Kim Basinger: If women said ‘no more babies’, ‘then we’d run the world’


Kim Basinger has a new interview with The Daily Beast to promote her new film, The 11th Hour. It sounds like a really depressing film about a working woman who decides that she suddenly wants to become a mother, and she has to go through a crazy journey to adopt or buy a kid. Do you mind if I not excerpt many quotes about the film? Because it sounds like a really sad, depressing movie. You can read the full Daily Beast interview here. Kim talks about other stuff too, which is why I’m covering it. Remember when she used to date Prince? Remember 9 ½ Weeks? Yeah, she talks about that stuff too!

She admires child-free women: “I’ve always admired professional women—and I’ve had a few around me—who decided not to have kids. They knew they either couldn’t handle it, or just didn’t have that maternal instinct, or it just wasn’t for them.”

Working on 9 ½ Weeks: “9½ Weeks is one of those that I’m so proud of. I know it took some hits initially—whether tomatoes were thrown—or that we stayed in a theater in Paris for a number of years, but I’m very proud of that collaboration with Mickey, and with [director] Adrian Lyne…There’ve been a lot of sexy, nudie films around, but in some strange way, we pioneered our way into that arena, and I remember how welcomed I was—especially in Europe—with that character. And it strengthened my film and personal relationship with women.

Dating Prince back in the day: “He’s a brilliant talent. There’s no doubt about that. You know that, I’m sure. Hey, listen, I don’t really have boundaries, so I enjoyed that time of my life. It was a really special moment in time, and I have great memories. I don’t put a lot of restrictions on myself, let’s just put it that way. If there’s someone I connect with, we’ll go on these rides together. So that was a neat time in my life.

Prince writing “Scandalous Sex Suite” for her: “That song. Oh, I know. Oh dear! Ah, yes. Sex runs the world in a lot of ways! If only women knew how powerful they were, they’d just say “no, no more babies,” and then we’d run the world. So there you go!

On Christopher Nolan’s Batman: “They’re beautifully, beautifully done—especially The Dark Knight, the Heath Ledger one. It was cinematically beautiful, and very well-written. But I’m still very proud that I was in the first one… Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson? Listen, if I were an audience member I’d say the same thing. Where do you go from Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson? You don’t get better than that.

Working with Ryan Gosling: “I love him. He’s a doll… He’s just a sweet man. He’s a sweet person. I pray to god he’s that nice in life! He’s adorable, though. He’s for real. So, lucky… what’s her name? Eva? Lucky for her. He’s beautiful, she’s beautiful, and I’m sure they’ve made a really beautiful baby.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I’ll admit that I sometimes think like this: “If only women knew how powerful they were, they’d just say ‘no, no more babies,’ and then we’d run the world.” It’s an impossible, illogical dream, but it is worth thinking about from time to time. Of course, what I see as “sidetracked by children” is another woman’s goal (motherhood). Everybody’s different, but it’s nice to see Kim stick up for childfree women and basically say that women are more powerful in ways other than motherhood.

As for the Prince stuff… she rarely talks about her time with him. None of his exes say much. I kind of think he asks them to sign nondisclosure agreements.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

177 Responses to “Kim Basinger: If women said ‘no more babies’, ‘then we’d run the world’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MooHoo says:

    She was drop dead gorgeous back in the day and she is still a beautiful woman.
    love what she said about Prince.
    Wish I was as free and boundary-less as she is. sounds like fun.
    I think she was with Spike Lee too at one stage.

  2. Isa says:

    Three babies here…still planning on taking over the world. 😝

    • Mzizkrizten says:

      Yeah, who says moms can’t take over the world?! We are raising the next generation of world-changers, anyway. Quit acting like moms are out of the game.

      • the blonde one says:

        I think she’s just saying that men would snap to attention pretty quickly if we did that.

      • Isa says:

        That’s what i initially thought too, but then Kaiser mentioned being side tracked by kids.

      • Lucinda says:

        It has nothing to do with what moms can or can’t do. It’s about the control we have over men. If we said no more babies, that would mean the end of the species and that is very powerful. Men don’t have that kind of power.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        I’d rather change the world myself instead of depending on someone else to do it, thanks.

      • Ash says:

        “I’d rather change the world myself instead of depending on someone else to do it, thanks. ”


      • Puravidacostarica says:

        I love that you say that — that moms are not out of the game. The problem is that if you are only working 10 hours a week, how do you expect to compete with those working 40 hours or more? Not anti-woman. I am a female business owner with many part-time women employees. But take over the world (or run a business) on 10 hours a week? Don’t think so.

    • Kath says:

      She’s probably also thinking of some developing countries, where lack of family planning & social pressures mean lots of babies from a very young age. That has certainly kept women down.

      • MelissaManifesto says:

        Since she didn’t say specifically, it’s not wrong to assume that she made a general statement.

    • MoochieMom says:

      I’m not sure she thinks enough for that.

    • Boo says:

      Why can’t single childless women have their moment, their time to talk, discuss, shine about THEIR lives? Why hijack what could be a great discussion for women who are not like you?

      And what about partnered and attached women who chose not to have children\? When do we all get to speak without the mommy brigade walking and talking all over us?

      • Ash says:

        I think that those who choose to become moms forget that their choice falls in line with what’s expected of women.

        Some choose motherhood and think that no woman can have a complete life without having children.

        Not all mothers are like this, but some definitely are.

      • Isa says:

        Well, it was a joke in response to kaiser considering motherhood a setback. I assumed she was talking about professional women since that was what Kim mentioned in the first quote.

        “Women are powerful in more ways than motherhood.”
        I agree with this and I don’t want to be pigeonholed because I am a mother. We should all work together to make a difference.

        Polite and Ash good for you.

        I should add that I’m a huge supporter of childfree women. My older sister doesn’t have children and when she came back to town she had to answer a hundred questions about not being married and having kids. No one asked her about her job or hobbies, the conversation ended after she answered the question about men and babies. She said she was used to it but it was very annoying.

        No one should have kids unless they want to.

  3. Loopy says:

    She seems so chilled and calm, I quess there has to be a balance because imagine if Alec Baldwin had married another rage monster.

  4. Jayna says:

    She and Mickey Rourke were both so beautiful in that film.

    • xpresson says:

      I loved that film. I Found it very sexy and visually stunning.

    • Nicolette says:

      Yes they were. He unfortunately looks nothing like he did in that film now, way too much plastic surgery. She still is beautiful.

      • LAK says:

        I wish people (not you) would stop saying that Mickey Rourke had plastic surgery because of the usual reasons ie to be hold back time.

        Mickey Rourke ruined his face during a misguided attempt at a boxing career. He thought acting wasn’t a man’s job – his words – and retired to be a professional boxer.

        The boxing career didn’t work out and he returned to Hollywood, but his face was ruined. He turned to plastic surgery to fix it, but unfortunately used a dodgy plastic surgeon who botched his face it. His face was actually worse after the surgery than the ruined face he had pre-surgery.

        He has had more plastic surgery to fix the botched plastic surgery, but between the botched surgery and the originally ruined face, it’s a crap shoot. You can only work with what you are given.

      • Kitten says:

        Thanks for saying this, LAK.
        I always feel so bad for Rourke.

      • MB says:

        Don’t feel bad for him, Kitten. He is an awful, awful human being.

    • The Old KC says:

      Weird coincidence, because I was just thinking of that movie (9 1/2 weeks) the other day. I have only watched it once, when I was in my twenties (20-some odd years ago) and I don’t remember it being sexy at all…I remember coming away with a disturbed feeling after watching it, like I had witnessed an abusive relationship, one in which Roarke’s character held all the power and basically emotionally abused Basinger’s character. I didn’t know a damn thing about healthy sexual relationships back then, so I guess I need to re-watch it now that I am a real adult (and that has nothing to do with age, but with my own personal growth). When I was thinking about the movie the other day, I was wondering how peoples’ perceptions of the film had evolved now that we have evolved more as a society, one in which we are much more aware of emotional manipulation and abuse. Another example: the way Han Solo addresses Princess Leah in Star Wars: A New Hope is, IMHO, sadistic, emotionally manipulative, and disgusting. It grates on my nerves and although I am a huge Star Wars fanatic, and will forever love Harrison Ford, I think at the time, we just didn’t know any better. That was how all men addressed women by whose power they were intimidated: caustic, relentless teasing and thinly-veiled putdowns. It makes me sad now when I re-watch it with my 11-year-old son, and I use it as a teaching opportunity that when we like a girl, we don’t behave the way Han Solo did. 🙂

      • siri says:

        I actually had the same uncomfortable feeling after seeing the film, and didn’t find it sexy at all. I also felt they didn’t have any real chemistry in a more or less lame story/screenplay, that only seemed to serve the explicite erotic encounters of the two characters. He is playing games, making her feel vulnerable, and that wasn’t sexy to watch, even though she leaves him at the end of the movie.

  5. bella says:

    she and alex baldwin are hands down the sexiest most good looking couple ever in their day.
    too bad he’s cray cray…

    • holly hobby says:

      No they both brought out the worst in each other. They starred in a film “The Marrying Man” and both ended up with tanked careers after that. There was so much news about how troubled that set was and how Kim and Alec were horrible to work with. It’s good they are divorced. Some people cannot be together.

      • bella says:

        i said that they were the best looking couple in their day.
        they were each gorgeous and more gorgeous together.
        i didnt say anything about whether or not they were good for each other.
        simply commented on their looks…

    • Suzanne says:

      You could feel the sexual tension between them in The Marrying Man. Too bad they were so volatile in real life.

  6. Brou ha ha says:

    Waiting for people to chime in here… Alright, I can be one of the first ones.

    I’m 23, and I think about the same thing.
    I look at other people with healthy marriages and children , and whole that makes me VERY happy to see, I know if i volunteered myself for children all of society tends to favor the freedom and position of the man over that of the wife and mother. That makes me REQLLY mad, that I my choices will be more scrutinized and limited on the basis of something I can’t even control.

    • Wren says:

      I’m almost 30 and I agree too. I don’t particularly want children and I never have.

      It’s about reproductive freedom, being ABLE to say “no” to children and not suffering any consequences. I don’t think she’s saying all women everywhere stop having babies forever. I think she’s saying that if women all around the world could hold that decision in the palm of their hand instead of being denied birth control and family planning by their culture and/or government, women would be a lot more powerful. But that would be change and change is scary, and the people (mostly men) in power fear losing their power. Then they’d have to actually provide an environment where women wanted to have babies, instead of it just being expected and/or decided for them.

      • Lostara says:

        “I don’t particularly want children and I never have. ”

        Same here. I decided long ago, around age 20, to never have children and I didn’t regret that decision at all.

        Society take it as granted that woman want children. But society has to realize that there is an increasing number of women who don’t.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        @Wren: I didn’t think of it that way initially, but you may be right. I interpreted her comment as saying that we as women could nip gender inequality in the bud by not having babies, so I disagreed. But I agree with your comment.

        When I was a kid (think preteen/early teens) I used to judge adults- males and females- as very impatient people who couldn’t tolerate flaws in others if they said they never wanted any children. But (some) maturity and experience has changed my attitude. I’m 22, childless, and not wanting any right this minute, but I might some day. If so, definitely not more than 2 or 3 because I’ve seen from others what a handful it is.

  7. OSTONE says:

    What I don’t get, is why we as women have to make an exclusion depending if we have kids or not? Why is it stay-at-home versus working mom? I am a career woman and I am married and don’t have any kids, and I know kids are a possibility in the near future, but it does not mean that immediately I would drop everything I am doing to become super mommy. I still want to take over the world and while it will be hard and I will be judged for it, I believe I can juggle motherhood and a successful career. Not only childless women are successful on their field.

    • Mila says:

      no but they never see their children. do you think Obama see his kids often outside of photo ops?

      the difference is that men dont get called out on it and i dont know why female reporters dont start with that. why not ask them why they pretty much abandon their family for their job?

      there is no high powered career that works without immense sacrifices in private life. ask high powered people how many real friends they have.

      • dottie says:

        President Obama is not a good example of a high-powered father who “only sees his kids at photo-ops”. Tag some other hi-profile man you actually know about. President Obama is very hands-on in his children’s lives. When they were babies, despite his political campaigning and public life, etc, he still changed diapers sometimes. Google is yr friend. I read once where Michelle had to take a diapered baby to his office when he was in a meeting because she had an urgent appointment. Dont make pronouncements about what you dont know.

      • Mila says:

        dottie you dont actually believe what a president puts in his public information, do you? of course he is selling this super dad image but with him we can track the time he spends with his kids a lot better than with CEOs who are not that mucn in the spotlight.

        being the head of a state and being a parent are mutually exclusive if we define partent as a person who spends time with the kids more than a couple of times per month.

