Purple Women Get Bloggy on November 15

Purple Women^TM Count, and they blog about it. Thanks to the following childfree women who put up leading posts and helped me get the word out about our staged online event:

BritGirl Childfree and Invisible

Philadelphia Bunnyface Not as Purple as I Should Be

M Are the Childfree Invisible in our Society?

Shelley End of Tunnel: Purple Women Count

The articles above are great commentary. They are long and well thought out, so get your cup of tea or coffee and pull up a chair.

• M points out that in the end, we really have more in common than not, and perhaps that's what we should focus on.
  
• Philly Bunny talks about the pain of family pressure and why she does not like to reveal that she is childless by choice.
• BritGirl puts a fine point on just how excluded we are, and explores whether or not we represent a true social movement. (She also does a follow-up post, see links below.)
• Shelley, a Regular Contributor at PW&F, explains why she would prefer to read childfree women bloggers...and where are they anyway?
  

Your comments would be most appreciated on their posts. That's the beauty of the blogosphere. It's all about the dialogue!

Big news, we have their attention my fellow Purple Women:

I contacted the organizers of BlogHer's 2008 Convention to be held in Chicago and suggested they consider having a panel of childfree women bloggers. They replied favorably and asked me to get back to them with names of potential panelists and a list of questions. Who's in?

I am also working in the background to develop our very own PW blogroll. Yes, I think we should point out why, and asked to be included as Women Without Children in other supposedly inclusive women-centric sites, and we can also get organized and do it for ourselves. We will probably never be mainstream, but we are getting harder to ignore.

Also check out these Purple Women^TM to see what they write about on our day...

Dani Purple Melange

Neda A Childfree Choice: A Purple Letter Day

Escape Brooklyn Top Ten Reasons I Don't Want Kids

Beany Being Purple

Angry Grrrl Childfree Women: Blog and Be Counted on 11/15!

CalliGrafiti Childfree Blogger

Ravan Another Ravan Perch

Addy CF Unscripted

BritGirl Childfree ... Do We Count?

Amanda Jayne Purple Women Count

LunarKitty Purple Women Count Today

My thanks to all those who have contacted me, who have inserted a button, and posted notice of our staged online event on childfree forums and groups lists. If you'd like the HTML code for the PW button that links to this blog, please email me directly (I love to hear from readers).

Wear it with pride ladies!

Technorati Tag: Childfree

Purple Down Under

Guest Post by Helen
Childfree Australian
(Australian spelling!)

In Australia, we’re heading into an election campaign, so an important issue that affects all women is starting to get some attention. I’m not talking about the environment or the economy. The issue is paid maternity leave.

Australia is one of the few OECD members that does not have a paid maternity leave scheme – instead we have the baby bonus, that ‘removes discrimination against non-working mothers'. A recent survey found that 76% supported paid maternity leave for working women, with 78% of those in support of paid maternity leave in favour of the financial responsibility being shared jointly by employers, workers and the Federal Government. 71% supported a scheme funded by employers and employees only. This would be on top of the already generous package of assistance offered to new parents who are entitled to up to 12 months of leave (which many employers contribute to), a 30% childcare rebate and flexible working arrangements. A state politician is even calling for parents to get extra votes so the rights of children will be explicitly recognised in our society!

Paid maternity leave wouldn’t cost much in comparison to the existing benefits for families. But that’s just the nominal cost, which would cover the salary of pregnant women for up to 6 months after the birth of their child.

A far greater cost may be paid by those who won’t benefit from these arrangements: women who are not planning to have children.

The assumption that everyone wants children exists in law. The Sex Discrimination Act makes it illegal to discriminate against ‘women of child-bearing age’ on the grounds of pregnancy or potential pregnancy. However there are still indications that this happens on a regular basis.

Small and medium businesses say that they cannot afford to pay employees who are not working, as well as paying for temporary staff to cover for them. Business organisations argue that employers won't recruit women if they know at some stage they'll be required to pay thousands of dollars in benefits and staff replacement costs.

I’ve got to say that as a Purple Woman I find this pretty insulting. I don’t want to be judged according to my potential to breed but according to my potential to contribute to the world. Just like men are judged.

