Janie B. Cheaney: The “childless” vs. “child-free” divide

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Tuesday, November 12th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, WORLD commentator Janie B. Cheaney says many couples today are skipping out on having families for all the wrong reasons.

JANIE B CHEANEY: Thanks to this election cycle, I’ve learned the difference between the terms “Childless” and “Child-Free.” J.D. Vance was apparently doing it wrong in that interview with Tucker Carleson three years ago. His reference to “childless cat ladies” came back to bite him later, after his new position as Trump’s running-mate set opponents digging through the internet. Childless, they claimed, was extremely callous toward those women who wanted children but for medical reasons couldn’t have them.

But Vance may have simply been a victim of galloping terminology. In 2021, he was talking about women who chose not to bear children, for reasons that had nothing to do with physical health—those who feared climate change, or political upheaval, or life disruption. The correct term for that lifestyle choice is now “child-free.”

In a pre-election article on the Atlantic website, staff writer Faith Hill hoped for what she called “A Turning Point for Child-Free Voters.” The ranks of the voluntarily childless have steadily grown to anywhere from one-fifth to one-fourth of adults under 50—but they feel unseen at best and judged at worst. The general population regards them negatively, as selfish or pitiable. Some hoped that if Kamala Harris, a woman with no biological children of her own, could be elevated to the presidency, child-free Americans might find an advocate and a rallying point for policy initiatives.

What policies? Unfettered abortion rights, definitely. Also free access to all forms of birth control—which some fear is threatened by a Trump presidency—and medical procedures like tubal ligation and vasectomy. Also so-called “workplace equity,” where employees without children are not burdened with extra work or hours because they are assumed to have less responsibility. Beyond that, it sounds like they just want respect, or what this generation labels “pride.”

All human beings are entitled to respect as divine image-bearers and appreciated for any positive contributions they make. We can grant that not all women take to motherhood and not all men regard progeny as proof of their manhood. Some adults, including Christians, are single and “child-free” in order to dedicate themselves to the Lord’s service or what they perceive as the common good.

Still, I sense a growing resentment of the messiness, loudness, and disruptiveness of little kids—the failure to regard children as children, rather than small adults who should adapt to adult expectations. As an example, J.D. Vance cited the insistence on masking children during the pandemic, even though impaired social development was a greater threat to them than COVID.

Child-free adults complain that they are perceived negatively for their choice. Sorry, but I believe it is a negative choice. It’s declining to have a personal investment in the next generation. It’s regarding children as lifestyle accessories, rather than vital links to the future. It’s refusing, in many cases, to grow up. And it contributes to the short-term, personal-gratification trend of American culture for the last six decades.

Children are a joy and a burden and a responsibility and sometimes a disappointment—all that. We can acknowledge their cost while still upholding their great value, which is inestimable in God’s sight.

I’m Janie B. Cheaney

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.