Motherhood and Childfree Choice: Accounts of Indian Childfree Women

Abstract

Motherhood is considered to be the central part of being a woman in the pronatalist culture. However, an increasing number of women in India are rejecting and challenging the dominant norms of motherhood. In this context, I draw on empirical work exploring the meaning of motherhood and childfree choice among childfree women in India. In-depth Interviews with ten childfree Indian women revealed that they challenge womanhood being equated with motherhood by constructing a separate identity. Their childfree choice is reconstructed as “natural” whereby they question “natural maternal instinct.” The feelings attached to motherhood extend beyond one’s gender and biological motherhood status and include feelings of fear too. The construction of “motherhood” and “mothering” by participants aligns with the dominant image of motherhood and values of intensive mothering that exist in society. The meaning behind childfree choice includes emphasis on one’s own identity, exercising reproductive choice and freedom.

Keywords

childfree motherhood India mothering womanhood and intensive mothering

Introduction

Recognition of reproductive rights that has been derived as an outcome of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) can be regarded as one of the significant milestones in the history of women’s movements. It represents the years of efforts to regain recognition of women’s reproductive and sexual self-determination as a primary health need and human right (Petchesky, 1995). Reproductive rights guarantee that couples or individuals have the right to decide about reproduction. However, there are certain norms regarding procreation in every society that hinder individuals from exercising their reproductive rights. After marriage, couples are expected to want and have children, which is a norm in society. However, some couples or individuals decide to opt out of parenthood. The individuals/couples who have planned not to have children are termed as childfree/childfree couples or voluntary childless couple. Childfreedom or voluntary childlessness is characterized by an active choice, commitment, and permanence regarding the decision not to parent (Houseknecht, 1987; Park, 2002). Compared to past years, the population of childfree or voluntary childless individuals is showing an increasing trend across the world.

In India, the pronatalist values are high, and every woman is expected to be a mother after marriage. The country’s socio-cultural, political, and legal institutions encourage childbearing, which in turn affects women to freely exercise their reproductive choices (Brown & Ferree, 2005). According to Judith Blake (1974), “pronatalist ideologies measure an individual woman’s worth on her ability to bear children and achieve motherhood” (p. 290) such that most women do not have a truly free choice to opt out of childbearing and rearing. Those who do not conform to mandatory motherhood have to face social consequences such as stigma and discrimination. The acts of a woman, such as choosing a life without children or bypassing marriage, are seen as a “social crime” (Sarojini & Das, 2010). The ideal woman is seen as married, heterosexual, and procreative, established by societal values and attitudes. It is in this context that an increasing number of married women in India are opting for lives without children (Kadakia, 2016). Even though many terms describe individuals without children, the current paper will use the term “childfree.” The lives and experiences of childfree women in India are unexamined in the academic discourse. The concept of childfree life lacks visibility in the Indian context and the general population is unaware of the childfree population in India. The present article examines the meaning of motherhood and childfree choice among Indian childfree women through narrative enquiry.

Background

Motherhood as a concept has been the most debated concept in the feminist discourse. Largely there had been two strands of viewing motherhood. One school of feminists viewed motherhood as a source of oppression and as an obstacle to women’s rights due to the high burden and responsibilities. In contrast, another set of feminists viewed it as a source of women’s strength and uniqueness (Smart, 1996). Later Adrienne Rich described motherhood as an experience relating to “the potential relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and her children” and motherhood as an institution that “aims at ensuring that the potential all women-shall remain under male control” (1986, p.13). In her opinion, it is the institutionalization of motherhood under patriarchy that is oppressive and not the experience itself. The lived experiences of the mothers were referred to as mothering by motherhood studies theorists. Andrea O’Reilly made more contributions to separating motherhood from mothering by stating that the term motherhood refers to “the patriarchal institution of motherhood that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women, while the word mothering refers to women’s experiences of mothering that are female-defined and centered and potentially empowering to women” (O’Reilly, 2004, p.3).

Motherhood as an institution “presents itself as a natural outcome of biologically given gender differences, as a natural consequence of (hetero) sexual activity, and as a natural manifestation of an innate female characteristic, namely, the maternal instinct” (Smart, 1996, p. 37). However, feminists have denied it and asserted that motherhood and mothering are not natural for women but are historically, culturally, and socially constructed (Okin, 1989).

The concept of motherhood is considered central in the processes where others define women and how women define themselves (Phoenix et al., 1991). Under pronatalism, women are defined “by their childbearing roles, which essentializes them as reproducers and promotes the idea that childbearing and rearing are natural and normal for women” (Peck & Judith, 1974, p. 21). Sexuality, maternity, and womanhood share a strong link, and it is being reinforced in every culture despite the different social role options available to many women. A woman in her life may accomplish a lot of other things and engage in creative labor. However, motherhood is still regarded as the hallmark of mature womanhood or a symbol of women’s ultimate destiny and fulfillment (Daniluk, 2007). Childbearing or attaining motherhood is also viewed as one way to establish one’s identity as a woman (Inhorn, 2007).

The cultural myth that “women want to be a mother and that it represents the ultimate personal and sexual fulfilment” is been perpetuated continuously to control the sexuality and reproductive choices of women (Daniluk, 2007). As a result, many women who have children or who want to have children have been conditioned to believe that it is a biological mandate rather than a function of their culture. The “motherhood mandate” which can be referred to as a set of social pressures on women to bear and rear children is found to influence the reproductive decision-making of women (Firestone, 1970).

Women on becoming mothers are faced with the realities of motherhood against their ideals of motherhood. The integration of internalized ideals of women’s belief about how they ought to mother with the lived reality of motherhood leads one to identify as a mother and develop a motherhood identity (Choi et al., 2005). Mothers who are not able to fulfill the ideals feel guilty or blame themselves for their shortcomings as mothers (Arendell, 2000). The expectations on mothers in society regulate the feelings associated with motherhood such as mothers are often expected to experience only positive feelings about motherhood (Hare-Mustin & Broderick, 1979). This results in a situation where negative feelings and dissatisfaction about motherhood cannot be expressed without the guilt or fear of being viewed as a “bad” mother (Parker, 1995). Mothers are always in the state of comparing themselves to the culturally endorsed ideals of motherhood. Even though women incorporate motherhood into their identities, it is with the tumult of facing the actuals and ideals of who they are as mothers (Laney et al., 2015).

One of the internalized ideals among mothers is to be a “good mother.” “Good mother” is a social construct that is characterized by particular standards and ideals, against which they are judged and judge (Coombe et al., 2019). The dominant representations of “good mother” persist in public policy, media, popular culture, and workplaces which influence everyday practices and interactions (Goodwin & Huppatz, 2010). It places more pressure on mothers and as a result, they conform to these standards set by society. Mothers who experience guilt and shame when they are not able to meet the ideal of “good motherhood” are at greater risk of depression (Liss et al., 2012). “Intensive motherhood” expects mothers to devote significant time, energy, and resources to raising children, often to the detriment of their own needs (Hays, 1998). Intensive mothering practices also align with the “good mother” discourse that demands “day-to-day labour of nurturing the child, listening to the child, attempting to decipher the child’s needs and desires, struggling to meet the child’s wishes, and placing the child’s well-being ahead of their own convenience” (Hays, 1998, p. 115).

In the Indian context also, motherhood is highly idealised and glorified where mothers are left with minimal or no agency. The norm of mandatory motherhood is strong that not all Indian women are able to freely exercise their reproductive choice. In this context, the narratives of childfree women on motherhood and the childfree choice gains relevance.

Childfree Women

Childbearing is considered mandatory for a heterogenous married couple, failing which they have to face consequences. However, some individuals or couples decide to be childfree. The phenomenon of “childfreedom” is not recent in academic discourse and a considerable amount of research has been done on “childfreedom” in the past 30 years at the global level. Themes such as characteristics of childfree individuals, the timing of the decision, patterns of decision-making, reasons for the childfree decision, the childfree couple’s lived experiences, and social pressure and stigmatization have been studied by various researchers (Shapiro, 2014).

The research on childfreedom which began in the 1970s, initially framed it as deviance and focused on individual characteristics and economic impacts. The 1980s emphasized demographics, particularly childfree heterosexual couples, while the 1990s explored religiosity’s role. By the 2000s, attention shifted to aging childfree individuals, with gendered aspects remaining a key focus throughout. The terminology used to describe the individuals who choose not to have children has undergone changes over time. The term “childless” was used in the initial studies which made it difficult to distinguish the individuals who did not have children but wished to have from those who had made an intentional choice not to have children. The terms “voluntarily” and “intentionally” were increasingly used in the studies published during the 1980s to denote chosen childlessness (Blackstone, 2012).

Riessman (2000) pointed out that “voluntary childlessness” or “childfreedom” in India is rare and that research about the same is absent. The childfree women who were interviewed by Reismann in South India challenged stigma and hegemony directly. The economic status of all the women interviewed was of a similar nature, that is, upper-middle-class and they openly contested the importance of motherhood. Ram (2005) analyzing the data on childlessness during the period 1981 to 2001 in India has identified the proportion of voluntary childlessness as significant. She has also predicted an increase in the population of voluntary childlessness or childfree in the future owing to their aspirations and lifestyle. Even in times of increase in the childfree population, academic studies on the same are very minimal in the Indian context and the phenomenon has been mostly explored through case studies in newspaper articles that do not provide the complete picture and lack an in-depth understanding.

Urvashi Butalia examined the consequences that a woman in India has to face when opting out of motherhood and questioned the “naturalness” of motherhood (2013). The choice around motherhood among childfree women and fence-sitters (those who are ambivalent about having children and procrastinate inconclusively) was studied by Amrita Nandy (2013) in the Indian context. This particular study looked at the notions of agency, autonomy, and subjecthood in the narratives of childfree women. In the setting where motherhood is glorified, the author asks whether a woman has an authentic choice relating to motherhood in India. The study employed ethnographic fieldwork with ten childfree women in Delhi and found that the terrain of motherhood presents women with more difficult, partial, and less real choices (Nandy, 2013). The study of experiences of twelve childfree women in different cities of India relating to their reason for opting out of motherhood yielded results such as the cost of losing freedom and the urge to pursue personal desires (Bhambhani & Inbanathan, 2018).

Childfree women in India are an invisible but growing population segment in India. Studies on involuntary childlessness in the Indian context are abundant, but studies on childfreedom are minimal or absent. Deep-rooted norms on motherhood are very strong in the Indian context such that a woman without children has to face severe consequences such as stigma and social exclusion in society. Being a mother or attaining motherhood is the primary responsibility of being a woman and the societal norms ensure that there are severe penalties for deviating from the same. Often the individuals are not aware of the reproductive rights or choices that they are entitled to during family planning. A married life without children is a distant thought in the lives of individuals in a country like India where the values of pronatalism are promoted. Childbearing is considered to be essential for family life in the Indian context due to which childless families are not accepted as complete or normal families (TISS, 1993).

The childfree women in India, by choosing a life without children, challenge the dominant discourses related to childbearing. It is important to produce and visibilize a counter-discourse through generating knowledge on childfree women and their choice. The emerging population of childfree women in India has not been explored to understand the phenomenon of childfreedom. Childfree women reject motherhood in their life due to many reasons and they have their own perceptions regarding the concept of motherhood. What meaning do they attribute to motherhood? Is it in alignment with the dominant discourse on motherhood? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in the present paper. In addition, the meaning that they attach to their decision to be childfree will also be explored.

Methodology

I employed narrative inquiry to capture the subjective experience of the childfree women, focusing on the childfree choices they made within their socio-cultural context. This narrative study aimed to “experience the experience” of childfree women, the essence of which is a reminder that “…narrative inquiry is aimed at understanding and making meaning of experience” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 80). The narrative enquiry has thus served as the best approach to reflect upon the meaning of motherhood and childfree choice by childfree women. Purposive and snowball sampling was used to identify and select the participants as it was highly specific and difficult to reach. The inclusion criteria that were used to select the participants are the following:

(1) Women who are married or have been in a live-in relationship for more than five years.

(2) Women who have voluntarily decided not to have children (biological/adoptive).

The pilot study revealed that 5 years of marriage was a reasonable time frame in which couples made their reproductive choices. Out of the ten participants, three of them were selected from the childfree group on Facebook, while the remaining participants were selected through personal contacts. The participants were located in states such as Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra in India and the majority of them were settled in urban spaces due to the nature of their work. However, a few belonged to rural areas; all of them belonged to the upper middle class and upper class. Some of the reasons cited by the participants for their childfree choice include the nature of their work, lifestyle issues, a desire to live an ecologically mindful life, struggles of parenthood, the influence of readings and discussions on childfree choice and events experienced in childhood.

In-depth interviews and observation were used as the method for data collection and a total of ten in-depth interviews were conducted out of which six were face to face. The remaining four in-depth interviews were conducted over the telephone due to accessibility issues and participants’ preference for confidentiality. The suggestions and insights on conducting a telephonic interview (Burke & Miller, 2001) were adopted to customize the tool.

A semi-structured interview guide and observation checklist which were used as the tools for the study was critically reviewed and validated by an expert academic committee. The recorded interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to code the verbatim and group them into various themes.

The study deals with a sensitive and highly personal issue and as a result, confidentiality was maintained by changing the name of the participants and excluding any identifiable details of participants. The purpose of the study was explained before the interview and informed consent was obtained. The place for the interviews was chosen by the participants themselves which ensured convenience and privacy.

The small sample size and homogeneity in terms of occupation, class, caste and religion have restricted diversity in the study and form one of its limitations. Nor could this study capture the perspective and experience of the participants’ partners, which could, in future research, generate more knowledge on childfree communities.

Results and Discussion

The meaning of motherhood varies from individual to individual, and so is the construction of motherhood in different cultures. There is a dominant ideology regarding motherhood in every society and the defined characteristics of a mother. The participants challenge the ideology of hegemonic motherhood by detaching womanhood from motherhood and constructing an identity separated from the identity of the mother. They also question the natural “maternal instinct” and construct their childfree decision to be “natural.” The feelings attached to motherhood are extended beyond gender and biological motherhood status which also includes feelings of fear too. The perception of “motherhood” and “mothering” by childfree women also aligns with the dominant image of motherhood and values of intensive mothering that exist in society. The meaning that participants attach to childfree choice includes emphasis on one’s own identity, exercising reproductive choice, reasons behind the childfree choice, and freedom.

Does Motherhood Complete Women?

Simone de Beauvoir in her book “The second sex” (1997) asks “What is a woman? ‘Tota mulier in utero’, says one, ‘woman is a womb’” (p.3). Even though a woman is defined on the basis of reproductive function, not all women with a uterus are considered women as per the cultural and social expectations. There is a central value and normative expectation for women that they “ought” to become mothers (Russo, 1976). Therefore, motherhood has historically and traditionally shaped the roles of women and of feminine identity (Gillespie, 2003).

Once a female attains menstruation, they are considered a potential mother who has to fulfil her reproductive destiny. The mothering offered by women continues to be basic in the lives of women as well as in the organization of the family. It is also considered fundamental to the genesis of the ideology about women (Krishnaraj, 2006). The influence of patriarchy is present in portraying motherhood as a mere function of women’s innate biology (Holmes, 2006). Women who fail to be mothers are often questioned about their womanhood and have to face severe consequences.

In the Indian landscape, a woman justifies her existence only as a mother and only as a mother of sons which is reflected in the famous Sanskrit blessing given to a newly married bride that says “May you be the mother of a hundred sons” (Krishnaraj, 2006, p. 24). The traditional and patriarchal social norms that exist in multi-cultural India impose the expectation of a male heir on mothers. A mother is worshipped and glorified if she gives birth to a son that will ensure the lineage of her husband (Dey & Das, 2020). Women who do not procreate are questioned about their womanhood along with other social stigma and exclusion within the family and outside. It is in this scenario that some of the Indian childfree women reject the notion of equating motherhood with womanhood. Swetha who is a 44-year-old retired software engineer says:

“In my case, I feel that my identity is never defined by motherhood. I used to read a lot. Those kinds of things have changed the way in which I look at things. And so, I didn’t have any thoughts that only if I become a mother, my life would be complete or that motherhood completes a woman.”

Remya (27-year-old) who is a make-up artist also feels that her decision to remain childfree has not affected her womanhood.

“It is a personal choice. The right to bring a child or not. If I am bringing a child without my interest, it would be a very big mistake. I do not wish for that. That is the reason why I am childfree. It has not affected my womanhood. I am a woman physically and emotionally.”

Both the participants were of the opinion that their decision to be childfree did not affect their being as a woman. The experience and perspective that the childfree women have accumulated over their lifetime contributed to rejecting the norm that equates motherhood to womanhood. In the case of Swetha, her parents made sure that she and her two siblings read right from their childhood which had changed her perspective on childbearing. She further said that a 3-year girl child is given a baby doll to play with and it is a big thing to come out of the conditioning. She touches upon the socialization that every girl receives during childhood deepening the motherhood mandate in society. For Remya it was her experience within her family that has led to her childfree status and she believes that it has not affected her womanhood. She did not have much interest in the concept of motherhood due to her own experience with her mother. She recollects that her mother used to say “The ultimate aim of life of the women is to get married and have kids. You are not complete without kids. Or else you don’t become a woman.” To which she responds “I do not want to be a complete woman if having kids is what makes me a complete woman.” The social pressure that she receives from her family and society is high enough for her to respond that she does not want to be a complete woman despite her belief that she is a woman physically and emotionally.

Vidya who is at the age of 67 and engages as a Freelance ecologist and educator also feels that the reason why she became herself is that she chose not to become a mother. Jaya, 55 years old who is an environment researcher shares her thoughts:

“I have not felt the identity of the mother. Nevertheless, at the same time, I love children. I cannot imagine myself in the role of the mother. Motherhood is something very intense. It needs resilience. It is important to accept everything.”

Both Vidya and Jaya do not see themselves in the role or identity of the mother as their identity does not fit in the identity of the mother that they have constructed. It is their personal knowledge of the self or the connection to one’s authentic self which has guided them in the creation of their identity and destiny (Mortimore, 2004). The participants have exercised their freedom to define themselves and create an identity which is detached from the identity of the mother.

Various ideologies and discourses influence how a woman constructs her identity (Haynes, 2008). The socio-cultural expectations have constructed an identity of a mother in each woman which has some common characteristics. Under pronatalist ideology, “women” and “mother” are often used synonymously concerning identities and experiences (Rich, 1986). Childbearing is considered a form of achievement for married women and a way of establishing one’s identity as a woman. A woman’s identity is linked to childbearing by pronatalism which essentializes women as reproducers (Inhorn, 2007) and defines women largely by their reproductive status (Purdy, 1996). By setting apart their identity from that of the identity of a mother, they are challenging the notion of equating womanhood with motherhood. They have defined themselves beyond their reproductive functions. Women are defined through the institutionalization of motherhood to promote standards by which they are judged in the reproduction of a gender-stratified society (Goodwin & Huppatz, 2010). The participants are able to resist the institutionalization of motherhood in their lives by choosing to lead a childfree life. They respect their identity as a woman and do not perceive it as lacking anything. They are proud of what they have become, being women who have constructed their own identity that is not a part of motherhood.

How Natural is Maternal Instinct?

The general assumption in every culture is that every woman has “maternal instincts” and therefore wishes to bear and rear children. They are also seen as “natural” caretakers of children. “Maternal instinct” has been used as an ideological device that has been used to condition generations of women to a particular social role. It is through various forms of socialization that the belief, that “natural” or “instinctive” is present in women is established (Wilson, 1984). The childfree women in the study questioned the “natural” maternal instincts present in women.

Vidya (67 years old) asks:

“My deep inquiry at this stage is how much natural and biological is this need in us, women especially, to have our children.”

Jaya (55 years old) says:

“I feel I have less maternal instincts. In the past, there were unmarried women in the family. They used to show motherly love to others. Naturally, some people have that instinct. I don't think I have that quality.”

Vidya is questioning the “natural and biological” need in women to have children while Jaya perceives maternal instinct as a quality that individuals possess just like any other personal quality. When Jaya says that she doesn’t have the maternal instinct, it breaks the popular belief that all women have a maternal instinct. Nirmala, who is 50 years old and is engaged in social work said that she feels motherly love when she holds the children of her sister. She is stressing the point that one can exhibit the kind of love that a mother shows to children irrespective of whether it’s one own or not. Similarly, Vidya also shares similar feelings on defining motherhood as:

“a feeling of care and responsibility anyone –woman or man, young or old – can develop towards any young being, human or non-human, plant or animal.”

Vidya challenges the notion that women are primarily or naturally the “nurturers” by saying that a man can also express care and responsibility and also that it need not be exclusively towards humans. While Vidya attaches a feeling of care and responsibility to motherhood, Rini (47 years old) who is an environmental educator attaches a feeling of fear which is reflected in the following words:

“Bearing children was something which used to give me nightmares. It is not that I don't love children. It is not a conscious decision. It grew as fear in me.”

The feeling of fear that Rini attaches to motherhood is due to her experience in childhood and it stems from the thought of losing the child. This challenges the dominant belief of motherhood as an experience of joy and happiness and points out the role of personal experience in shaping the meaning attached to motherhood.

Women’s lives have always been around the role of motherhood and are often presented as predestined, with instincts and their bodies being perceived as suited to reproduction and childbearing (Gillespie, 1999). Moreover, nobody had questioned the “natural” need in women to procreate. It also needs to be noted that only married women are expected to bear and rear children and not single or lesbian women (Richardson, 1993). This points to the question that if “maternal instinct” is present, only married women are expected to have it (Richardson, 1993). “It appears that it is not motherhood that is idealized but only motherhood under patriarchy, that is, within the socially acceptable confines of marriage” (Rich as cited in Hare-Mustin & Broderick, 1979, pp. 115–116).

Maternal instinct in women is seen as contributing to the distress and unhappiness that women feel when they fail to become mother. This has largely influenced the narrative that reproduction forms one of the core aspects for women to lead a happy life. This dominant narrative is questioned by Shilpa (40 years) who is a yoga therapist and a research associate when she says:

“The unhappiness that women face when they don't have children is largely artificial. How much of it is their own disappointment and how much of it is a sense of having failed their husband, having failed their family, having failed in society is a very difficult line to define. That kind of vulnerability that a woman faces, that I am not a proper woman until I give birth to a child is being exploited by the baby industry. I have seen fertility clinics saying “Be a complete woman.” Those kinds of things are essentially very shamelessly exploiting a social vulnerability if not a biological vulnerability that some women have.”

The participant here is questioning the unhappiness that a woman who has failed to be a mother feels. She also mentions the difficulty in recognizing the reason behind the unhappiness that a woman feels on failing to be a mother. The social pressures and glorification attached to motherhood, especially in the lives of women make it difficult to understand the genuineness of the unhappiness that the women feel. She also points out the exploitation of a woman who struggles to be a mother by the fertility clinics which is intense in the context of India especially. Women often blame themselves for “infertility” (Kirkman, 2008). Even when “infertility” is beyond their control, women blame themselves morally for “infertility” due to the existing pronatalist ideologies. It is this self-blame that leads some women to take up the responsibility for their own or partner’s infertility and undergo fertility treatments (McLeod & Julie, 2008). As a result, psychological and physical stresses are experienced by women who undergo Assisted Reproductive Technologies treatment (ART). A sense of control over fertility is felt by the women who take up the managerial responsibility for infertility. However, it may result in feelings of personal failure and blameworthiness if treatments do not yield the expected results (Petropanagos, 2017).

The advertisement tag lines such as “be a complete woman” by fertility clinics reinforce and perpetuate the notion that women without a child are not complete women. How childfree women challenge the notion that equates womanhood to motherhood has been explained in the previous section titled “Does motherhood complete womanhood?”. Women may experience significant stress associated with bearing a child through pregnancy, in contrast to alternative pathways to parenthood such as adoption. It results in a situation where women are willing to go to considerable measures to overcome the “life crisis” of being unable to bear a child (Stuart Smith et al., 2011) through ART in an attempt to bear children and avoid the stigmatization and harm related to infertility (Petropanagos, 2017).

A woman who does not procreate is labeled as “unnatural.” It is interesting to note that some of the participants in the study are redefining “natural” and seeing their decision not to be a mother as “natural.” Arya (39 years old) who works as a chief manager in a nationalized bank says:

“We do not feel like this to be a big decision. We find our childfree decision to be very natural. It did not seem to be a tough decision for us. It is a big decision for people who believe in the concept of having children after marriage. For us, we do not have that concept and hence we do not feel like we did something that is different.”

The narratives of participants that question the maternal instinct or motherhood as “natural” marks the emergence of a counter/resistant discourse. Women as “natural nurturers” is also redefined by the participants by extending it beyond gender. The participants also feel that the love and affection that a mother exhibit can be shown by unmarried and childfree women towards other children. The feelings of motherhood need not be restricted to joy and happiness but also fear as per one of the participants. Even with the existence of dominant discourses that place motherhood as “natural” and childlessness as “unnatural,” the participants are able to present their state of being childfree as natural.

Intensive Mothering

According to Hays (1996), intensive mothering “is a gendered model that advises mothers to expend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money in raising their children.” Even when the dominant notion of motherhood is challenged by some of the participants in the current study, some of the participants hold views of intensive mothering. Jaya (55 years old) believes that if she had decided to have children, she should be giving her full time to children. Vidya (67 years old) stated that having a child means giving up all that is wished for. She shares her thoughts:

“Our children should be looked after by us and not by our parents. In that case, one of us should devote full time to a child. My opinion is that motherhood should not be performed with a half mind. Both the heart and soul should be given to the child.”

She also adds the impact of mothering practices on the lives of mothers whom she had observed in her life.

“Most of them have no time for themselves and have given up their personal interests like music, reading, art and many other things that were once their great passions. Only very few of them have with great difficulty rediscovered their interests and are able to pursue them in their old age. But it has to be said that their involvements are in socially accepted religious/spiritual pursuits, music, gardening and such non-controversial, ‘safe’ domains.”

Both Jaya and Vidya feel that one should give their full time and effort for bringing up the child which is one of the characteristics of intensive mothering. Vidya further stresses the point of how women have to give up personal interest in the process of childrearing. Shilpa (40 years old) also has made an observation of how mothers prioritize their children and their needs over them and their needs:

“I feel that mothers’ lives are largely about their children whereas, for childfree women, their lives are largely about what they want to do in life. The time, career choice and hobbies of mothers all revolve around the needs of the child.”

Sruthi (33 years old) who is a coordinator under a government-run women empowerment programme also shares similar observation:

“Childfree life is freer. Mothers are not able to do things because they have children. For men, it is not an issue. But for women, it is an issue. Because of children, women have to give up studies, jobs, travelling and reading habits, etc. Once a colleague had said to me – ‘I wished to have children. But now 24 hours they are with us.”

Sruthi shares about the struggles of motherhood:

“When I see the struggles of parents in various situations, I realize that I am very comfortable in my life. I don't feel to be a mother on seeing that.”

Even though Sruthi mentions the struggles of parents which includes both father and mother, it is established that it is the mothers who have to shoulder more responsibilities than the father. The feminist framework which confronts the oppression of women in families does not intend to ignore the fathers but rather acknowledges that there is a socio-historical context that has historically placed the responsibility for children’s problems squarely on the shoulders of mothers (Garey & Arendell, 2001). As a result of the gendered nature of parenting, mothers carry a particular, gendered pressure that is not experienced by fathers (Henderson et al., 2015). Mothers are being held responsible for the actions, behavior, health, and well-being of their (even adult) children, and as a result, there is scrutiny of the actions and behaviors of women as mothers and not that of men as fathers clearly indicating the sexist bias (Jackson & Mannix, 2004).

As per the intensive mothering model, continued and unconditional maternal love, evidenced by permanent loving attention should be provided to children. Appropriate childrearing is emotionally absorbing, child-centred, labor-intensive and time-consuming (Hays, 1996). As Sharon Hays (1996) explains, through discourses of intensive mothering “A good mother would never simply put her child aside for her own convenience. And placing material wealth or power on a higher plane than the well-being of children is strictly forbidden” (p. 150). In addition to shaping the identities of mothers, good mother discourses also shape the meaning of mothering for individual women by constructing and defining how mothers feel (Goodwin & Huppatz, 2010). As per the ideology of intensive mothering raising a child is one of the most important things a woman can do for society, and is more worthwhile than paid work (Verniers et al., 2022). The narration of the participants regarding mothering practices that they believe and witness around them aligns with that of intensive mothering ideology. Even when the participants have resisted the hegemonic norm of mandatory motherhood, they are caught up in the intensive mothering practices.

Exploring the Meaning of Childfree Choice

The meaning that childfree women attach to their childfree choice varies. Some of the participants have realized the meaning at the time of decision-making while some of them have derived the meaning in the later phase of their childfree life. Whereas some of them have not attached any meaning to their childfree choice. Vidya describes the meaning that she has attached to her decision:

“This decision has made me what I am today. It is only now that I am thinking deeply and honestly about it. More and more I feel that it has been the right and wise decision in our life. I have had a fulfilling life full of wild wanderings and wonderful experiences, freedom and time to discover my potential and try to fulfil my deeper yearnings.”

When she says that the decision has made her what she is today, she emphasizes the identity that she has constructed as a result of a childfree decision that she is proud of. Similarly, Shilpa also believes that her decision to remain childfree has preserved her identity. Her words point toward the identity transition that one goes through when one decides to opt for motherhood. Identity cannot be seen as fixed and individuals experience identity transitions as a result of changing roles or life events (Ashforth, 2001). On becoming a mother, women experience a change in their roles and responsibilities, and this transition to motherhood is accompanied by an identity transition (Hennekam, 2016). Becoming a mother causes women to modify several areas of their identities in addition to the modification of their understandings of themselves and who they are in relationships with other people (Steinberg, 2005). The participants imply that they did not undergo an identity transition due to motherhood as they rejected the same. The identity that they have constructed of their own is valued and preserved by themselves by staying childfree. Loss of identity was found as a motivational factor relating to the rejection of motherhood which is evident in the narratives of the participants here.

When Jenny was asked about what meaning she gives to her childfree life, she immediately responded “Choice of life.” When I asked her to elaborate, she said:

“Whether a mother will have a life or not depends on the kind of partner and family they have and the support they provide. A lot of things affect it. For instance, some people want kids, and the best career and there will be heavy expectations from family. If they want almost everything, they will suffer. If they keep minimal, they will enjoy it. It is all about choices in life. The expectations are increasing from generation to generation and they are not able to live a life. Rather they are somehow alive. They are running after children and children require time and love. There are so much of demands. There is heavy competition. Even children also undergo depression. So, the choice that we make may either give you a life or just make you alive.”

The “choice of life” which is mentioned by Jenny here refers to a life without stress or tension. A childfree life for Jenny is a life without heavy competition, high expectations and demands. When the choice of childfree becomes a “choice of life,” the emphasis here is on a life that gives freedom, peace, and happiness without societal and familial expectations of different roles women have to perform. Childfree participants in other studies have associated the notion of freedom with their decision to be childfree which is to be free from the activities that are required to do as part of motherhood (Gietel-Basten et al., 2021). These activities are perceived as burdens to the participants which is also reflective of the unequal burden of parenting.

Some of the participants had attached the reasons for choosing childfree choice as the meaning behind their childfree choice. These reasons include the nature of their work, lifestyle issues, a desire to live an ecologically mindful life, struggles of parenthood, the influence of readings and discussions on childfree choice and events experienced in childhood. For, Arya (39 years old) and Remya there is no such meaning, and see it as their personal reproductive choice. The majority of them perceive the childfree choice as their reproductive right to opt out of motherhood.

Conclusion

India with a strong pronatalist ideology promotes childbearing and glorifies motherhood which puts pressure on every married woman to be a mother. Married women face the social pressures of motherhood which further hinder their reproductive autonomy. The dominant social narratives on motherhood force women to be mothers without evaluating other options. The reproductive choices are too limited in a society that glorifies motherhood and promotes mandatory motherhood. It is in this context that some women are making a reproductive choice that challenges mandatory motherhood. The meaning of motherhood and childfree choice among ten childfree women in a contemporary Indian setting was explored using narrative enquiry.

Childfree women challenge the dominant norm that equates womanhood with motherhood by constructing an identity that is different from the identity of a mother and by stressing that their womanhood is complete without children. They also question the natural need that exists in women to become a mother by pointing out that they have not felt “maternal instinct” and that they feel their decision to be childfree is “natural.” The feelings attached to motherhood are extended beyond gender and biological motherhood status as per the childfree women and they break the notion of motherhood being attached to the feeling of love and affection by stating that there are feelings of fear too. The construction of “motherhood” and “mothering” by childfree women also aligns with the dominant image of motherhood and values of intensive mothering that exist in society. Childfree women in the current study perceive motherhood as time-consuming, emotionally draining and requiring personal sacrifices which are the characteristics of intensive motherhood. This perception of viewing motherhood as only intensive motherhood has become one of the reasons behind their childfree choice. It depicts the intensity of the ideology of intensive motherhood even among married women who have exercised reproductive choice that violates mandatory motherhood. The meaning behind childfree choice which was expressed by the childfree women includes emphasis on one’s own identity, exercising reproductive choice, reasons behind the childfree choice, and freedom. The findings derived from the narratives of childfree women need to be placed within the socio-cultural and economic context of India. The diversity of the sample in the current study is limited and thereby further research that covers a heterogenous and representative sample will contribute to the knowledge on childfree communities in India.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Meera Suresh Babu

References

Arendell

(2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade's scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1192–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01192.x

Ashforth

(2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Beauvoir

(1997). The second sex. Vintage.

Bhambhani

Inbanathan

(2018). Not a mother, yet a woman: Exploring experiences of women opting out of motherhood in India. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 24(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2018.1462932

Blackstone

Stewart

M.D.

(2012). Choosing to be childfree: Research on the decision not to parent. Sociology Compass, 6(9): 718-727. Retrieved August 21, 2017 from https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=soc_facpub

Blake

(1974). Coercive pronatalism and American population policy. In Peck

Senderowitz

(Eds.), Pronatalism: The myth of mom & apple pie (pp. 29–67). Thomas Y Crowell. https://archive.org/details/pronatalismmytho0000unse/page/n5/mode/2up

Brown

Ferree

(2005). Close your eyes and think of england: Pronatalism in the British print media. Gender & Society, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124320427122

Burke

L. A.

Miller

M. K.

(2001). Phone interviewing as a means of data collection: Lessons learned and practical recommendations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(2). https://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-01/2-01burkemiller-e.htm.

Butalia

(2013). Childless, naturally. In Misra

(Ed.), Of mothers and others (pp. 1–234): Zubaan.

10.

Choi

Henshaw

Baker

Tree

(2005). Supermum, superwife, supereverything: Performing femininity in the transition to motherhood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830500129487

11.

Clandinin

J. D.

Connelly

F. M.

(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

12.

Coombe

Loxton

Tooth

Byles

(2019). “I can be a mum or a professional, but not both”: What women say about their experiences of juggling paid employment with motherhood. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.76

13.

Daniluk

J. C.

(2007). When Biology Isn’t Destiny: Implications for the Sexuality of Women Without Children. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 33(2). Retrieved from https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/58616

14.

Dey

Das

(2020). Motherhood in India: Myths, theories and literature. Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 64–70. DOI:10.33329/rjelal.8.3.64

15.

Firestone

(1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. William Morrow and Co.

16.

Garey

Arendell

(2001). Children, work, and family: Some thoughts on “motherblame”. In Rosanna

Nancy

(Eds.), Working families: The transformation of the American home (pp. 293–303). University of California Press.

17.

Gietel-Basten

Obispo

Ridd

Zhang

S. Y.

(2021). Childless or free of children? Self-definition and being childfree. In Cummins

Rodgers

Dunkelberger Wouk

(Eds.), The truth about (M)otherhood: Choosing to Be childfree (pp. 71–88). Demeter Press.

18.

Gillespie

(1999). Voluntary childlessness in the United Kingdom. Reproductive Health Matters, 7(13), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-8080(99)90111-8

19.

Gillespie

(2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of childless women. Gender & Society, 17(1), Article 122136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3081818

20.

Goodwin

Huppatz

(2010). The good mother in theory and research: An overview. In The good mother (pp. 1–24). Sydney University Press.

21.

Hare-Mustin

Broderick

(1979). The myth of motherhood: A study of attitudes toward motherhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00702.x

22.

Haynes

(2008). Transforming identities: Accounting professionals and the transition to motherhood. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(5), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.10.003

23.

Hays

(1996). The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.

24.

Hays

(1998). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University.

25.

Henderson

Harmon

Newman

(2015). The price mothers pay, even when they are not buying it: Mental health consequences of idealized motherhood. Sex Roles.

26.

Hennekam

(2016). Identity transition during pregnancy: The importance of role models. Human Relations, 69(9), 1765–1790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716631402

27.

Holmes

(2006). Born to do it? The social construction of motherhood (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Women’s Studies-Simon Fraser University.

28.

Houseknecht

(1987). Voluntary childlessness. In Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 369–395). Plenum Press.

29.

Inhorn

M. C.

(2007). Reproductive disruptions:Gender, Technology, and biopolitics in the new millennium. Berghahn Books.

30.

Jackson

Mannix

(2004). Giving voice to the burden of blame: A feminist study of mothers’ experiences of mother blaming. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 10(4), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2004.00474.x

31.

Kadakia

(2016). Going child-free: Indian women opting for lives without kids. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/sex-andrelationships/going-child-free-indian-women-opting-for-lives-without-kids/story-PJE5tsbuOhGyBEfpLjyjfI.html

32.

Kirkman

(2008). Being a ‘Real’ Mum: Motherhood through Donated Eggs and Embryos. Women’s Studies International Forum, 314, 241–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.006

33.

Krishnaraj

(2006). Motherhood, mothers, mothering: A multidimensional perspective. [Working papers]. eSocialSciences https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203151631

34.

Laney

Hall

Anderson

Willingham

(2015). Becoming a mother: The influence of motherhood on women’s identity development. Identity, 15(2), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2015.1023440

35.

Liss

Schiffrin

Rizzo

(2012). Maternal guilt and shame: The role of self-discrepancy and fear of negative evaluation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(8), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9673-2

36.

McLeod

Julie

(2008). Infertility and Moral Luck: The Politics of Women Blaming Themselves for Infertility.” IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to. Bioethics, 11, 126–44. https://doi.org/10.2979/FAB.2008.1.1.126

37.

Mortimore

(2004). Becoming, being and belonging to the womanhood: A qualitative inquiry with voluntary childfree women (Master’s thesis. University of Victoria). University of Victoria Libraries. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/856e8bab-9da7-4d6d-94f7-4df262aaf643/content.

38.

Nandy

(2013). Outliers of motherhood: Incomplete women or fuller humans? Economic and Political Weekly, 53–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23528807.

39.

Okin

(1989). Justice, gender, and the family. Basic Books, Inc. http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/ClassReadings/Okin/134047341-Susan-Moller-Okin-Justice-Gender-and-the-Family-1991-Transfer-Ro-28feb-Fd7a0f.pdf.

40.

O’Reilly

(2004). From Motherhood to Mothering: The Legacy of Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born. Albany: State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book4871

41.

Park

(2002). Stigma management among the voluntarily childless. Sociological Perspectives, 45(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2002.45.1.21

42.

Parker

(1995). Torn in Two: The Experience of Maternal Ambivalence. London: Virago.

43.

Peck

Judith

(1974). Pronatalism: The myth of mom and apple pie. Thomas Y. Crowell Co.

44.

Petchesky

(1995). From population control to reproductive rights: Feminist fault lines. Reproductive Health Matters, 152–161. DOI:10.1016/0968-8080(95)90172-8

45.

Petropanagos

(2017). Pronatalism, geneticism and ART (pp. 119–147). International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics.

46.

Phoenix

Woollett

Lloyd

(Eds.). (1991). Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies. Sage Publications, Inc.

47.

Purdy

L. M.

(1996). Reproducing persons:issues in feminist bioethics. Cornell University Press.

48.

Ram

(2005, June). Childlessness in time, space and social groups and its linkages with fertility in India [Conference presentation]. European Population Conference 2006, Liverpool, UK. https://epc2006.eaps.nl/papers/60100

49.

Rich

(1986). Of woman born. Norton.

50.

Richardson

(1993). Women, motherhood and childrearing: Macmillan.

51.

Riessman

(2000). Stigma and everyday resistance practices: Childless women in South India. Gender & Society, 14(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014001007

52.

Russo

N. F.

(1976). The motherhood mandate. Journal of Social Issues, 32(3), 143–154.

53.

Sarojini

Das

(2010). ARTs: Voices from progressive movements. In Srinivasan

(Ed.) Making babies, birth markets and assisted reproductive Technologies. Zubaan.

54.

Shapiro

(2014). Voluntary childlessness: A critical review of the literature. Studies in the Maternal, 1-15. Retrieved August 21, 2017 from https://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/articles/10.16995/sim.9/galley/8/download

55.

Smart

(1996). Deconstructing motherhood. In Silva

E. B.

(Ed.), Feminist perspectives on lone motherhood (pp. 37–57). Routledge.

56.

Steinberg

(2005). Donning the mask of motherhood: A defensive strategy, a developmental search. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 6(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15240650609349273

57.

Stuart Smith

Smith

Scott

(2011). Treatment decision making in anonymous donor egg in-vitro fertilisation: A qualitative study of childless women and women with genetically related children. Human Fertility, 14(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2011.571747

58.

Tata Institute of Social Sciences [TISS] . (1993). Approach paper for plan of action in the international year of the family in 1994 and beyond (Report No. 1).

59.

Verniers

Bonnot

Assilaméhou-Kunz

(2022). Intensive mothering and the perpetuation of gender inequality: Evidence from a mixed methods research. Acta Psychologica, 227, Article 103614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103614

60.

Wilson

(1984). The myth of motherhood a myth: The historical view of European child-rearing. Social History, 9(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071028408567590