Flickr photo by chrisjohnbeckett (cc)

Technorati Tag: Childfree

Follow Up: Initiative 957

Apparently, I am not the only one to be confused on the whole idea behind Washington State's Initiative 957. Our co-contributing editor, Laura Scott, did the homework for us. She asked me to publish the following to clear the air. Thanks Laura dear!

Why We Should Support Proposition 957
by Laura S. Scott
©2007

I've fielded a number of outraged emails from my childfree and childless friends about the proposed Washington State Initiative 957.

Here's the scoop: unlike previous "Defense of Marriage" initiatives, the people behind the Initiative 957 are not social conservatives trying to ban same-sex marriage or childless/childfree marriages.

They are "concerned citizens" who are trying to challenge the assumptions behind an earlier Washington Supreme Court ruling that asserted that procreation in marriage serves the state's interests.

Randy Stapilus of Ridenbaugh Press does a great job of spelling it all out in his recent article: At Their Word. He summarizes that proposition 957

“would limit marriage only to male-female couples who are capable of having children with one another," specifically barring marriage - in case anyone missed the point - "when the parties are unable to have children together for any reason.

After getting married, the couples would have three years to produce (and not by adoption) at least one child, after which they would file with the county a "certificate of marital procreation."

Silly?

Of course it is, but so was the Washington Supreme Court Anderson v. King County ruling that said "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation" and is "essential to survival of the human race."

Childless marriages a threat to the human race? C'mon. Childless marriages and smaller families are what averted the so-called "Population Explosion" predicted back in the 60's, when governments around the world were adopting policies and passing laws that would reduce the number of new births, and avert anticipated economic and environmental disasters.

Those efforts led to the one-child policy in China; perhaps well intentioned, but poorly and cruelly implemented, leading to unforeseen and unwelcome consequences such as the dramatic increase in abortions of female fetuses. Now a young Chinese man is less likely to be a father, because he has difficulty finding a wife!

Perhaps there's a lesson here for legislators who attempt to intervene in matters of love, fertility and marriage.


Technorati Tag: Childfree

In Reply to Baby Bonuses

We have LauraS to thank for her recent post about governmental experimentation with baby bonuses. She shared a riveting 3,000-word white page authored by Ross Guest examining all aspects of this pronatalist policy. His article appeared in the think tank publication Policy, which has been covering big issues and creating a public policy dialogue for Australia and New Zealand since 1984.

Mr. Guest's article is well-researched, but his endnotes alone would take you a half an hour to read -- not a blog reader’s usual attention span, so I decided to post my reaction to it on the front page in order to shed more light on this important topic.

Most noteworthy:

• One measure of determining appropriate growth rate is to compare it to income per capita, i.e.: What can the people afford on their real incomes?
• Population growth is a factor of immigration and fertility. How does a country chose a correct demographic path? This also raises some ethical issues. If it’s not about sheer numbers, then what is this policy about?
• According to the movie, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the ultimate world population number is 42 -- ha ha! What is that,…one person per country?
• Everyone knows that the bigger market always gets catered too. It means bigger profits, but did you know:

“A larger market can also stimulate innovation by making it more profitable. A higher population also implies a greater probability of knowledge breakthroughs which have positive snowballing effects on productivity (a process of so-called endogenous growth).”

• Japan, Russia and Italy…and who knew, Singapore are all experiencing population declines. New Zealand and England are on the list too.
• Canada has a Baby Bonus program!!!
• Australia and the U.S. are not in population decline, neither is the world at large. The U.S. population is maintaining replacement rates. Australia's population is projected to grow.
  
• U.S. tax benefits have may have attributed to the Baby Boom generation phenom. It's hard to prove.
  
• Singapore’s baby bonus comes with strings attached, to be sure some of it goes to benefit the child.
• The unanswerable question: What is ideal population,...um, more Catholics? Muslims? We know what the Pope would say.
• Who pays? All of us. Remember we little people, childfree or not, fund the government.

Here’s the author’s summary:

"In summary, is the Baby Bonus a good pronatalist policy? The negatives are that it wastes expenditure by paying parents who would have had children anyway, and a more debatable negative is that it allows parents to spend the money on whatever they want which may include plasma TVs and so on that may not benefit the child. The positives are that it is simple and transparent, and it allows maximum parental choice with regard to expenditure. My view is that Singapore got it about right with its initial model, in two ways: by paying only for the second and third child, and by having two components—a lump sum cash payment and a co-contribution toward education expenses. Not paying for the first child partly alleviates the ‘waste’ problem, and the economic case for encouraging large families by paying a Baby Bonus for fourth and subsequent children is weak due not least to concerns about the average investment by parents in education per child when there are large numbers of children."

Draw your own conclusions Purple Women^TM.

Technorati Tag: Childfree

Bucks for Babies

Declining births in much of the developed world have prompted politicians to offer big bucks for babies.

In some areas of Italy, couples can bag as much as 10,000 euros for a newborn. Australia offers $4000.

Japanese couples are already being offered incentives for new births but now corporations like Matsushita are getting into the act and offering increased family allowances to workers with two or more children.

Do incentives work? Depends how you define success. A financially-strapped couple might have a child earlier than they would have otherwise, but in Australia there were reports that some parents were using the baby bonus to buy plasma TVs and other non-essential items rather than using the funds to cover child-related expenses.

An interesting article by Ross Guest titled The Baby Bonus: A Dubious Policy Initiative suggests that the Australian policy "will reward parents who would have had children anyway."
What do you think?

[Flickr photo by anonfx]
Technorati Tag: Childfree

Travel and Social Responsibility

Guest Post by Jeremy Jacobs
Professional Presenter and Speaker & Childfree Brit
Blogs: From Margate to the Maasai, Corporate Presenter

Just a few days ago, a close friend of mine said “Jeremy, you've had a bit of a spiritual experience haven't you"?

She was, of course, referring to my recent charity trek, on behalf of Breast Cancer Campaign, to the Foothills of the Maasia in Northern Tanzania. I don't know whether or not it was a spiritual experience – and in any case, the meaning of the term "spiritual" varies depending on whom you are speaking to. But I will state this; the thrill of walking 70 miles in temperatures approaching 90 degrees F over six days and on difficult terrain was certainly an achievement to be proud of. Those months of preparation paid off!

Now I've been back a couple if weeks the cerebral enormity of what I and my fellow trekkers achieved is starting to sink in. The ten of us all had something in common - either losing someone close in tragic circumstances or with a strong sense of social responsibility. And in nearly all cases, both. I think it was that "sixth sense" that kept us together and ensured that all who participated came through without incident, unnecessary physical pain or nagging self-doubt.

The charitable leitmotif, as you would expect, dominated conversations amongst the participants and some of our Tanzanian guides. Sharing experiences with complete strangers about ones personal life, close family members, faith and politics had an atavistic feel about it. Reminded me of school-days and holidays at summer camps. The amazing surroundings also made for a surreal few days. Every waking moment seemed to be filled with some new phenomenon, from the "Milton Keynes" style elephants outside Nairobi airport to the magnificently named "Superb Starlings", a brightly coloured version of that bird. Then there would be the confrontation, verbally, about female circumcision, followed by a description of termite hills, a Maasai boma, and who would be first into the field shower back at camp.

Wildlife featured heavily. Giraffes, ostriches and a nasty looking bull elephant took pride of place on the first full day. A deceased caracal (a type of wild cat) was the subject of much discussion over the campfire that night. Soon, a puff adder would be incinerated in full view of the gang. "Just as well" said one of the crew. "They're responsible for 25,000 deaths in Africa each year". We all guffawed and stared at the heavens which resembled a crisp new "Milky Way" chocolate bar wrapper with a low crescent moon completing the scene. Baboons; wildebeest, zebras; elands, Thomson gazelles; egrets, and lilac-breasted rollers were all viewed along with the vast numbers of goats and cattle belonging to the Maasai farmers. The most voluminous animal seemed to be the African donkey. At times, it was like trying to battle your way through an over- crowded beach at Margate or Blackpool!

Food and drink were plentiful and we were well looked after by our Maasai guides and crew. The latter all employed by the Tanzania Travel Company who in turn were under instructions to look after us by the overall trip organisers, Charity Challenge from North London. The camp sites were erected and dismantled each day in military-style efficiency. However, there was a moment when one of the party fell down a poorly constructed field toilet. The screams would have been heard for miles. Sorry Laura!

Earlier that day, a local school was visited. The classrooms reminded me of a scene from a Dickensian novel. You know, six to a desk and share the pencil. The following morning after nearly 2 hours of trekking, school-children could still be seen walking to that particular educational establishment which by that time was some 10 kilometers in the distance behind us. A black-backed jackal and a newly-born goat caused sensations that day but nothing could have prepared us for the entertainment that lay ahead. Firstly, there was the awesome "sunken crater", followed by traditional Maasai "jumper" dancing, then play-time.

Picture the scene - two jeeps, a variety of passengers in each, pitch black outside - its hunt the wildlife time. This involved the switching off and on of headlights until bands of wildebeest and zebras realised what was going on. They ran in all directions for their lives! After 30 minutes of animal baiting we headed home. Or at least tried to. Night-time in the middle of nowhere with no "SatNav" meant an hour of frustration ensued.

Twelve miles were covered in the heat on the last trekking day before another school was visited. Entertainment that night included a Maasai version of "show me the way to go home". The Ngorongoro Crater with its lions, cheetahs, hippos, flamingoes and hyenas was visited on the last day. Now that was something very special and I would recommend you pay it a visit [click here for Jeremy's crater picture].

[Editor's note: Jeremy raised thousands of pounds $$$ for breast cancer with his trek.You can view his individual fundraiser page here. There are some great photos on his trek blog. I will post a few here when Blogger fixes their upload bug! Jeremy suggests having a look at Charity Challenge if you are interested in doing something similar.]

Technorati Tag: Childfree

In the News

Katherine Seligman has the byline on this feature story about being childfree in today's issue of the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine. Chris The Fixed Kitty podcaster, our friends Teresa and Jay, and AlphaGirl, a frequent Guest Contributor, are interviewed, as well as our very own LauraS.


Technorati Tag: Childfree

Reproduction Choice and How to Defend It

Do we, the childfree, represent a movement or do we merely exist in growing numbers that are getting harder to ignore?

Thus far, I would say we fall short on both descriptions, but that may be about to change. The proof will be in our collective actions and the issues we rally around. The launch of the ezine Unscripted: A Childfree Life and childfree blogs such as the Childfree Issues are recent developments that may bring us together.

Reproductive rights are core issues for people who are childfree by choice. Men and women are affected equally. It is not a women’s health issue, it is a public health issue and it affects us all, your daughter, your niece, your aunt, your sister, your girlfriend, and your wife – and yes, you.

What’s at stake?

• Access to birth control for all who want it

• Right to abort an unwanted pregnancy

These are important topics to discuss in the childfree realm because, let’s face it, there would not be so many of us if not for the miracles of birth control and yes, control over our pregnancies. To learn more about these issues you can visit the website of The Center for Reproductive Rights, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization defending these rights on all fronts at home and abroad.

Title X was created by Congress in 1970 to provided safe, confidential access to contraception, non-biased reproductive education and care. It provides this care to 4.5 millions low-income individuals annually. The Bush Administration has not ensured enough funding for Title X to maintain current levels of reproductive care for millions who are below the poverty level.

A roll back on reproductive choice is happening in the United States. Evidence is the recent presidential appointment of Eric Keroack, a known proponent of natural contraception, now in charge of the Family Planning Division of the Dept. of Health and Human Services. We see further evidence of in measures being placed on state ballots.

What Can You Do?

Exercise your power as a member of the childfree community and vote when given the opportunity. In California, Proposition 85, which would have amended the state constitution to require women under 18 to notify their parents before they could access abortion services appeared on the November 2006 ballot and was narrowly defeated. This was the second time Californians have protected the privacy of minor women, but no doubt a similar proposal will appear again in the future.

