Why This Systematic Devaluation of the Childless and Childfree Needs To Stop

How the babies not in the womb are the new elephant in the room

Come on, media, stop with your pile-on of the childfree and childless! You’ve made your jibes. Now move on.

Last week an article titled “Should we tax the childless?” was published in The Times. It went viral and initiated debates across the world. I particularly enjoyed the 2-hour radio call-in hosted by Sangita Myska on LBC.

This week an article titled “Childfree travelers should be banned from going on holiday this summer” was published in The Telegraph.

Yes, the headings are clickbait. But the substance of both articles is dangerous and worrying.

Pronatalism at its best!

Many read the titles and go about their day with a refreshed view that people without children are a scourge on society — these articles fuel hate.

People without children are a marginalized group. They are already the target of ridicule, criticism, demonizing, and oppression. This pervasive attack occurs whether they are childless or childfree. Yes, semantics matter, and there is a difference.

Childless refers to people who want children, but circumstances have prevented them from having children.

Childfree refers to people who intentionally choose not to have children.

Think about it; no journalist would get away with those articles if the subject were about any other minority group. Just substitute the terms “childless” and “childfree” with any other word referring to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or age, and you will recognize the obscenity.

So why is it acceptable to speak of people without children in this manner? Clue — it’s not!

Not only is it insulting and suppressive to people without children. But it encourages a divide between parents and non-parents. It reinforces the power hierarchy that is very much in existence globally. This system places people without children at the bottom of this hierarchy. It sends the message that people without children are worthless and irrelevant.

Articles like this hold people without children down in the hope they will capitulate. Serve their purpose by having children — if they can!

This type of media nonsense lays blame on people without children.

We live in a world that scarily believes more children are the answer to all the global problems. Therefore, those who don’t have children bear the brunt of deluded accusations.

Should We Tax the Childless

Paul Morland is an expert demographer (apparently). He recently antagonized society with the question “should we tax the childless” as the title of a recent article.

The simple answer is, “no, you insolent and misguided twerp, we should not.” But let’s look deeper into his article.

Paul Morland is a numbers person. He is not an expert in society construction or community building. But behind his figures are real-life people living in the harsh reality we have today.

And life is more nuanced than simple numbers. Life is about relationships and how we interact with one another. We build our connections upon firmly established concepts. But perhaps we need to reframe and rework these concepts.

If we value kinship, then let’s structure society around this. A Dutch care home is experimenting with housing students with the elderly. It would be great to see a rise in intergenerational communities.

If well-being goes up and we improve the dire situation of the environment, maybe the economy can afford to shrink?

My point here is this. There are many solutions and options for our soon-to-be top-heavy population. Yet, our friend Paul here reports a decrease in population growth, panics, and sets out to blame those without children and tries incentivizing us to breed like rabbits!

I have 7 critical issues with Paul Morland’s article. Are you sitting comfortably?

7 Key Issues

Feel free to read the article in question alongside this piece and share your thoughts in the comments.

You can find it here.

#1 Semantics

As I have already outlined, there is a massive difference in the terms childless and childfree — language matters. Not everyone without children is childless. Nor is everyone childfree. You would think an expert in demographics would know this!

#2 Sir David Attenborough

He refers to Sir David Attenborough in a condescending and undermining tone. Sir David Attenborough has dedicated his life to environmental science.

Sir Attenborough is a patron of Population Matters. He says:

“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”

Sir Attenborough is a leading voice in controlling the population explosion. He goes against everything Paul Morland is suggesting in his article. Paul Morland mentions Sir Attenborough in a bid to discredit and disrespect him. This is absolutely unnecessary.

#3 Adopt a “grow our own” policy

The “grow our own” policy is a blatant anti-immigration statement. One minute, politicians say Britain is “full up”; the next, we are being encouraged — no — shamed, into increasing the population.

Which is it? Or does it depend on who it is? This policy is a revoltingly racist statement!

#4 It’s all about the economy

“A shortage of births today only manifests itself as a shortage of workers in a couple of decades.”

This statement proves we are all just numbers and worker ants. There is no thought as to why there may be a shortage of births. Nor is there an acknowledgment of the rising cost of living.

On the one hand, people are encouraged only to have children they can afford, and now they are being shamed into reproducing with reckless abandon irrespective of finances.

We know what the next few decades will look like. We know we have an aging population. We don't put out a fire with more flames!

How about we radicalize our social constructs instead of pressurizing and shaming people (especially women) who can’t have children or choose not to.

#5 Telegraph from the Queen, anyone?

“Create a “pro-natal” culture, including a national day to celebrate parenthood and a telegram from the Queen whenever a family has a third child. Public figures can lead the way with words and actions (the prime minister, with his seven known offspring, has a track record in this regard).”

There is so much wrong with this paragraph; I don’t know where to start.