        Angela Merkel got elected being divorced and child less, she can rule a country without having happy Photo Ops with a dog and children.

      • Zip says:

        Mila, Mrs. Merkel has been married to a guy called Joachim Sauer (who does not like to be in the spotlight) since 1998. You are right about her being child- and dogfree, though. 😉

      • Mila says:

        Zip, he is her second husband. she is divorced, Merkel is the name of her first husband actually. what i want to say is: Merkel does not have to and does not portray the image of the perfect family to get votes. If Hillary divorced Bill she would have it harder and Obama wouldnt have been elected as a single guy.

      • Colette says:

        Oh I am sure Mila knew about Merkel’s husband of 17 years ,she’s an insider when it comes to world leaders and their personal lives.So Mila refers to CURRENTLY married women as divorced .LMAO

    • Brittney B says:


      Maybe she means the women who would otherwise cave to social pressures, or the women who lack enough social and economic capital to leave their young kids at home with someone else. For example… your “while it will be hard and I will be judged for it” is someone else’s “but my husband wouldn’t let me” or “while I’d be fired for it” or “but I’ve been conditioned to believe my true value lies in motherhood”.

      But more power to you, and you absolutely don’t have to choose. My last boss was pregnant twice during my three-year stint at our company (AND had a toddler at home in the beginning), and it’s like she didn’t miss a beat… she took some time off, of course, but she plowed ahead professionally and our company grew because of it. She is my hero.

      Then again… when I left to freelance, she told me she wished she could do it too. Her work/life balance was abysmal, but that’s what happens in a corporate culture that’s set up for male “breadwinners” who are “supposed” to leave the child-rearin’ to their wives (and in a country like the US, that works its employees to the bone instead of investing in their long-term happiness and health). I applaud anyone who tries to dismantle this system… but I also applaud the women who make sacrifices to thrive within it.

      • BengalCat2000 says:

        @ brittney, I have severe anxiety issues and my kitty is my furry savior. I’ve never wanted children but admire women who can do it, and who do it well. I’m a better mum to four legged creatures.
        Eta, Kim & Prince, I imagine, were the hottest couple ever!

    • vauvert says:

      Unfortunately to have a high powered career (not a job) you need to put in a lot of hours, often travel, and be available essentially at every hour regardless of it being a weekend or evening or holiday. It’s just the way things are in North America in order to be very successful. (I know, because after my MBA I did exactly that. It was great and exhilarating…for a while)

      Once you have kids, one of the partners has to be home more. Even if you have help (nannies, grandparents) at the end of the day the parents should be there for their kids, or at least one has to be there. Most often that one is the mom. For a variety of reasons: maternal instinct kicking in, the desire to have more kids (which means more leave etc.) and/or simple economics – whoever is the lowest earner can go on the slower career track or stay home altogether.

      I don’t regret my decision one bit- I would not trade my family time for more paper pushing in the corporate world no matter how much they promoted or paid me, but I am sure other women feel differently. The truth is that the “you can have it” slogan is, IMO, total BS. You can’t because there are not enough hours in the day to devote 10-11 to your career and commute, one to preparing healthy family meals, three to your kids (and doesn’t that sound pathetic, spending only a quarter of your time with your children that you spend on your job), one hour on yourself, six sleeping (not enough)…. etc.

      I applaud those who are willing to try to balance it all, and I applaud those who forego having children because it is not their thing (in my twenties I divorced my first husband bc he wanted kudos ASAP and I was not sure I ever did), and I also applaud the ones who prioritize motherhood and stay home or take a different career path to raise a family.

      The real problem is that the current corporate culture and the current rules around things like maternity leave (in the US, we have it way better in Canada) are absolutely not supportive of women or families. And I would hope to live and see these issues on the table during elections instead of the concern over what kind of sex, straight or gay, people have, or whether they can have it with a license or not.

      • Timbuktu says:

        Agree with everything you said. Was about to bring up maternity leave (or parental leave) myself! I almost feel like her statement is very problematic in that sense: so, instead of choosing to have children and fighting for a work environment that at least doesn’t punish us for that, we’re supposed to abandon having children to conform to the work model of men (who were only able to build that work model because they had women at home).

      • Kath says:

        What annoys me is that the “lots of hours” in the workplace culture is often completely unnecessary and all about “appearance” rather than anything else.

        I get enormously frustrated by the men who come in early, put their jacket over the back of their chair and make big show of being there at all hours, despite actually achieving eff-all. Then they get to go home (late) knowing their wives have got dinner ready and put the kids to bed.

        So much of the office culture still seems to revolve around the norms created by men – e.g. the “lots of hours” culture, for employees who are relatively junior and don’t have that much to do, so they pad it out and talk it up like it’s the biggest thing in the world.

        Meanwhile, I work in a relatively senior role and don’t have kids but I REFUSE to work unnecessary and unproductive extra hours for no reason, especially when juggling further study, pets, caring for parents and trying to have a life.

      • Angel says:

        Thank you for saying this, and very well said at that.
        I think the myth of woman having it all has done more damage than blatant sexism ever did. Now it is not enough to have a career/family/success/happiness you have to have all of it at the same time and want to do all of it while looking good.

      • The Old KC says:

        ITA – I picked up the book “I Don’t Know How She Does It” at the library expecting it to be a fluffy, fun read. Instead, it enraged me. The book is written from the perspective of a UK working mom (I think the film starring SJP depicted an American mom) and by the time I finished reading it I hated the West’s patriarchal establishment more than I thought possible. For the men in the book, it was all about the appearance of competence rather than actually accomplishing anything worthwhile or meaningful, and the leading lady was treated terribly by her male cohorts. She did all the work. She ran her world. The f***wit men, to borrow Bridget Jones’ term, were complete incompetents. And that describes her sad sack husband too (although – SPOILERS – he did rather redeem himself by the end).

      • The Old KC says:

        I said “rather” like I’m British. LOL

      • Timbuktu says:

        Kath, absolutely! Where I used to work, more men smoked then women, their cigarette breaks alone were an hour, but since they were technically “in the office” and “working”, it doesn’t look bad, as opposed to coming in later or leaving an hour early, in spite of amounting to the exact same thing.

      • Liz says:

        May I ask a question to any American posters that is definitely not meant to be offensive but I was curious to know why in the U.S is the laws covering maternity leave and pay seems so unfair compared to Western Europe or Canada?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        The Republican party in US politics is typically against any kind of government sponsored support of individuals (business is a different story). As a party, they stand against things like paid maternity leave, paid sick leave, paid unemployment, food support, etc.

