If that’s a Julie Bindel impersonator doing a parody of a Julie Bindel piece, she f****** nailed it.

My wife always wanted to have children but I was sceptical of the benefits having seen the financial burden it placed on parents and the fact that often children were not automatically grateful to their parents – particularly where those parents were too keen to perpetuate their world view in their offspring.

However, seeing the care and comfort given by my wife to her father and mother during their declining years and the protection we provided to them against the indifference and neglect of the health and welfare system towards them compared to the elderly without children to try to keep social welfare and the hospital system up to the mark I am thankful we have children.

It is I think unrealistic to believe that the pension, welfare and hospital system make the need of children redundant. The love of children for their parents properly fostered is still the best support system in old age compared to the uncertain and indifferent kindness of strangers.

In any case to bring up children well requires a level of altruistic love and sacrifice of selfish desires that I have found to be self enhancing in a way that pursuing good works for the benefit of strangers can never be. Julie Bindel’s desire to make the world a better place according to her lights can never reproduce that since the impulse she exhibits is the more selfish one of bending the world to her will so far as she can achieve it. In any case it is possible to pursue both aims – it is not an either or choice.

That said, of course, we have many women friends who are childless and we would never chide them for the choices they have made. The world of mankind will continue whether they breed or not.

I was much older than most when we had our child. I never wanted to, but married a younger woman who did. I acquiesced. I remember trying to love our son right after he was born, but the love wasn’t there. I didn’t carry him to term as my wife did. I had no connection. Then one day I went into his room to “look at the baby” as parents often weirdly do, and suddenly a love so profound and all encompassing washed over me that I was almost breathless. And immediately it occurred to me that this is how my parents loved me, and had I known that, I would have treated them differently. And that thought gave way to another: oh, this is how God loves me. Only infinitely. And, for a long time standing there next to my son’s crib, I cried tears of joy and wonder. And I have never been the same.

I have a friend in work who once said that parents were selfish because his tax money paid for their children’s schooling. So I asked him, would he like to work in an organization that never replaced retiring staff, leaving more and more work for those left in the organization? He said no. Then, I asked him, given you need to hire new staff every now and then, should you spend nothing on their training, leaving them clueless on the job and hence, leaving more and more work for the more established employees? He said no. I asked him, should new staff be mentored and guided by experienced employees? He said yes, he had benefited from this himself. Then I pointed out that a country is nothing but a very large organization. He said no more.

I decided at the age of 15 that I never wanted children – I am now 52 and have never regretted that decision. I married the love of my life aged 19 and we had 33 happy years together until his sudden death at Christmas. We lived in various parts of the UK, went on working holidays to The Netherlands three times, and generally had fun doing exactly what we wanted without having to consider the baggage that comes with children. I too have been called selfish on several occasions for not wanting children – given how overpopulated the UK is, I would argue that those who have several children are actually the selfish ones. People do not have children for unselfish reasons – if they were truly unselfish then they would adoopt one of the many children without parents who desperately need a home. I do not criticise those who have chosen to have children to their face – I wish they would offer me the same courtesy