Firstly, our culture is already heavily steeped in pronatalism.

It’s also a little bit embarrassing that Paul Morland doesn’t know about Father’s Day and Mother’s Day (in case you are reading this, Paul, in the UK, these dates fall on 19th June and 19th March, respectively).

Suggesting a telegram from the Queen to incentivize a third child is pretty offensive to parents. Can you imagine the conversation:

“I’m not sure if we can afford a third child. Do we even have the time or mental capacity to provide enough care and love? It’s hard enough with 2!”

“Yeah, but babe, we get a telegraph from the Queen.”

“Oh yeah, quick, impregnate me now!”

And honestly, if a telegraph from the Queen does serve as an incentive to have a third child… that poor child!

And as for his mention of our former (it feels good to write that) Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He refers to BJ as a leading figure in reproduction with both his actions and words! What utter nonsense.

For those who aren’t aware, Boris Johnson has at least 8 (not 7, as outlined in the offending article) offspring — that we know of — to 4 different women!

I wonder how many of them he has changed the nappies of, picked up from school, or taught to drive! His philandering ways are not to be held up in reverence. He has taken a scattergun approach to reproduction without a care for the consequences or the lives he created.

So no, don’t be like BoJo!

#6 He suggests incentivizing reproduction and punishing those who don’t reproduce!

“Introduce a “negative child benefit” tax for those who do not have offspring. This may seem unfair on those who can’t or won’t have children, but it recognises that we all rely on there being a next generation and that everyone should contribute to the cost of creating that generation. Use the funds to fix the UK’s broken, expensive early-years care system.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

Let’s spell this out clearly. Throughout the UK, we already pay our taxes towards health care, education, public services, and local council. This financial sharing is crucial in society. I put more money into a system than I will ever redeem for myself. And this is ok. I am in favor of this. I believe this is the right thing to do.

I already support other people’s children with my tax.

Yes, the cost of childcare in the UK is excruciating. But that is a governmental problem and not the financial responsibility of people without children. Sort it out government!

Heck, some people are childfree because they can not afford to have children! They have weighed the associated costs and made the mature and challenging decision not to have children.

Whatever angle you view this suggested tax from, it is insensitive to the childless, offensive to the childfree, and downright unethical.

“Oh, hello there, Mrs. Smith. I’m so sorry to hear you have just lost your baby through stillbirth. Now you have no living children, don’t forget to pay your tax.”

At what point would this tax kick in? And to who? If you have a child but give it up for adoption, have you fulfilled your childbearing “duty”?

#7 Mansplaining

“Educate people that getting pregnant becomes more difficult with age.”

When he says “people,” he means women. And actually, Mr. Morland, we know! We women have it ingrained in us from a young age that our fertility diminishes with age.

Strangers tell us our biological clock is ticking (fun fact, the biological clock doesn’t exist). It sounds like you have just discovered that it gets more unfavorable with age to become pregnant and want to share your enlightenment. Well thanks, but bog off!

We already know it gets more difficult with age to fall pregnant.

You know, many people in the “older” category who don’t have children are choosing not to have children. They aren’t just waiting or delaying it. They are simply not signing up for it in the first place. Gasp, shock horror — imagine that.

The Deeper Damage

The damage from these articles is insidious. It’s not a case of yesterday’s news is today’s chip paper.

Articles like Paul Morland’s feed into the power hierarchy that places people without children in the irrelevant and worthless pile right at the bottom. It pedals a nonsensical and unworkable tax to trigger a more significant divide between parents and non-parents. It serves to try and shame those without children into action.

This article will affect relationships and friendships. It builds divides and chasms in an already polarized world. A world that is already too quick to pit parents and non-parents against each other!

This article speaks of shifting resources from one group in society (non-parents) to a “more deserving” group (parents). Unethical, immoral, and downright horrendous!

Let me tell you; the childless community would love nothing more than to have children. Some have faced bankruptcy with the cost of (failed) IVF. Talk of a punitive tax on top of their childlessness is monstrous!

I’d love to know how the cost of raising a child compares to this threatened tax!

Wrapping up

Perhaps the most dangerous thing is this talk of reproduction incentives and punitive measures for those who don’t reproduce. There are echoes of the Roe v. Wade overturn!

There is a drip effect, a gentle introduction of ideas and notions. We say it is ridiculous, but this article has paved the way for others. Within a week, the Telegraph published their satirical attack on non-parents. I won’t waste my breath on this one.

But where does it stop?

Please leave our uteruses alone!

Show compassion to those who want children but can’t have them. Accept that many people simply don’t want children. And stop trying to force parents to have more children. Enough already!

Let’s celebrate the diverse society we live in.

It’s high time we looked after the children we already have instead of focusing on those not yet born.

Thanks for reading Ali Hall

If you want to read other articles on a similar topic you can find them here: