What a Recent USA Today Article about the Childfree Did Wrong

How positive intentions can still have negative impact

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Last night, my aunt sent me a link to the recent USA Today article, “What is a childfree relationship? And how you might be misunderstanding it.” She has two children; I have none (by choice). Whenever she comes across a piece like this, she sends me a link with her thoughts.

Her thoughts on this one were, “Pretty basic — but nice tone for the unconvinced.”

I was stuck for a few minutes on what she meant by “the unconvinced” (who were they? what exactly were they not convinced about? in what way?), but I decided to settle on “the unconvinced” being people who simply don’t understand the choice to not have kids.

So, then I thought, “Oh, good — a piece that presents childfree relationships in a way that will, once and for all, communicate to ‘the unconvinced’ that we’re quite happy and don’t need your pity, thank you.”

Then I read it.

I replied to my aunt, “I disagree with the tone” (followed by an “eek” face emoji).

Here’s why:

The intent

Writer Sara Kuburic’s intent, I thought, was absolutely wonderful. Not only does she write this