      • Liz says:

        Thanks for the reply Tiffany 🙂

      • Gretchen says:

        This thread made me think of the film 9 to 5, it’s amazing that over 30 years after its release the women and motherhood friendly work environment it presented at the end is still revolutionary.

      • MB says:

        I consider myself lucky because I am able to strike a balance in my life. I have two small children (both under 3) and work full time in a job that pays me 150k+ and only work from 9am to 5pm. Yes It can be hard, I get the kids out of bed, get them ready for day care, do the drop offs and pick ups then get home and will cook dinner a few times a week. But it is possible to have a career that is on the up-and-up and still raise a family. That said, you have to do your research and choose a company that will not force you to work ridiculous hours, or travel when you are unable to. It also helps if you have the support of family and friends who can lend a hand if need be.
        You can be all things……. you just cant be all things ALL the time.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      Yeah, I don’t agree with the all or nothing implication either. I have a child and I have a career. I went part-time when he was little to avoid daycare and I’ve stayed part time so I can better juggle home, child, marriage, and work. I think I have the best of both worlds.

      And for the record, times have changed considerably. When I did go back to work after maternity leave, my husband took leave and was a stay-at-home dad. I still believe to this day that played a huge role in his current relationship with our son. He was as hands-on as you can get and nothing phased him – poop, spit up, tantrum, etc. He was as comfortable and confident with our boy as I was. It was great experience for both of them and we’re not the only ones. It isn’t the same as even 20 years ago when the only stay-at-home dads were most likely bums with no job. Now-adays, lots of dads step up and some even stay at home the entirety of their kids’ childhood while the mom works and brings home the bacon. I have a friend who has her PhD in communicable diseases. She travels the world setting up structure and programs for hospitals. Her husband stayed home with the babies when she went back to college for her masters and PhD and continues to stay home while she does her thing. They’re an awesome family. Just saying, the days of dad working while mom stays home bare foot and pregnant are over.

  8. Blythe says:

    I love babies to death, but the idea of loving someone so intensely terrifies me.

    I’ll adopt a rabbit.

    • Nicolette says:

      Don’t let it scare you. It’s a love that is unlike any you’ve experienced before, totally unconditional.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        If it’s unconditional, then why are there moms who abuse their kids? Why are there so many kids up for adoption and foster care who don’t have anyone who wants them? Unconditional parental love is not a given.

      • Santia says:

        “Unconditional” may be overstating things for some moms, but most moms really do have their hearts in the right place. I gave up (or stepped back) a high powered career to have and care for my son. Sometimes I second-guess myself and want to throw myself back into the rat race. When I do, he gets sick or starts doing poorly in school and I step it back again. There are definite sacrifices that come with child rearing.

    • Brittney B says:

      I have two!

      And I know exactly what you mean, because I spend every day swooning over them and cuddling them and simultaneously trembling in fear that they’ll develop health problems. Rabbits are CRAZY sensitive creatures (if you get one, do your nutrition research and consider a bonded pair!!), and mine are free-roaming Lionheads who are so adorable I gush to strangers. I couldn’t even IMAGINE the stress of keeping human children alive… or the pain of losing one. I sob sometimes just thinking about my bunnies’ short lifespans.

      (I swear I’m not crazy… I just have oppressive empathy levels — not a brag, I wish I could reign them in — and when you throw in an anxiety disorder? Not exactly a recipe for maternal success.)

      • Amy says:

        Thank you for sharing, it’s interesting how anxiety can effect people differently. I love deeply but I always have the mental escape plan for fear that everything will go wrong.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Actually having children tends to minimize anxiety in women/parents who have it. I had some anxiety when I was in my 20’s, but as soon as I became pregnant at 32, it all fell by wayside. The little things don’t bother me anymore and even the bigger things don’t get the front seat anymore because now there is a human being I am responsible for and oddly enough, it is relaxing rather than stressful. For those of us who have/had anxiety stemming from childhood trauma, having a child is the best cure to heal old wounds because you can’t get your own childhood back, but you sure can give your own child everything you longed for but didn’t have (security, love, structure, commitment, etc.) It is extraordinarily comforting to see you own child have everything you did not.

  9. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    Two kids here. Don’t want to take over the world. I’m happy with a work life balance. Plus I’m too dumb and lazy to take over the world. So it’s all good.

    • Artemis says:

      No kids but also no desire to take over the world. I would like to be very good at my career so that will take sacrifice but not as much as not being able to have children if I would want to in the future.

    • WinterLady says:

      One child and no desire to take over the world. I just want to go to school, get a job that is fulfilling to me, and spend a lot of quality time with me family. I’ll leave the world taking over to smarter, more ambitious people.

    • MoochieMom says:

      One child and pressured to do IVF for another. Not happening. My life doesn’t end when my kid is in kindergarten. I have a friend who waited purposefully until it was time to go back to work to get pregnant. That would be nice but three miscarriages after a birth and I’m not sure I can handle another one (miscarriage). I sure as hell am not sending her college money on a new baby because I want one. Touchy subject for sure. Just how I feel.

  10. mindydopple says:

    I think what she’s trying to say is that if we leverage our child bearing abilities to get what we want, then we’d run the world? I don’t know but think about it, if we really took control and stopped having children… until men begged us and made it favorable?… I don’t know I lost my train of thought, I have no idea what she means by that….

    • Mila says:

      it does not make any sense. so stop having children and you will rule what?

      • sills says:

        right? no more kids = no more world to run…LAWGIC TRAP

      • ataylor says:

        I’m thinking more like blackmail…not ceasing reproduction completely.

      • Mila says:

        ah blackmail sounds great. works especially good if the one you blackmail has more social and physical power than you…

        if someone actually thinks like that they really dont have to complain when men abuse their power.

      • Francesca says:

        To me it soundslike the only way she believes women can control or havepower is to shut down their maternal role. Which just reinforces thepTriarchy they claim to want to overtake.

    • Brittney B says:

      Honestly, I think you just touched upon the fear that drives so many male politicians to strip abortion rights, and to disproportionately de-fund health care and child care opportunities in poor areas.

      (I know there’s a religious/moral argument too… but let’s face it; those senators and congressmen who back oppressive bills aren’t doing it to please their god. They’re doing it for the money… and subsconsciously or intentionally, they’re also doing it to keep women “in their place”, especially the women who still can’t easily choose a life that isn’t 100% motherhood.)

