Voluntary Childlessness And The Enforcement of Patriarchy: The Footholds of Conservatism
Society’s selective quoting of science and the injustices among them
In a conservative society, often married couples are haunted by a question:
‘No kids yet? Isn’t it time for you to have children?’
From one’s parents to family, from neighbors to the whole neighborhood would haunt with that question once a year gets over after your marriage. It's like they are getting irritated by you not having children and they have taken up to themselves to make sure that you have children. Forcing someone to have sex without his or her consent is rape. When one’s society forces a newly married couple to have sex only for children when they don’t want to, doesn’t it sound like torture?
Society and its ideals
There’s a notion in a conservative household that marriage is for making children. It is for procreation that we marry not for belonging for love or for a human being’s inability to live a solitary life, isn’t it?
If you are a girl, This very society prohibited you from talking to a boy. If you are a boy, this very society called you a ‘girly boy’ for mingling with girls too much. And after marriage they want you to have children before knowing each other. Before starting to live with each other, they knock on your doors to enquire about children, as if, you having no children would make the sky fall!
The irony is that the people in such a society are quick to judge a woman who has a modern dressing style as sexually promiscuous. But, when a married couple doesn’t want to have children, they are quick to judge the husband and wife as ‘infertile’.
It is often the woman that bears the brunt in the conservative setup because most conservative settings are Patriarchal. In India’s Patriarchy, the Bride comes to the groom’s household and lives there. And if the procreation doesn’t happen in one year after marriage, the neighbors would start the rumors. So, the groom’s household takes it upon themselves to protect their son and blames the bride for the delay. They would take extra care to see to it that the rumors are about the bride, not the groom. How much they care for their honor!
In a conservative patriarchal society, they see women who wear what they want and fight for their rights as sexually promiscuous. They would often say, ‘Such women would burn in hell!’ because such societies are often religious. When did taking control of one’s life and fighting for one’s rights become sinful?
It became sinful because most religions are patriarchal and fear equality just like fascists fear the right to freedom of speech.
The very society that sees sexual promiscuity in women who stand up forces married couples to have children soon after marriage. The religious conservative and patriarchal setup has to be followed. This means that one should marry when they tell you to. One should procreate when they tell you to literally, controlling your sex life. Any form of independent decision-making is shunned and those who rebel would often have to face society’s wrath.
Voluntary childlessness
Choosing to be childless and being childless are two different things. In a conservative society, often the lines between them are blurred due to dominant narratives. Couples who don’t want children would lie to their family or peers that they are infertile to escape the negative stigma associated with voluntary childlessness. This is because voluntary childless couples are often described as selfish and materialistic in a conservative setup (1).
At the same time, infertile couples although stigmatized based on their inability to have children would have the sympathy of their parents and family. This sympathy would often mask the stigma associated with infertility. However, women won’t enjoy this sympathy as much as men (1).
In societies like India, the conservative patriarchal setup entails the bride becoming part of the groom’s household. Hence, as earlier mentioned, when the topic of infertility comes up, it's often the bride who will be blamed to save the family’s honor. In this scenario, women end up having no options but to reproduce even if they never wanted to. Even delaying childbearing is discouraged and stigmatized (2).
Gandolfo (2005), discusses how even science-a rational thought system- has been manipulated and selectively quoted to suit the dominant conservative patriarchal narrative. Delay in childlessness is discouraged by instilling fear in the hearts of the young by ascribing it to breast cancer, pregnancy complications, and even early death (3).
This can be read with its relation with Foucaultian power structure. Men of patriarchal society have been selectively using science to suit their narratives while they consciously hide others. This selective usage has prompted many women to rally behind men and has become the pallbearers of the patriarchy without them knowing it (4).
The prejudices associated with women who choose to be voluntarily childless include selfishness, materialism, masculinity, and sexual promiscuity among others. Contrary to women, men who choose to be voluntarily childless face less stigma (1). This in itself is a reflection of how unequal and biased our society is. Particularly, in societies like that is found in India which is deeply religious, conservative, and patriarchal, inequality and biases towards women are in vogue in all aspects of life (2).
Interestingly, scientific studies have found that woman who chooses to be voluntarily childless do so out of collective altruistic reasons in most cases. This includes anxiety about the child’s future in today’s global scenario, overpopulation, and lack of confidence in one’s parental abilities. Men were more likely to have individualistic reasons for voluntary childlessness. This includes a general dislike of children and monetary liabilities (1). Two things can be inferred from these findings. They are:
- Most women choose to be childless because of selfless concern while it is mostly men who gave materialistic reasons for being childless. This runs contrary to the patriarchal notion that women who choose to be childless are selfish.
- Men who want to be independent and free of marital obligations or responsibilities don’t face social stigma as much as women do.
Another interesting social norm is the emphasis on motherhood. Motherhood is considered the foundation of complete womanhood. The idea is that without motherhood, no woman would achieve womanhood. A woman who is not a mother is less of a woman than a woman who is a mother (3). The problem with this notion is the idea of enforcement.
The equality debate and LGBTQIA+
The idea that an individual with her own spirit and free will is forced to play as a puppet of society is problematic. The fact that one is born as a woman is in itself enough to be a woman and achieve womanhood. It doesn’t require motherhood to become a complete or qualified woman. Similar to how fatherhood is different from manhood, Motherhood is another aspect that is associated with a woman, it's not the basis of womanhood (1)(3).
If the woman of liberal societies of the west faces the heat of patriarchy, conservatism, and religiosity, just imagine the dire situation that the woman of conservative societies like India or Pakistan is in (2). The fact is that men are not fully free from the constraints or enforcements of such a society but women are worse off (1).
If women are worse off then the plight of gender and sexual minorities is of serious concern in such societies. Major religions are yet to accept gender and sexual minorities as natural human beings and considers them sexual deviations. In societies such as India and Pakistan where religiosity is revered and religions decide people’s ethics and morality, even acceptance of gender and sexual minorities is stigmatized (5).
Patriarchs often use the narrative that men’s brains are bigger, hence men are more intelligent than women. They selectively hide the scientific fact that women have more brain cells. While men, in general, are good at applying the things they learned, women are superior learners having the capability to learn new things faster than men (6). Patriarchy, religion, and conservatism hide these nuances and selectively quote science to suit their narratives.
The cases of gender and sexual minorities are no different. Science has proven that their brains are different from either men or women. Gender dysphoria is a scientific disorder that needs professional and social support (7). Yet, major religions still consider gender-sexual minorities and their conditions as sexual deviations and perversions (8).
Conclusion
Humans are beings with their own individual spirit and free will. Oppression of one human being by another one for being different is an irrational discourse that doesn’t suit humanity’s conscience. Enforcing that oppression through selective scientific quoting is an injustice that has been practiced by dominant people in power. This is to be fought against with knowledge and perseverance.
The response of strong women who chose to be voluntarily childless against the dominant narratives is a point for us to start with. The justifications of the dominant patriarchal narrative for their imposition have been countered by solid witty responses. Shapiro (2014) mentions a college professor when quizzed by a doctor for her decision for voluntary childlessness retorted by saying,
‘Each and every one of us are different. We serve our society in our own ways.’
Such examples show the individual’s strength of character to justify her stand. This is a point to emulate for women and gender-sexual minorities to challenge the religious conservative patriarchal outlook. In time a collective effort in this regard can bring in changes in the whole character of our societies.
The archaic outlook of our conservative society towards family and procreation needs to be challenged for it to change. The idea that marriage is for procreation is in itself detrimental not only to women but also to gender-sexual minorities. This sole aspect has been used by patriarchy, conservatism, and religions for discriminating, marginalizing, and isolating gender-sexual minorities by typecasting them as sexual deviants.
Hence, It is time to make the stigma against voluntary childlessness something to be ceased by not just the feminist movements. It should also be part of the agenda of the LGBTQIA+ movements, the rationalist movements, and the larger freedom movements. We should criticize the dominant irrational and selective narratives of patriarchy, conservativism, and religion. This is necessary to rationalize the discourse for the oppressed of the society to destroy the stereotypes and prejudices that their usurpers used to chain them.
As Michael Foucault puts it,
“The real political task in a society like ours is to criticize the workings of the institutions that appear to be neutral and independent, to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence that has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked and one can fight against them”
References
- Shapiro, G. (2014). Voluntary childlessness: A critical review of the literature. Studies in the Maternal, 6(1).
- Ghosh, S., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2017). Religion, contraceptive method mix, and son preference among bengali-speaking community of Indian subcontinent. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(6), 929–959.
- Gandolfo, E. (2005). A lesser woman?: fictional representations of the childless woman.
- Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
- Flores, A. R. (2019). Social Acceptance of LGBT People in 174 Countries: 1981 to 2017.
- Ankney, C. D. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too?. Intelligence, 16(3–4), 329–336.
- Mohammadi, M. R., & Khaleghi, A. (2018). Transsexualism: A different viewpoint to brain changes. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 16(2), 136.
- Ghazzawi, A., Suhail-Sindhu, S., Casoy, F., Libby, N., McIntosh, C. A., Adelson, S., … & Barber, M. E. (2020). Religious faith and transgender identities: The Dear Abby project. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 24(2), 190–204.