Women who speak their truth about why they didn’t want children will always be dumped on by parents. What maddens Bindel, or women like me who wanted children but couldn’t have them, is the way in which society assumes that parents are automatically better people than non-parents because they are raising the next generation. Parents sometimes treat having children like it is a societal obligation, like paying taxes or obeying laws. Becoming a parent doesn’t make you a better person than a non-parent, it just makes you a parent. If you are a GOOD parent, as well as a good overall citizen, then that’s what matters. There are plenty of non-parents who are good people because they are good children, good friends, and good citizens who make valuable contributions to helping their family and their society and future generations. Just think about the recent report on the problem of 6-year-olds entering school in the UK who are not potty trained and are incapable of eating with a spoon or drinking from a cup or even talking. Childless teachers who have to deal with these children and help prepare them for school are doing the work that their parents should have done, and on a massive scale. As one teacher said, if a parent thinks its a pain to have to potty train one 6-year-old, try potty training a classroom of 30. Bindel is quite right to argue that her work for women in the past and future should be valued just as highly as the work of one woman raising one child, especially since she has been a champion for childcare for poor women, a benefit that she will never need, so DON’T call her selfish. I totally relate to how Bindel grits her teeth when the “Do you have children?” question pops up, because when you say “No” parents feel completely entitled to judge or advise or frankly just act bitchy and vent about “how lucky we are we don’t have children” without thinking for one moment that it is none of their business whether or why we don’t have children. As as for being lucky we don’t have children, parents don’t notice how lucky they are that they get to have something good and yet complain endlessly about it. We don’t put up with rich people complaining about what a pain it is to have a lot of money, but I can’t tell you haw many times I’ve felt compelled to listen to a mother of a couple of healthy kids, with a decent husband, nice house, childcare, and an interesting job complain to me about what a misery their life is. Hopefully, one of these days I’ll get the nerve to tell a woman like this to complain to someone with the same problems and not to me.

It’s SO EASY, Ms. Bindel: You should not be judged “selfish” to live a child-free life and those of us who chose to have children should not be judged “selfish” for our choice to become parents. Yet you judge intentional parents, across the board, as having been “selfish” to have children.
Pretty much every action any human takes—including devoting oneself to activism—can be fairly characterized as “selfish.” We do what we want to do because we want to do it. You are not a saint and neither am I.

“I know exactly what I’m missing and I want none of it.”
Sorry but you’re just … wrong.
I never wanted kids for a long time for pretty superficial reasons; it looked hard, messy, expensive and it made people boring.
But then I had kids and I realised I’d known nothing about what having kids is actually about. It changes a parent in a deep way that’s simply not knowable until you’ve done it. So you can have your opinion and defend it, but at the end of the day you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Is this author capable of writing anything that doesn’t complain of her being stigmatized in some way? Those Crouch End parents of “Barnaby” and “Clementine” she’s derisively describing probably aren’t thinking about her at all. Perhaps that’s why she’s so miffed.

The notion an activist cares more about society than a parent is laughable. It reflects a simple “change the world” mindset reflective of a college student but shockingly juvenile to see expressed by a grown woman.

Any one person has the most impact on their immediate circle, with diminishing impact on circles farther afield. I have little impact on the federal government (I’m an American) but can make my wife’s day by picking up her favorite ice cream. And people are in turn impacted most by their immediate surroundings (does a shooting down the street or the war in Ukraine have more impact on your psyche?). This goes doubly so with children, who are impressionable and learning something new each day. They will look to their immediate caretaker and imitate what they see. There is a bevy of research supporting the claim that personality traits are formed most strongly in the early years.

Add all this together and you can see that society is formed by the boring, mundane work of parenting. Julie thinks her activism will shape future generations, but they will encounter her work (if at all) as a tertiary cause in their development. A mother or father will be shaping the child from before birth (by presence or by neglect).

Like it or not, unchosen, primal bonds are more impactful than chosen bonds. You can leave friends when they annoy you, but family is (or is meant to be) the stable background you grow from. Why does Julie suppose we say “mommy issues” or “daddy issues” but not “friend issues?”

Society, therefore, is composed of people who have been shaped by parents, and perhaps influenced at a later date by activists. Yet Julie somehow believes activists are the ones shaping society. And, contra Julie’s silly claim, it is more selfless to shape society through mundane, repetitive work than to seek to do so through grandiose campaigning, which just might serve to help your brand as well.

Finally, Julie says she knows exactly what she is missing and knows it’s not worth it. By definition she does not. Using her logic I know exactly what it is like to be a lesbian activist and can tell her what it is like.

If you don’t want kids, that is fine. But parenthood is the bedrock of a stable society, and if you are going to attack it, better have real arguments, not this trite nonsense.

Great article. Great analysis.

Well said

A central goal of feminism is for women to have the choice to lead their lives they way they want to. The author has chosen not to have children. That is all.

” … no one actually breeds because they are worried about who will care for elderly people in the future.” Er …. yes they do. In countries without a welfare state raising a child that will support his or her parents in their old age is the principal motivation. It is also often the reason why parents prefer sons where daughters become part of another family on marrying.

I used to live near Croosh-aund.
Anyway, her point appears to be that a lifetime of unselfish service is
negated by consanguinity (or by adoption).  The trite assumption that
the parent is only acting in an unselfish manner in the
expectation that the child will return the favour in the parent’s old
age. In reality, parents know well that most children move far away
from home, or emigrate, and in any event, live their own lives. Some
kids do look out for elderly parents; many more do not, and do not
even visit. No parent does parenting primarily, or at all, for the
slim chance of payback 40 or 50 years later, ffs.

There is a joy in any life of unselfish service. People who do
community service – looking after elderly neighbours etc – derive a
happiness benefit comparable to that which parents get.  Simply,
unselfishness makes us feel good. If you want to get all shrinky
about it, it’s just a subtler form of pleasure. We derive great
satisfaction from voluntary work, community work, feeding the cat,
looking after our kids, helping out with the local amateur sports
team, visiting elderly neighbours etc etc.

You could make a logical argument that, since all unselfish acts make
us feel good, they really are “selfish”.

It nonetheless is a demented argument. The reality is that the
rewards of unselfish service are deferred, and weigh lightly in the
balance against, in the case of dedicated parenting, a lifetime spent
putting yourself second. As a new parent, especially if your child is
breastfed, and you have say 3 kids, you essentially are sleep deprived
for several years. A breast fed child can require feeding every 90
minutes, or more, round the clock. You may wish to move to a
different country or for a different job. But you won’t once your
kids start school, as you want to give them location stability –
important for their developing friendships and education. You will
stick with a boring well paid job you hate because it keeps them
clothed, fed and housed; whereas, as a single person, you’d probably
have taken a year out or done something more personally fulfilling.
You may have your eye on the last biscuit in biscuit tin, but you’ll
instead give it your child. You stop focussing on your own prowess at
e.g. drama, music, sports etc, and you instead mentor the kids. You
derive more satisfaction from their progress than from your own, which
latter doesn’t really matter any more. After work every day, you
spend 2 hours assisting them with their homework. If they’re ill, you
raise hell at the local medical centre to get them sorted, and you
ignore your own numerous aches and pains. You cook for them every day
(they’re fed first, you often just eat their leftovers), and yep, they
have a menu : )  You’re also of course their taxi driver, to endless
friends’ parties and sports and music classes. Essentially,
parenthood is a lifetime of putting yourself second. Between work and
parenting, you can in some ways almost cease to exist. You may choose
to engage in sophistry to construe a lifetime of parenting service as
“selfish”, and I can of course see the undergraduate appeal of your
“argument”.

I do wonder at your motivations though. I have met resentful people,
childless by choice, who resent the “selfish” tag that can accompany
deliberate childlessness and who engage in a spot of compensatory
mental gymnastics to dim the halo of those morally smug parents.

The other point, which you miss entirely, is that a functioning
society depends on a supply of well-adjusted people. Any Chief of
Police knows that the first 2 years of a child’s life are essential –
a damaged child, who has not had sufficient attention from
emotionally-absent, self-absorbed parents, will end up being a problem
adult. Moreover, once parenting kick-starts you into a path of less
selfishness, you’re more likely to become more socially engaged also.
We for instance assist at local sports clubs whereby parents volunteer
to train all the local kids, weekly. It’s an unpaid and thankless
task and you could be putting your feet up on a Friday evening. But
you do it because the act of caring for your own kids simply gives you
greater empathy with both other parents and with the fragility and
preciousness of their own kids. Similarly, I noted how, when caring
for terminally ill relatives up to their deaths, it was always the
relatives with kids who would be there for the long haul of night
shifts and cleaning bed pans; whereas the single relatives, with more
free time, would breeze in with some grapes and some platitudes and
then head off to the pub as they needed to attend to the urgent
promptings of their own genitals. Of course as a married person,
you’re often too knackered to shag anyway lol.

Having children is a wonderful thing.

Interestingly, I was a teenager in the ’70s, and was inculcated with a feminism that decried anything to do with domesticity as a trap and a prison, and that seemed uninterested in motherhood. I was surprised to find motherhood my greatest joy. And I certainly don’t buy into the “child-centred” lark, whether at home or at school.

If having children is selfish, who is it that Julie is campaigning to create a better world for?

The selfish? Or those she believes shouldn’t have been born?

I never thought much about having kids, sort of assumed I would, but carefully took the pill as I couldn’t afford them. Then my sister and friends started having kids and none of them seemed happy. They also seemed quite nasty to their kids as they were so stressed. I realised I wouldn’t ever be able to afford to be a stay at home or even part time working mum and doubted my ability to work full time and be a good parent. I love kids, but also I didn’t NEED them in a way my friends seemed to. So I haven’t had them. I think I have missed out on certain experiences but I have a lot of love in my life and at least I haven’t been a shit parent like a lot of people.

What a dreary & joyless view of the world: children are simply a ‘cost’ in time & money.
She says she knows what she’s missing, but she very clearly doesn’t. Not surprising – until I became a parent I didn’t know either. But just don’t go telling us all you do know, please.
And apparently having children gets in the way of “making the world a better place”. Just what a hardcore political activist would say. But for most people, raising well-behaved, kind, responsible children is probably doing more to help the world than anything else.

My condolences to Julie. We only get one life and we don’t get to choose much of what shapes our existence. So she ends up angry, alienated, and living in one of the most psychologically and physically unhealthy environments in the world. I hope that she can find some solace by chanting her ideological mantras in an attempt to drown out the inner turmoil.

Is it just me or do these constant nosy interactions from parents toward ‘child -free’ people seem exaggerated? I sincerely am not shocked when people don’t have kids and I don’t press the subject, nor do I get grilled in return.
Also, sorry to be rude, but ‘giving up activism to have kids’ sounds like the bitter feminist version of the bro who’s mad that ‘nights with the boys’ don’t happen after all his friends get married.
If you’re so happy and fulfilled you could’ve fooled me.

i have four grown children. two boys and two girls. i love being a mother. it is the most ordinary miracle. motherhood did not stop me having adventures. it has been an adventure. it certainly didn’t stop me caring about social justice or contributing in my years working first as a child therapist for children with special needs and then as a barrister practicing criminal and then family law specialising in matters involving violence and sexual abuse within the home and mental health work. to me, whether it is family or society. i am still me. learning, nurturing.

It’s so weird. I’m a big supporter of Julie Bindel in these comments sections–every single essay, except this one. I very carefully, extensively disagreed w/ her about this article and explained why I was disappointed that she could make such presumptions, particularly ones that implicitly project all parenting responsibilities onto women–in essence, I expected more self-reflection and intellectual and cross-cultural humility from her.
First time I’ve ever had a comment of mine deleted. I hope it was just a software glitch, or my browser just isn’t showing it, and was not intentional.

The fundamental issue is that lesbians and women who don’t want children don’t need men. Men are terrified by this. They don’t actually like children much themselves but they know that they are the price they have to pay for domestic services and sex. Women who don’t want children are laughing in their faces.
My answer to why I’ve never had children is that I’ve never met a man that I would want to have one by. Even if you manage to escape from the man, you would be reminded of all the things you loathed about him in his child.

I can only say it’s a shame Ms Bindel’s mother wasn’t of the same opinion.