      Sorry if that didn’t make sense… just waking up…

      • anna says:

        exactly. more reproductive rights means a change in power structure benefitting women. it´s not about god. it´s about equality, once again.

      • Amy says:

        Seriously. I’m surprised more people don’t understand this.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I thought she was just kidding. Could be wrong, of course.

    • ataylor says:

      LOL. I get it. I think.

      As in, we (women) having total and complete reproductive control on a global scale (which we really don’t) can put policies in place that can make the choice of having either career or children non existent…because the choice wouldn’t be necessary.

      We would be able to have both our careers AND children.
      We would be able to demand and receive equal pay.
      We would be able to reduce the stigma of stay and home dads and career moms.
      We would be able to demand education of all females.
      Our choices to be child-free would be respected.
      Our choices to go to war, make significant political and social changes would be in the palm of our hands.
      We would be able to pretty much have equal rights as men…because otherwise…


      As in…leverage…? Am I close?

    • The Old KC says:

      LOL all – it reminds me of that film with Julianne Moore and was it Clive Owens?….the one in which no one had birthed a live baby in several years and it was kind of post-apocalyptic….crap, now I’m going to have to go look it up.

    • The Old KC says:

      Children of Men!!! I just found it on imdb.

  11. Jegede says:

    I think Angela Merkel has said this was a choice she made early on.

    Margaret Thatcher’s daughter Carole, has pretty much alluded over the years, that it would have been better if her mother had not had her.

    • LAK says:

      Oprah has said this as well.

      Her interview with Piers Morgan for CNN.

      It was interesting because she dropped her ‘Oprah’ act and was pretty adamant about why she chose career over kids and marriage. In a rational way. She was very clear about the level of energy required to do what she does leaving no room for children. And the level of achievement she would have attained if kids had been part of her life equation.

      • Santia says:

        For most people I think having kids is a way of perpetuating themselves. I look at Oprah and despite her many accomplishments, all I can think at times is “but, but, but she has no kids!” Societal conditioning and brainwashing, I guess, but true (at least for me) nonetheless.

  12. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    I think about it often as well. When an ambitious woman, who could be a CEO or a great politician is peer-pressured or usually family-pressured to have children and has to give up her ambitions – that’s the big problem with our society. But I also wish people were not so extreme about this subject. There are usually two camps who are the loudest – happy mothers who will shout at anyone who dares to say they don’t want children and call them egoists, who will never know what happiness and satisfaction is, and the other camp – childless people, who patronize anyone who has children because it’s patriarchal concept, anti-feminist, backwards etc. I’m childless and don’t know if I will ever have children and I received an offensive comment here at CB two days ago for saying that some women choose and enjoy being younger mothers and can be responsible even at 25. They do and there’s nothing wrong with that – some women want nothing more from life than children and don’t have work ambitions. Others don’t ever want children and enjoy 14-hour work days and climbing up a job ladder and that’s great too. Balance is a key. What’s wrong is trying to force people to be something they are not or making them feel bad about their choices. So in my opinion it should be – when women who don’t want children will stop being pressured to have them, they will run the world.

    • Timbuktu says:

      You’re very right.
      Also, there aren’t that many CEOs in the world, men or women. Statistically, most of us are not CEOs. The payoffs of working hard for most of us are not so great that we’d consider making our job the most important thing in our lives. I realize it’s a chicken and egg thing (maybe if we didn’t have children, the payoffs would be greater), but we all know that some fields are more lucrative then others, a teacher will never make what a CEO does, even if s/he is an excellent teacher.

      • Mila says:

        i agree Timbuktu. i never understood why women wanted to live the unfree lives of men instead of creating a better world.

        go ahead ruin your health and social life in a corporate world that drains you and then spits you out.

        its again a tiny minority being loud while the rest simply live their life. look at the entire world, how many people actually have a career? im not talking about having a job, a career. how many are CEOs? its such a tiny fraction of humanity and still most of the focus is on them. i mean so much of american feminism is focused on that. ok lets make the Fortune 500 equal, good we helped a whooping 250 women. what about the rest?

        the guardian had an article recently:
        “Even in this supposed era of self-interest, admitting that there’s more to life than your job is still taboo”

        there is this fetish of having a huge career when the reality is most people wont have it and most people (yes, imagine men also) dont even want to.

        and instead of helping people who need two jobs to feed the family most of the media is focused on career women working extreme hours and wanting to actually combine that with children. because men did. men who practially abandoned their families to sit in an office. instead of realizing that that was the problem lots of women are now trying to do the same.

      • ataylor says:

        Well…there aren’t many Fortune 500 CEO’s in this world…but my version of CEO also includes small to mid-sized businesses & entrepreneurship, so actually, there are, they’re just not famous for it.

        And let’s face it. The only thing that makes us truly free is either having no possessions and no home or having lots and lots of money to have the financial freedom to do what we want.

        So our choices, as I see it are, do I want to depend on someone else to give me that freedom or do I want to secure it for myself?

      • Timbuktu says:

        I find your choice of no possessions or tons of them to be claustrophobic. I don’t think mid-sized business owners make enough money to be truly free in the way you want to define financial freedom.
        I still maintain that most of us strive for some in-between balance of ambition, power, money, as well as free time, relaxation, travel/family/friends, whatever, because, well, putting all our eggs in one basket is just not worth it for most of us.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Well said NMB. I’m trying to parse what she said myself and not doing a good job of it but I like the discussions her statement has generated. There was time I wanted children but it’s not going to happen and I’ve made my peace with that because I know that I am so much more than my ability to procreate. Maybe this is what she means?

    • Trashaddict says:

      NB’s Mother – I’m on with absolutely everything you said except this: “some women want nothing more from life than children and don’t have work ambitions”. The ongoing delusion that parenting children is not “work” is very damaging to women (and men who choose to parent) in our society. Yes there are some mommies in name only who leave it all to the nannies but there are many parents out there who work damn hard to educate, entertain, grow and protect their children. I remember an article once about how many professionals it would take, at what cost, to cover the duties of a full-time stay-at-home parent (consider the overtime for the employed full-time parent!). Raising kids, regardless of how much you love them, is work. But note, there is no pension for “retired” moms.

  13. LAK says:

    Prince, during the timeframe she dated him, was sex and legs. I was so jealous as teens can be that she was dating him.

    ….then I discovered Lenny Kravitz and that crush is eternal. Sorry Prince.

