55. Feeling misunderstood, invalidated, not taken seriously by non-CFs

56. Fear of social or professional repercussions if CF status is exposed

Childfree Women 146


57. Non-CFers take CF status personally, as criticism of them, or feel threatened by CF

decision

58. Being CF is similar to sexual minority

59. Pressure from the child-centered environment to have children

60. It’s harder being CF in child-rearing ages/certain stages of life (after getting married)

61. Where a person lives has everything to do with it (little places, army bases)

62. Men’s experience of CF is different

Childfree Women 147


Appendix B – Final list of Themes

Becoming a self-aware CF is a process

1. Early articulator: never wanted kids, known from young age

2. Becoming a self-aware CF was a journey

3. Assumed I would have kids/did not know there was an option not to have

4. Being a care taker for siblings or elderly family members

5. Sterilization

CF is just 1 aspect of personality

6. CFers might not have much else in common

7. Online CF sites a community in a very narrow sense/ not a place to make friends

8. CF is only one aspect of personality/life

Mixed feelings about kids and parents among CF

9. Some CFs like kids, some don’t, some are neutral

10. Disliking and avoiding children and parents

11. Having complex feelings about motherhood

12. Having kids changes your identity

13. Having/not having children is a choice

Online forums has a positive influence on self-development and identity

14. A better sense of self and a more rounded identity due to online CF participation

15. Building self esteem, pride, and confidence through online participation

16. Responding differently to others IR due to the influence of CF online communities

Negative self-view because of CF status

17. Negative feelings towards own CF

Childfree Women 148


18. Feeling self doubt

19. CFs can be ‘breeder pleasers’, apologetic, and self deprecating

Honesty vs. self-censorship when talking about CF in real life

20. Being careful or censoring when talking about CF outside of CF websites

21. Challenges of talking about CF IRL with family, friends, in-laws

22. Being honest IRL

IRL CF friendships and support/ or lack thereof

23. CF IRL friends usually do not talk about CF

24. Feeling lucky to have support IRL

25. Not having a CF community IRL and feeling isolated and alienated

Being CF affects dating and close relationships

26. CF significant other

27. Dating people who want kids or have kids does not work/is a deal-breaker

28. IRL friendships change/lost when non-CFs start having kids

Online forums are a source of mutual support, camaraderie, advice and information

29. “I am not alone” - Feeling relieved, understood, and validated

30. Receiving and giving support online

31. Relating and connecting to like minded others online

32. Online communication led to friendships IRL

33. Online sites as a source of information and advice

34. Discovering terminology, lexicon, and CF language

Online CF forums are safe, comfortable places to speak freely

Childfree Women 149


35. Speaking freely and honestly on CF websites

36. Being able to vent and rant online

37. Online CF sites are a safe haven

38. Humor

Negative characteristics of CF forums

39. CF forums can be hostile and intolerant

40. There is no place for doubt about CF in forums

41. The same topics repeat themselves again and again on forums

Online communication’s special characteristics

42. Expressing oneself in writing

43. Internet provides anonymity

44. Internet provides access to many people from diverse locations

Online forums provide access to a diverse group of people and conversations

45. Open vs. closed forums / non-CF sites

46. Participation in online CF sites varies and fluctuates

47. Diverse and wide range of people, opinions, and types of forums

48. Open minded and interesting people and conversations online

Political, moral, and legal concerns regarding children and CF

49. Being concerned about overpopulation

50. Objecting to the pronatalist culture and wanting political and economic change

51. Struggling with religion due to CF

52. Being more politically aware and involved

53. Wanting to contribute to CF advocacy and education in hope to legitimize CF

Childfree Women 150


Stigma , discrimination, and misunderstanding are associated with CF

54. Suffered stigma and discrimination (Getting bingoed)

55. Feeling misunderstood, invalidated, not taken seriously by non-CFs

56. Fear of social or professional repercussions if CF status is exposed

57. Non-CFers take CF status personally, as criticism of them, or feel threatened by CF

decision

58. Being CF is similar to sexual minority

The pronanlist pressure affect CFers in different ways

59. Pressure from the child-centered environment to have children

60. It’s harder being CF in child-rearing ages/certain stages of life (after getting married)

61. Where a person lives has everything to do with it (little places, army bases)

62. Men’s experience of CF is different

Childfree Women 151


Appendix C – Informed Consent

Child-Free Women Online Communication Study

LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY/ C.W. Post Campus

Informed Consent Form for Human Research Subjects

You are being asked to volunteer in a research study called “Internet Communication among

Child-Free Women: A Qualitative Study” This study is being conducted by Adi Avivi, M.S., a

doctoral student in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program at Long Island University, C.W.

Post Campus. Ms. Avivi is under the supervision of Danielle Knafo, PhD., Professor of

Psychology in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program. This study is being conducted in

order to fulfill Ms. Avivi‘s degree requirement.

As a participant, you will be asked to log in to a discussion group website created for the study.

The site will be open for your use for one week and you will be able to sign in at any time and

write and discuss your experiences of communicating online about your child-free lifestyle. The

purpose of this study is to produce insight into the experience of women who choose not to have

children and who are actively conversing about this aspect of their lives on an online platform. It

is also hoped that this study will ask important questions regarding the process of identity

formation and self-exploration regarding the child-free lifestyle, fill a void in the literature,

contribute to the literature on the social forums available to child-free women in our era to

communicate with likeminded others, and provide a foundation for possible quantitative research

that can ask more specific and focused questions and test hypotheses regarding this population.

You are eligible to participate in this study because you are a child-free woman who actively

communicates with others online regarding this issue.

As a participant, you will be asked to fill out an anonymous demographic questionnaire (please

feel free to answer only those questions you feel comfortable answering) and participate in an

Childfree Women 152


online discussion group with approximately four of your peers. The discussion group website

will be open for one week. You will be able to sign in multiple times during that week and chat

with the other participants of the study, leave messages, and respond to others’ messages. The

date and time of each group will be determined based on participants’ availability and

convenience. The investigator will be asking you to discuss questions that will be posted on the

message board. When a new question will be posted you will be notified so that you can go read

it and respond.

You may experience strong emotions while conversing about this issue, as others may challenge

you or disagree with you. In the event that you will experience distressing emotions due to the

study, a psychological referral will be available to you.

While the direct benefit to you for participation in the study will be a $10 gift card and

participation in a ruffle for a $50 gift card, it is reasonable to expect that the results may provide

information of value for the field of women's psychology.

Your identity as a participant will remain confidential. Your name will not be included in any

forms, questionnaires, etc. This consent form is the only document identifying you as a

participant in this study; it will be stored securely in C.W. Post’s psychological service center in

a locked file room accessible only to C.W. Post’s Doctoral Program Students and Faculty in a

locked box accessible only to the main researcher of this study, Ms. Adi Avivi. Data collected

may be destroyed at the end of a legally prescribed period of time or stored for further research.

Results of the study, including and quotations from or references to any contribution made by

participants, will be reported anonymously within the dissertation text. If you are interested in

seeing these results, you may contact the principal investigator: Adi Avivi, M.S. 6174604054

[email protected]

If you have questions about the research you may contact the investigator, Adi Avivi or the

faculty sponsor, Dr. Danielle Knafo, Phone: (516) 299-3893 Email: [email protected]. If

you have questions concerning your rights as a subject, you may contact the Executive Secretary

of the Institutional Review Board, Ms. Kathryn Rockett at (516) 299-2523.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Childfree Women 153


Your participation in this research is voluntary. Refusal to participate or discontinue

participation at any time will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise

entitled.

Your signature indicates you have fully read the above text and have had the opportunity to ask

questions about the purposes and procedures of this study. Your signature also acknowledges

receipt of a copy of the consent form as well as your willingness to participate.

___________________________________________

Typed/Printed Name of Participant

___________________________________________ _________________

Signature of Participant Date

__________________________________________

Typed/Printed Name of Investigator

__________________________________________ __________________

Signature of Investigator Date

Childfree Women 154


Appendix D – Research concern and questions

Research Concern

What is your experience talking about being childfree online?

Research Questions

Main Question:

What has it been like to talk to others on an internet website (message boards, Facebook, blogs,

etc.) about being child-free?

Follow Up Questions:

1) Please talk about your experience discussing your life as a child-free woman to other people.

2) In what ways have talking online about being childfree impacted your experience of being a

child-free woman?

3) In which setting or settings did you talk about being child-free (family, workplace, therapy,

other social arenas)?

4) How have your actions or feelings been affected by talking online about being child-free?

5) How has your online community affected your identity as a child-free woman?

6) Were there any differences in your discussion about being child-free between your online

community and other settings?

Childfree Women 155


Appendix E – Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic Questionnaire Participant Code: …………

1) Have you ever completed a pregnancy?

Yes/No

2) As an adult, have you ever participated in the raising of a child – yours or others’? (Aside

from being in a helping position of sibling rearing)

Yes/no

Potential participants for this study must be females who have never completed a pregnancy and

never parented a child.

If you are a child-free woman who is living child-free, never completed a pregnancy,and was

never in a parental role (aside from helping in the rearing of siblings), please continue answering

this questionnaire.

3) What is your age? ______________

4) What is your sexual orientation?

a. Homosexual

b. Heterosexual

c. Bisexual

d. Other: …………….

Childfree Women 156


5) What is your marital status?

a. Single

b. Married

c. Divorced

d. Widowed

6) You consider yourself:

a. Asian/Pacific Islander

b. Caucasian/White

c. Indigenous or Aboriginal

d. Native American

e. Multiracial:………….

f. Black

g. Hispanic

h. Middle Eastern

i. Other: ……………….

7) What is your religious affiliation?

Childfree Women 157


a. None

b. Animist

c. Buddhist

d. Christian

e. Hindu

f. Jewish

g. Muslim

h. Taoist

i. Other: ……………….

8) Which of the following best describes your political orientation (please circle

one)?

A. Very liberal

B. Somewhat liberal

C. Slightly liberal

D. Neither liberal nor conservative

E. Slightly conservative

Childfree Women 158


F. Somewhat conservative

G. Very conservative

9) What is your education level?

A. Did not finish high school

B. High School diploma or equivalent

C. Undergraduate Degree

D. Graduate Degree

E. Other: ________________________________________________

10) What is your annual household income?

A. Less than $10,000

B. 10,000-20,000$

C. 21,000-30,000$

D. 31,000-40,000$

E. 41,000-50,000$

F. 51,000-60,000$

G. 61,000-80,000$

Childfree Women 159


H. 81,000-100,000$

I. 101,000-150,000$

J. More than 150,000$

11) Please specify your line of work ________________________________

Childfree Women’s Online Discussions of the Choice to Not Have Children

Documents

Transcript of Childfree Women’s Online Discussions of the Choice to Not Have Children