Childfree: Analysis of sources

To have or not to have children is a personal choice.

The social belief that people without children are “unhappy” has not been empirically confirmed. On the contrary, in middle and old age, childless individuals often report high levels of life satisfaction across many indicators. Every action provokes a reaction… Under the pressure of socially imposed norms around the “necessity” of reproduction, movements that reject parenthood have begun to emerge…
The challenge of writing this text lies in the task of reflecting specifically on the sociological aspect of the childfree phenomenon. Sociologists — please forgive me… I share this with full awareness.
This paper discusses the socio-cultural phenomenon known as "childfree." In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of young people of reproductive age who identify as childfree. Each year, the number of members in this community grows, and the movement is gaining momentum in various countries (Moore, 2012; Amy Blackstone, Mahala Dyer Stewart, 2011). We aim to trace the history of the movement, define its characteristics, possibly identify subtypes, and describe its development prospects. This group of people is not affected by medical conditions that prevent reproduction; they are reproductively healthy individuals who voluntarily reject parenthood on the basis of their beliefs. Parenthood holds no appeal, charm, or desire for them. We believe that this group’s emergence is reactive — a response to social pressure and societal stereotypes. Here, we will raise questions regarding tolerance, acceptance, and discrimination related to having or not having children.
While most sources on this subject provide research data from the USA and Australia, we will attempt to identify common themes and partially present their findings. One difficulty in writing this paper is the limited amount of literature on this issue — even less of it is sociological in nature, which significantly complicates the research process.

1. Historical Background
The question of whether or not to have children first appeared in feminist movements across time. When women began to fight for equality, the reproductive role ascribed to them by society — a sort of biologization of women — was questioned or outright rejected.

1.1 The First Wave of Feminism:
Suffragism in the 19th–20th CenturiesThe term “feminism,” as a synonym for women’s emancipation, came into common use in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. The concept of human rights was first officially recognized in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). Inspired by the revolution’s slogans, French women actively took part in public life. However, they soon realized these rights only applied to men.
In 1791, Olympe de Gouges attempted to rectify this oversight by composing the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen, now considered the first modern feminist manifesto. But women’s associations were banned, and women were even forbidden to attend public events.
In England, Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, advocating for women's civil rights. The right to vote became the central demand of early political women’s organizations in the UK and the US in the second half of the 19th century. This first phase of the women’s rights movement became known as suffragism (from suffrage — the right to vote). At the first women’s rights conference in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, 200 women and 40 men adopted the Declaration of Sentiments, outlining the core principles of the movement.
At the 1910 International Socialist Conference in Copenhagen, Clara Zetkin proposed the annual celebration of International Women’s Day — March 8 — under the banner of political and social equality.
In the 1870s, European universities began admitting women. Women gradually gained voting rights and legal access to education and employment. By the 1920s, feminist activism subsided, with many first-wave feminists believing their objectives had been met.

1.2 The Second Wave of Feminism (1960s–1980s):
Liberal and Radical FeminismIn 1949, French writer and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex. She argued that women’s dependence stemmed from cultural constructions of femininity, rooted in myths, traditions, and upbringing. Her famous claim — “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” — emphasized that femininity is a social construct, not a biological destiny. Her ideas inspired the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1960s.
The movement split into liberal and radical branches. Liberal feminists worked within legal systems to change laws on education, housing, and employment, achieving significant professional advancements for women. Radical feminists, like Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex (1970), viewed patriarchy as male control over female reproduction and focused on issues of sexual freedom, abortion rights, and reproductive autonomy. The legalization of abortion and the invention of birth control pills became critical tools for women’s emancipation. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed abortion as a constitutional right.

2. Childfree as a Branch of Modern Feminism:
Shifting Research FocusWhile young mothers formed parenting communities, childless couples and singles — under societal pressure to become parents (as documented by Joanne Doyle, 2012) — began to form their own support networks. The term childless, often used in public discourse, was perceived as implying lack and inadequacy. Members of this group preferred the term childfree, emphasizing the freedom from children and the intentional nature of their choice.
These communities manifest as child-free clubs, hotels, restaurants, bars, and especially in online communities and forums. Over the past 40 years, scholarly interest in this topic has evolved significantly.

2.1 Challenges in Studying Childfree People
Researchers began distinguishing between the involuntarily childless and the voluntarily childless. Terms like voluntarily childless, childfree, and childless by choice were used to describe those choosing not to have children. However, difficulties arose due to a lack of clear distinctions between those postponing parenthood, avoiding it, or medically unable to reproduce (Moore, 2009; Abma & Martinez, 2006; Durham, 2008; Durham & Braithwaite, 2009; Park, 2002; see also Jeffries and Konnert, 2002).
Most studies focused on couples, neglecting singles — even though half of voluntarily childless people are unmarried (Abma & Martinez, 2006). Research also overwhelmingly addressed heterosexual couples, ignoring same-sex unions.
In the U.S., the National Health Statistics Report shows that from 2005 to 2010, over 40% of the population was childless, and 6% were voluntarily childless — a figure that remained relatively stable over time. Recent studies have started focusing on characteristics of childfree individuals, such as age, profession, and religiosity.

2.2 Definition and Key Traits
Jullette Moore defines childfree as: “A contested identity that refers to individuals who have made the choice never to have children and identify as such.”
She identifies three core traits of this group:

1. They are reproductively healthy. With the development of reproductive technologies, this criterion becomes more relative.
2. They have no children (although some have stepchildren or adult children) and choose never to have any — a decision often influenced by their partner’s status.
3. Their life satisfaction is not negatively affected by their childfree status. They express concerns similar to those of parents.

Childfree communities adopt the slogan: “Childfree and loving it!”, openly promoting their lifestyle and the voluntariness of their decision. A review of childfree websites and forums reveals different approaches in expressing this philosophy.

2.3 Types of Childfree: Liberals vs. Radicals (Childhaters)
As a possible offshoot of the feminist movement, it seems logical to distinguish between liberal childfree (examples from their websites are given above) and radical childfree, often referred to as childhaters — a term used even by liberal childfree individuals to distance themselves from the more extreme views.
Radical childfree groups are difficult to research due to the lack of public access and strict content moderation. Their posts often provoke aggressive backlash and formal complaints from parents.
Childhaters use derogatory terms for mothers (e.g., “breeders,” “ovulators”) and express open hatred toward children, inventing offensive nicknames and discussing hostile actions. Their rhetoric raises serious concerns.
Psychologists in reproductive fields draw alarming parallels between radical childfree groups and doghunter movements, asking: “How far can childhaters go? Could we see the rise of ‘childkillers’?” This question calls for detailed sociological and psychological research, as well as a reassessment of state policies on birthrate promotion and motherhood propaganda.
Focusing on the reasons behind rejecting parenthood seems both timely and necessary.
“Disappointment is a unifying category for those with children and those without…”
— Morell, 2009, p. 85