    • belle de jour says:

      Huge Prince fan here. One of his best songs is ‘Pussy Control’ – and it touches upon some of the same things I think she’s trying to get at.

      That must have been some relationship, back in the day.

      • LAK says:

        Le sigh. It’s all brought it all back. I’m going to go dig up old Prince albums and listen.

    • FingerBinger says:

      I’ve thought Lenny was the masculine version of Prince. He’s modelled himself after Prince from day one.

  14. Timbuktu says:

    It’s such a silly statement, I’m not even sure how to discuss it. Yes, we might rule the world. For a generation or two, before we go extinct. I greatly admire childfree women myself, but I think that even they don’t advocate not having children, they are just happy not having them themselves.

    Personally, the biggest roadblocks to my professional fulfillment are not my children. I’m a language teacher, and I suffer from the lack of interest in languages, from cuts to humanities programs, from universities hiring more and more adjuncts and fewer professors, from the non-academic (and sometimes academic as well) job market being terribly rigged, with every position advertised being already promised to someone.

    • pato says:

      Well, I don´t have children and I think that the world would be better if people stopped having them. We are 7 billion. A great part of that number is poor (even in rich countries), a great part is abused, a great part is ensalved, a great part is unemployed, etc. What is the benefit of creating more people?? Specially when there are so many orphans, why don´t adopting one? And why are there so many abandoned kids? I could go on and on.
      Long time ago I wanted to adopt (a pregnancy was not attractive at all to me) but then I understood that motherhood wasn´t for me. I don´t want to be responsible for anyone´s life. People should think that before having kids. Lots of them shouldn´t have kids.

    • pato says:

      I just read you answered a similar argument below. And you´re right, the discussion was about ruling the world, not making it better.
      I don´t think that with just not having kids women could do it, that and a lot of other things would do it, but it would be a first step.

  15. MrsBPitt says:

    Personally, I think if a woman doesn’t want to have a child, that’s great! And if they do, that’s great ,too! But, I really think women all over the world should restrict how many children they do have. Over population is for real! Maybe Kim meant, women should stop letting men dictate how many children a woman has…you know the old “barefoot and pregnant” thing….

    • Brittney B says:

      Many women *can’t* restrict it because they have no access to abortion or contraception (and no education about safe sex, OR education that actively encourages them NOT to use condoms). These policies are directly intended to oppress women and keep poor areas poor… in third-world countries and in first-world cities alike.

      There’s also the whole madonna vs. whore dichotomy… sexually active women deserve to pay the consequences, etc.

      Oh, now I see.. “women should stop letting men dictate how many children a woman has”… yes. Though many women aren’t exactly “letting” it happen… they’re fighting tooth and nail for their reproductive rights while men continue to have all the dictating power. SIGH SIGH SIGH

      • Timbuktu says:

        Well, but I actually know women (usually religious) who really want to have many children.

      • Brittney B says:

        OH, totally. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Plenty of women choose to keep having a ton of kids. It’s one of the many reasons I plan to adopt… our planet can’t survive at this rate, especially if everyone keeps eating meat/dairy-heavy diets. (But at the same time, I have to watch what I say, because friends get offended and assume I’m judging them for wanting biological kids… )

      • Timbuktu says:

        I very much agree with you, but lack conviction to actually follow through on that. I try to eat less meat, but can’t bring myself to go vegetarian (well, it doesn’t help that my husband is adamantly opposed to it), I worry about over-population, but the most I could commit to is having only 2 children.
        I really respect people who are capable of doing more!

    • gavin says:

      If women stopped having children, they might just save the world. I appreciate that you mentioned overpopulation, MrsBPitt. Zeroing population growth by restricting family sizes is an admirable goal that may reduce the burden that humans put on the Earth.
      For those commenters saying, “if women stop having babies, there will be no people and no world,” human beings are only one species on this planet. And a very destructive one at that. The human race is responsible for animal and plant species extinction, habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, war, racism, slavery, and all manner of horrible things. Yes, we create art, music, science, and literature, but these things do not contribute to the environment that surrounds us.
      I do not personally desire to have children. I do not feel the emotional drive toward motherhood. But for those that do wish to birth and/or raise children (which remains an important and noble goal), I hope that the intellectual and moral arguments for population control may encourage them to undertake this step with great thought for its impact on the entire planet.
      (I will step off my soapbox now.)

      • Timbuktu says:

        Well, but the discussion was framed as “if women stop having children, they will rule the world”, not “if women stop having children, the world would be a better place”.
        So, people who say that without babies, there will be no people to rule, are very much right to point this out in this context.

      • rahrahrooey says:

        @gavin I agree with you 100%.

      • Isa says:

        I agree about the overpopulation issue. I would love to have all the babies but I reigned it in.

  16. Elisa the I. says:

    She looks and sounds AMAZING!

    I was talking about the world being run by men (in all kinds of fields) with my mum yesterday:
    -) the only really powerful politican that I know is Merkel – the rest are men
    -) my mum loves Formula I races: no female racers there (Susie Wolff is finally making this a topic)
    -) aside from Formula I, the main sports in Europe is football (soccer): I can’t name any female football player (but I can name many male ones in sec)
    -) we are now having loads of music festival over summer: I checked the line-up for one of them here in Vienna and there was not a single female band performing!
    -) and not to mention the gender pay gap – which in Austria is above 20%

    These are just random things I notice, and I could go on and on. It makes me so mad!

    • LAK says:

      I never really thought about Formula 1 before. To be honest it bores me senseless, but is there any restrictions on gender of female drivers?

      Could we have a female world champion?

      I know women drive in various rally type races across the world.

      • Elisa the I. says:

        No, there are no restrictions regarding gender in F1. But according to Bernie Ecclestone (he calls the shots in F1 – and once compared women to kitchen appliances!) it’s all about the money. He says women don’t have the power to bring in the big sponsors. I think he is a sexist pig.
        And yes, my neighbour’s daughter is really successful in rallye racing. My neighbour – her dad – has always been crazy about motorcycles (he was racing himself on a hobby-level), and he encouraged her from a very young age.

    • Mila says:

      “-) aside from Formula I, the main sports in Europe is football (soccer): I can’t name any female football player (but I can name many male ones in sec)”

      i know thats not what you are talking about and i feel a bit bad for mentioning it: but you can change that pretty fast. there is a womens football world cup. RIGHT NOW. in Canada.
      (it sounds like you are Austrian, so maybe you wont like watching Germany win though 😛

      if you watch it you will help in making a step in that direction. Tv stations care aboubt ratings, if the womens world cup has good ratings we will see more of it and they will also receive more money.
      the countries where womens football is seen widely are also the ones who compete at high levels
      In the USA Hope Solo is a star and in Germany the last world cup game of the womens team had a tv market share of 24%!

      • Elisa the I. says:

        Yes, I’m Austrian. 🙂 And you are right that we as female consumers/viewers have the power to change this. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote about the all male line-up at the festivals.

        I just googled how much money Hope Solo makes and tadaaaa – it’s 22.000 USD:
        Seriously, that’s laughable, isn’t it???

      • Beckyboo says:

        Hope Solo only makes $22k a year? That sucks. Even taking into account the currency fluctuations, my local, male, league one team make more than that.

    • Sisi says:

      Te soccer world cup for women is currently happening. It just started. Check out your sports channels and support the ladies!

  17. Mirandaaah says:

    I have a niece and I don’t think I could love my own child any more than I love her already. I’m fine with no babies. I’m fine with working. I don’t feel like a child would complete me in any way. I’m happy.

  18. Obsidian says:

    If all women said no to having kids, the human race will become extinct. Will there still be a world to run?

  19. GPSB says:

    She comes across very well – thoughtful and considerate, proud of the films she has done without needing to pooh-pooh anyone else’s. Nicely done.

  20. meme says:

    I think her statement is silly. I can’t feel sorry for rich, coddled actresses who have absolutely no idea what the real world is like. They live in a bubble.

    • Elisa the I. says:

      hmmm, but I really like the discussions her statement (be it silly or not) triggered, for example in this thread!

      • boredblond says:

        It’s interesting, but I had to go back and read her actual statement..she ties her ‘ no babies, rule world’ remark to the power of sex, and I think that’s what she’s talking about..not maternity leave, or pay discrepancy–in that particular segment. Proof that we all read through our own personal lens, I guess.

  21. FingerBinger says:

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding but it sounds like Kim regrets having a child.

  22. Who ARE these people? says:

    Maybe she was thinking of the plot of Lysistrata – no more sex, and women could end all wars.

  23. RobN says:

    Frankly, it sounded to me more like a throw away line in an interview to distract from a vaguely embarrassing question. Not that women and power isn’t a valid discussion.

    It’s been my experience as a woman without kids, that the societal pressure to have them, or justify not having them, comes almost exclusively from other women. As a female attorney, and then business owner, I’ve never had a man ask me why no kids. Women, on the other hand, seem to feel absolutely free to question, and judge me, five minutes after we meet.

    We’d run a lot more of the world if we’d stop badgering each other. I can handle the men; it’s the women who drag each other down.

    • Kitten says:


      • Ash says:


        I have quite a few male friends. They all know I’ve never wanted kids and never badgered me about it.

        Women, on the other hand, . . .

    • Timbuktu says:

      Well, in our defense, we often talk about children, pregnancies, babies, etc. I am guilty of asking friends if they don’t want children now or at all. Sometimes it’s so I don’t go on and on about my pregnancy in their presence, in case they are trying and failing to conceive at the same time or something. Not everything women do is done in bad faith. Sometimes they are practical and benevolent reasons behind.
      I find that the “women drag each other down” trope is kind of tired and unfair as well. I read a good article about it once, where a woman pointed out that while she considers herself a “tomboy”, prefers to hang out with men, etc., it is women she runs to when her heart is broken and she needs a good cry, when her health becomes an issue, when she needs someone to water her plans or catsit, etc.

      • LAK says:

        I quite support what you call a tired trope of women dragging other women. It’s a cliché based in truth.

        When you look at situations that are inherently unfair to women, with very few exceptions, it’s the women who are the strongest adherents to the system.

        Everything from FGM to cultural traditions. In situations where the women stood up against the system and been supported in their rebellion, the men have capitulated, seemingly overnight.

        That’s not to say women can’t or don’t support each other, but when it comes to dragging us down, other women are worse than men.

      • Ash says:

        “I quite support what you call a tired trope of women dragging other women. It’s a cliché based in truth.

        When you look at situations that are inherently unfair to women, with very few exceptions, it’s the women who are the strongest adherents to the system.

        Everything from FGM to cultural traditions. In situations where the women stood up against the system and been supported in their rebellion, the men have capitulated, seemingly overnight.

        That’s not to say women can’t or don’t support each other, but when it comes to dragging us down, other women are worse than men. ”

        LAK- You said it much better than I could have.

    • I Choose Me says:

      As a female attorney, and then business owner, I’ve never had a man ask me why no kids. Women, on the other hand, seem to feel absolutely free to question, and judge me, five minutes after we meet.

      Wish I could say the same. I live on an Island and the men here are very stuck in a 1950’s mindset. I have a male co-worker that used to ask when are you having kids? all the time. Or are you pregnant? if I gained a little weight. I’ve had acquaintances both male and female look aghast when I say I don’t have kids, won’t be having kids and then decline to explain why, as if it’s any of their goddamn business. My husband has been teased by male co-workers about having sand in his balls for somehow ‘failing’ to knock me up.

      Having said all that, I absolutely agree that the world would be a better place if we had more of a live and let live approach.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Questions about reproducing are so intimate and I can’t believe how many people think it is ok to ask total strangers about it.

    • Kiddo says:

      I have had more men ask that question.

    • Trashaddict says:

      I have asked the “no kids” question out of interest about what their life is like and how they perceive it. And imagining if I had taken that route. So I agree those questions are not always intended as digs.

      • bla says:

        Well it would probably be better if you got to know the person first, or just imagined to yourself. Personally, I don’t like to pry and prefer to let exchanges about things like that unfold organically, based on the energy and direction of the conversation.

  24. Sumodo1 says:

    How does Ireland Baldwin fit into Kim’s world-view?

  25. ToodySezHey says:

    There was a village in a south east asian country where the women withheld sex for weeks til the men solved some local squabble.

    It’s obvious she is talking about how the role of motherhood, in a patriarchal society, chains women to home and hearth while men run (ruin) the world.

    I believe her point is, free women from the patriarchal burden od child rearing and we are free to GET SHIT DONE. She is probably basing her opinion on all those powerful child free women she knows that run shit.

    Of course, motherhood need not be about shackling a woman to the home, but again, this is the function in a patriarchal society.

    • Mila says:

      “There was a village in a south east asian country where the women withheld sex for weeks til the men solved some local squabble.”

      i dont like that, not only is withholding affection to get things wrong but it gives the impression that women use sex to gain things. most women have sex because they enjoy it so why shoot yourself in the foot?