Childfree men and women should identify themselves as a member of the childfree community when writing letters to their leaders. In the New Year, let’s stand up and be counted. We need to protect the right to have control over our reproduction and the right to safe, healthy contraception options and not least importantly, safe, legal abortions. The latter two go hand in hand. Access to proper contraceptive methods reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The access to contraception and reproductive choice is being challenged at all levels of government and in many arenas, including high schools and college campuses. In the U.S. it varies from state to state as we follow the tenet of self-determination. It should also be applied to individuals, regardless of their age.

What messages are your leaders sending you? Could the message be:

All women should be pregnant, and all women and their partners should be happy about it.

This is just not reality folks. I hope they don’t expect us to be barefoot, too.

[Blog Administrator's Note: This opinion piece was first published in the ezine Unscripted: A Childfree Life, January 2007 issue under a different title: Reproductive Choice or No Choice.]

Technorati Tag: Childfree

Give Us Your First Born

CNN reported this morning that signatures are being sought for a Washington State defense of marriage initiative that would force couples who want to marry to prove that they are able to have kids together before they can get a marriage certificate. If you marry and you don’t have a child within three years, your marriage would be annulled.

At first listen it sounds like something social conservatives have dreamed up to thwart same sex marriages. WRONG.

Initiative 957 was concieved by a group calling themselves the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance which...

..."seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a 'legitimate state interest' allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this 'legitimate state interest,' it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage."

And the childfree, too.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is a group of concerned citizens that became alarmed when the Supreme Court ruled that the state had a "legitimate" interest in establishing that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and child-rearing.

The Alliance spokesperson and the initiative sponsor, Gregory Gadow is hoping that the initiative will pass and the Supreme Court is forced to rule that the assumption that procreation is a required element for legal marriage is unconstitutional.

They need 224,880 signatures by July 5 to get Initiave 957 on the ballot in November. As of this morning, they had 200. I envision the petition sheet.

Where else will you see social conservatives, same-sex marriage advocates and the childfree signing in support the same initiative?

Technorati Tag: Childfree

Childfree Pur-spective

I just had to create a post to go with this amazing photo. Purple has many shades, and this one may arguably be fushia (a favorite color of mine) but it does lend itself well to an abstract post about perspective, or pur-spective.

As Purple Women^TM we view the world differently than our parent counterparts. We make different decisions, from the decision not to become a mother, to the things we buy and the people we vote for. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) created a huge guffaw earlier this month with her comment about how U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's childfree status as a woman affected her judgment about the U.S. war in Iraq. I think Barbara got caught saying what a lot of people really do think about intentionally childfree adults.

Do childfree women value human life any life less because we do not have children?

That's just silly thinking. Consider for a moment that this kind of thinking is backed up in the highest places in our institutions, church and state. Apparently, no one came to Condoleeza's aid at the time of infraction. After all, she is a woman who can defend herself. She chose not to get defensive. Real classy, regardless of what you think of her politics. The childfree choice found unexpected defenders on the conservative side of the page as Jennifer L. Shawne, author of the book Baby Not on Board, details nicely on her corresponding blog (January 14 post).

Barbara's comment sheds light on how childfree individuals are viewed in society. Compare it to the status of the home-owner vs. a renter.

Childfree men and women are viewed as short-term tenants in this life, however far from the truth that may be. Parents are viewed as more committed for the long haul, that next generation.

I don't think an apology is coming at this point, so Barbara got away with "her bad" and will only benefit from the press. As they say in show business, even bad press is better than no press. Beth over at The Blue Star Chronicles does a nice job of summing up the buzz this incident created on the Internet.

This is just politics as usual. If you cannot handle the personal attacks, don't get into politics. I am glad Condoleeza didn't give the press the cat fight they were looking for.

Photo: Originally uploaded to Flickr on August 4, 2006 by Steve took it

Technorati Tag: Childfree

We All Have Mothers

One of my Purple Women^TM informants was kind enough to send me an article from San Francisco Weekly called New Mother's Work by Eliza Strickland (12/6/2006).

The post title above is a quote by Joan Blades, co-founder of a new political action group called Moms Rising. Her co-founder is author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner who recently debuted some new data in her first book, The F-Word: Feminism in Jeapoardy:

"For every dollar that a man earns today, a childless woman earns 90 cents — not perfect equality, but close — while mothers earn 73 cents, on average, and single moms earn 60 cents. These numbers represent disparities in hourly wages, so part-time work schedules and unpaid leaves don't skew the statistics."

We childfree have a true workplace advantage. We still don't have pay equity with the men, but I will say her numbers make it look like we've progressed. How we will fare with the pull of this newly realized political organizing is yet to be seen.

When Blades says "we all have mothers," I am reminded of how hard it must have been for my mother, a single mother in the beginning. I need to read more about their agenda, but initially I am captured by their cause - even though I have no intention of raising kids.

Moms Rising could be good for all women. Backers like Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy would be wise to recognize families of two as they push for new family-friendly legislation and workplace policies. The two should go hand-in-hand.

As Purple Women^TM we are unwitting feminists, whether we like it or not. My question is, are we going to have a voice in the changes that inevitably take place, or will we simply take a backseat to mothers?


Technorati Tag: Childfree

Parent Hurdles

“The Other Abortion Battle; Abortion may be legal in California – but that doesn’t mean you can actually get one.”

This was the lead story in The Guardian, (October, Vol. 41, NO. 2, page 22) one of San Francisco’s free outspoken, albeit liberal, weekly rags.

Never having had to walk in these shoes, I was surprised to learn how many hurdles there are for girls (let’s call them what they are and not lump them in with adults because laws are in place and have been proposed to treat them differently) and women to obtain a legal abortion. The reporter rightly asks, “What good is the right if you cannot exercise it?” Rick Jacobs (journalist/pundit blogger at The Huffington Post) nailed it when he wrote in a pre-election post, we have a “a roll back on choice” happening in the United States.

Insurance Hurdles
Even the insurance industry is against them if they do not recognize their pregnancy and obtain the proper support and resources to terminate it in the first trimester. They simply won’t cover a second trimester abortion. Ever woman skips a period every now and then. Often women don’t know they are pregnant until it is too late. (I imagine young women are even more clueless about their own bodies than adults.)

This is both a moral issue and a legal one. Does an insurance company have a right to refuse coverage on moral grounds? Legally, I think the U.S. health insurance industry is standing on one leg.

Doctor Hurdles
Do doctors refuse to terminate a pregnancy on moral grounds? Yes. It’s their practice; I guess they should be able to run their business how they want. A friend of mine, also 40 something recently found out there was a problem with her fetus and opted to abort. She was horrified at how she was treated. In the first place, her doctor tried to keep her from performing the amnio which revealed the defect. This same doctor then refused to help her once she made her decision. The hospital “does not do those procedures” she was told and was referred to a clinic where she was put in a gown in a room with 20 other women and made to wait 2 hours. The young woman next to her was there for the same reason and was in tears at this callous treatment.

Legal Hurdles
One way of speaking up is to vote. Today, Californians will vote on Proposition 85 (that’s what we do in California, if you get enough signatures you can propose new state law) is on the November ballot. I would require girls to notify their parents before they terminate a pregnancy. Just another hurdle which in effect takes away the right, or the right thing to do? The young women it affects are not even old enough to vote on this.

We should all be concerned. For those outside the U.S. looking in, mild interest at least. I don’t think that Americans lead the world in women’s rights or advances. In fact, I think that we can be embarrassingly behind the times, morally and socially. (Can you tell I just got back from a 20-month work assignment in a socialist country?)

The story left me wondering, “How well are we preparing our young women to make these grown up decisions?” You may see a future post on this.

For now, I’ll leave you with this post by Gloria Feldt, in which she muses over the language associated with reproductive control, her first in a series about the history of American birth control published in the International Leadership Forum.

[Blog Administrator's note: Some of you will no doubt react strongly to this topic. That's normal. It's a risky post for sure, and it appears here on Purple Women & Friends because contraception, reproductive choice and its ugly step-child, yes abortion, are integral to the conversation. I feel it's important not to shy away from the controversy and to encourage a civil discourse - even critical.]

[PHOTO: Uploaded to Flickr on November 4, 2006 by Steve Rhodes.]

Technorati Tag: Childfree Reproductive Choice Abortion