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
Melanie Notkin: Single Woman Doesn't Equal 'Career Woman'
Jason Alderman: Women and Personal Finances
Melanie Notkin: My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless
Melanie Notkin: Unnatural Women: Childless in America
PANK: Professional Aunt No Kids - About - SavvyAuntie.com
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.'
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.
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..)
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".