  26. ToodySezHey says:

    I thought it was a good interview. First interview in a long time where I didn’t cringe, eyeroll, face palm, or want to punch someobody.

  27. Amy says:

    I’m surprised many are being so daft about this.

    While her suggestion sounds extreme I believe it’s more so based on the fantasy of what really makes the world go round. As someone said upthread simply look at one half of our political sphere in this supposedly educated country.

    They rant and rave about abortions, welfare, birth control, rape. Whole platforms built on what’s between a woman’s legs and how to control it for her. Religions like the Duggars built on keeping the women providing pleasure with no input to power. Just smile and pop out another one dear. Female genital mutilation still happening in some African countries because those nasty girls dare to enjoy sex. Women sold as sex slaves, women raped for daring to go outside without a male companion and the list goes horrifyingly on.

    Now while I believe she’s putting this into extreme terms with a healthy dose of fantasy the position is what if many women of the world stopped submitting to men and forced them to deal with their choices? Sure it’s idealized but so is the “If we did this we’d have world peace” conversation.

    What if when a stupid Republican governor railed against women having access to birth control he came home and his wife refused to touch him? What if he had to feel the consequences of his thoughts by his wife spurning him publicly? What if men suddenly had to compromise to get women to give birth instead of simply going, “Yeah so I’m gonna be famous and rich and you can just stay home and take care of the kids, cool?” I believe a lot of this obsession of control comes from insecurity so men who wouldn’t have that control would suddenly be scrambling. If women weren’t an automatic reward of a man becoming successful but something still to be appeased to for cooperation how would the corporate world be different? If women didn’t join a cult where the best thing in life waiting for them was a Jim Bob the damn religion wouldn’t exist because all it cares about is controlling women.

    IF women were able to shut down having children or engaging sexually with men I do think the world would change in a month, the same way I believe if men could get pregnant you’d be able to buy birth control in the cough and cold section. It’s an exxagerated hypothesis that gets to the matter of the fact a good 60% of the world’s resources is making sure women don’t have control of their vaginas.

  28. JenB says:

    I don’t agree with the idea that motherhood “sidetracks” women who chose it from ruling the world. Mothers play a very important role in ruling the world because they shape the future in so many ways.

  29. Andrea says:

    I am 34 and childfree and sadly, women don’t have time for much else once baby(babies) come along. Friends are now 4th or 5th priority. I totally get it, women cannot have it all like some claim they can, but us childfrees have to find other people who are more available and will get together with you on the rare occasions you are available. In addition, posting nonstop pics of your children on Fb and no longer able to have any adult conversation without inserting the amazing wonders of your child (although great, every child has these particular milestones) I have seen both these issues come up more often than not. I must say, one of my concerns is that if I did have children, I’d lose most of my sense of self(which I have sadly seen happen a lot amongst my friends and those who didn’t are labeled bad moms, so you can’t win).

    • Mirandaaah says:

      Andrea, I agree with you 100%. I’m 29 and my friends all have kids and they are so boring now.

    • Kitten says:

      Andrea-your words could be coming from my mouth.

      It’s not a slight against people with kids, it’s just the reality.

      A few weeks ago I went to a small gathering at my boyfriend’s friends’ house. We were the only childfree couple there and it was literally impossible to have an adult conversation. The parents were so distracted by what their kids were doing, what they wanted, what they needed, etc. I don’t blame the parents at all, though-kids are needy and they require constant attention. I was just disappointed because I actually really like these people and I wanted to catch up but found myself playing with the kids and the dog instead because it was just impossible for the parents to focus on the other grown-ups. Again, completely understandable but just kinda….sucks.

      Another thing I find difficult is that my friends with kids aren’t as keen to come to my house because I don’t have all the things that kids need-high chairs, sippy cups, kid snacks, toys, etc. Easier to go another parent’s house where they have all that stuff laying around.

      • yellow says:

        I think that maybe it is just the state of our generation(s)??? Or maybe I just had the example growing up where the parents around me never got sucked into behaving that way. I think there is a choice, and that some people are “me” (or “my kids”) focused, and for some, it was hidden till they had kids. ??

    • Algernon says:

      Also in my 30s and child-free and I have entirely new friends now. I had to find a new social group because all my oldest friends have children and we simply don’t have anything in common anymore. I still see them occasionally to catch up, but our lives have entirely diverged.

      • MrsNix says:

        The way you put it, Algernon, is the most accurate and respectful way I’ve seen anyone put it.

        It’s not that anyone lost a “sense of self,” it’s that they grew up, changed their priorities, and are different now. Like Algernon said, their lives and yours have diverged. They developed a different set of drives and goals and desires from yours. It happens. Even without children/parenting dynamics, people change in their 20’s. We literally become different people by 30 than we were at 20.

        The constant cries of, “Oh, women who choose not to have kids are selfish and shallow,” or, “women who choose to become mothers lose themselves to patriarchy and waste their potential” are just bigoted, short-sighted, and immature refusals to understand the truth of the matter. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone wants the same things. If you no longer have anything in common with your friends, don’t call them “boring.” Just meet new people whose lives and drives and goals align with your own…and send your best friend who chose family as her center a Christmas card and good wishes now and again. That’s what Facebook is for.

        If you actually resent having to scroll past pictures of people’s kids, however, then you’re the one with the problem. People who choose children SHOULD be excited about their kids. You don’t have to join them in that excitement, but if just seeing pictures of their kids and daily lives on social media makes you upset or makes you feel somehow uncomfortable, you might want to explore why that is so.

        People grow up, and when they do, they choose different things. One needn’t place a universal value judgment on one choice versus another.

      • Andrea says:

        I agree with the both of you wholeheartedly. It is not a slight against people with kids, you just become totally different people (most of the time) and for those who do not, they are viewed as being “selfish” for still maintaining some semblance of themselves. Heaven forbid they go get a mani or their hair done etc etc. It is like there is a mommy police out there who are super judgey of not 100% altruistic mothers out there.

        I am viewed by some of my friends with kids with snarky comments…must be nice to sleep in until 11am on weekends, must be nice to eat out whenever you want to, must be nice to have disposable income for travel and no credit card debt. These are personal choices, if I wanted to join their bandwagon, I’d probably be equally as wistful/bitter, which is why I do not. People need to own their choices and realize their lives are changed forever and sometimes not for the better. Some people have a hard time with those altruistic sacrifices.

      • