Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Emma Jackson

GET UPDATES FROM Emma Jackson
 

The PANK Pound?

Posted: 6/03/2012 00:00

My Facebook wall is filling up with babies. Alongside the wall of babies, adverts pop up about buying stuff for babies. This didn't seem an issue in my twenties and nothing prepared me from the bombardment from all sides on hitting my early thirties. The overwhelming expectation from the world that that is what you should be doing.

At the same time I am reading more and more on 'the childless woman', about how there are more of us and how we have money to spend. The 'childless woman as aunt' or PANK (professional aunt, no kids) keeps cropping up in these pieces. In fact, there is a specific website for women who don't have children but who are aunties (Savvy Auntie).

I am an aunt to six and unofficial auntie to more and my first response to reading about Savvy Auntie was, "hurray". I take being part of my nieces' and nephews' lives seriously and am pleased to see the importance of these relationships being written about. But first and foremost, these websites have sprung up as a response to women without children who have money to spend on them.

I am less keen of a celebration of auntiehood that is a thinly veiled marketing ploy to try to make us buy things for the children we know. We are being marketed to as the new 'pink pound' and the problematic assumptions about the pink pound, i.e. that all gay people have lots of disposable income, are also true of those without children.

Also, does identifying us (women without children) as 'aunts' just try and fit us into the status quo of defining women by their caring relationships to others? After all, I haven't heard any talk of Savvy Uncles or PUNKs. This worry is confirmed by the PANK website (sister website to Savvy Auntie) which states 'being a woman means loving kids'. The emphasis on the auntie role here becomes a means to bring women without children back in line. Indeed, I have used my auntie credentials in the past to dodge the child question: "Do you have children?" "No, but I have lots of nieces and nephews?", for which read, "No, but I'm not a child-hating weirdo."

Being a 33-year-old exhibiting no signs of reproduction has taught me a lot about how far feminism still has to go and about the expectations of the current moment, expectations about what being a woman is, or indeed about what being a proper person is. If we are going to move beyond this, then we need to be doing more than claiming our position as aunts or consumer-aunts.

Just as there are reasons to celebrate having children, there are reasons to celebrate not having children. And it should be okay to say this without feeling backed into a 'some-of-my-best-friends-have-babies' corner. Surely there should be ways of celebrating different ways of living without merely having to emphasise our connection to the children in our lives?

 

Follow Emma Jackson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmakJackson

My Facebook wall is filling up with babies. Alongside the wall of babies, adverts pop up about buying stuff for babies. This didn't seem an issue in my twenties and nothing prepared me from the bombar...
My Facebook wall is filling up with babies. Alongside the wall of babies, adverts pop up about buying stuff for babies. This didn't seem an issue in my twenties and nothing prepared me from the bombar...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:55 PM on 03/08/2012
(Cont from below...) Actually holding a PhD is rare, something like less than 0.01% of UK society have one - the same counts for other developed Western countries, and therefore, much higher than for less or developing countries. But, I doubt all your wider family/friends/cousins/old school friends have one- therefore, for all you know your attainment of a PhD may have upset some who would have liked to have a Dr title. As, both you and I know, to attain a PhD, maybe esp from somewhere like University of London is a feat of determination, tears, effort and absolute focus on finishing. The same is generally true of having kids (I have 4 - all under 6); getting pregnant, staying pregnant, having the baby and then being a mum can be incredibly hard - and it is also necessary for people - esp in the west with falling birth rates - to have kids. So why shouldn't they announce it. Your unease is less, I suspect with "society" than with your own desires and doubts which I think, esp for a sociologist, is disingenuous not to take into consideration/admit to.
03:35 PM on 03/10/2012
Sorry it’s taken a while to respond. I am currently having problems with my Huffington Post login, hence replying from this new account…
Ok, blimey that's a long reply! Firstly, I didn't say that having a baby was a defeat for women's rights. That is an important thing to clear up. But I stand by my statement that there is a lot of pressure on women to have children. Neither am I suggesting that people with babies should not post their pics on Facebook. You are right, I did post my graduation photos (not to mention a load of dull status updates about the British Library during the writing stage) and I recognise that this is a privilege. The photos of the babies do not upset me, some of those babies are very dear to me, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. As a sociologist you say it is disingenuous of me not to recognise my own desires and doubts. I would argue (as a sociologist) that I don't think we can cleanly separate our desires and doubts from external forces. It would be handy if we could. To quote a friend who responded to the blog post on Facebook 'I often find myself wondering how I would really feel about it all if I wasn't simultaneously succumbing and reacting to the constant pressure to reproduce.'
06:55 PM on 03/10/2012
Hello. No, you didn't say it was a defeat of women's rights - but it was implied. Your article was about the pressure on women to have babies, the role of society, and the lack of choice to be able to not have kids and be valued. As women have babies and not men, this does imply a question surrounding women's rights. Also, yes, I agree that is is difficult - if not impossible at times - to separate ones desires and doubts from external forces, but my point was that in your post you did not admit to having any, the onus was all on societal pressures. Finally, with regard to the quote from your friend - that is all well and good, but as you will know, as an academic, one quote does not a reflection of society make. I work in int dev, and do work with maternal issues, I have many women friends (who have had babies at many ages) and come from a family of many women - and at no point have I felt that I was pressured to reproduce, and nor, from my conversations with my friends, have they. And yes, there will always be some part of society that encourges having children - it is a biological urge for many, hardwired into the human race. And of course it is also a marketing bonanza. But, as with eating disorders being blamed on advertising and societal pressure, the reality is infinitly more complex.
06:55 PM on 03/10/2012
(cont. - and final response)

So, my point is you may feel pressure, some of your friends may have - but as I did not (and I had my first at 33) and most women I know did not - I feel you need to take account of your own desires and doubts as part of your feelings towards this pressure from society. In other words, you may find it is you that is putting the pressure on yourself. Ironically, I have always felt more pressure to stay in academia. I did not (I run my own consultancy now), but perhaps I could write an article on societal pressure to stay in academia and assume that is the norm.
01:54 PM on 03/08/2012
Hello! I also have a PhD, and also from King's College, Uni of London - small world ;) (in anth and int dev though).

In response to your article though - I would say I think this is something that is widely felt (there are a lot of websites devoted to women and being childless, due to infertility or circumstance - savvy auntie is one of many) as this most recent wave of women (70's babies) are only now having kids/delaying having kids/cannot have kids in a greater number, are much more vocal and have the means (internet) to reach a wide audience -it is being discussed like never before. At the same time, I believe to take issue with society is misplaced. To have kids and a partner is a natural human longing - and for many a need, which should not be seen as a defeat of individualism or women's rights. That women and men post pictures of their babies on facebook is a natural thing to do - I expect you announced your PhD to friends in excitment of passing the viva and having the PhD passed at Senate house. (cont..)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Emma Jackson
02:22 PM on 03/07/2012
I agree, child-free is much better than 'childless'.
02:35 PM on 03/08/2012
It dedpends. I know many women who are trying to have babies who take issue with the tag "childfree" - as it is mainly used by the Very vocal, and often exremely polarising (and at times downright mean/rude) groups online that do not want kids. To be going through painful, expensive and invasive procedures like IVF a tag like "childfree" can be just as hurtful. What someone prefers to be known as largely depends on the person and their specific situation.

That said, I disagree with Melanie Notkin's use of "circumstantially infertile" - in this case, I do think it should be "circumstantially childless" Or "circumstantially childless".
01:55 PM on 03/07/2012
Good post - though, I prefer to see myself as child-free rather than childless.