As I matter of fact, I do like the article, but in rereading it today one thing annoyed me.
It was the word "Child-Free".
"Child-Free" is what childless couples call themselves when they want to justify/celebrate deliberately not having children. I suppose unmarried women might call themselves that, too, now that marriage and child-having have been sundered. As I have mentioned a dozen times, I once found myself explaining to a divorced mother of two why I would not just go to a pub, pick up some guy and get pregnant. I doubt unmarried men call themselves "child-free". Nobody expects unmarried men to have children although--of course--they so often do.
I am not "child-free"; I am childless. Although I realize I have been spared a lot of work and worry, I recognize that this is the most noble work and worry available to a married woman (besides, perhaps, tending her sick or dying husband). Childlessness in a married woman is a real tragedy, whether she knows it or not. Even if it is not a tragedy for her, it is a tragedy for society, a society that needs a maximum of children born to happily married parents to keep it on an even keel.
I think the article describes me, except that I heartily dislike the word "child-free" and think it is anti-child and therefore anti-social. There are people in the "child-free" movement who object to paying taxes towards schools, day care, etc., etc., as if children were not fellow citizens but pets.
However, because the article describes aunts like me, I realize that I am neither entirely child-free nor childless because there are three children in my family and I have good friends with children, too. There are two little boys in Toronto on my birthday present list simply because I love their mother, and therefore them.
Now, it is Seraphic Singles Saturday, so does anyone have an issue or letter for the day?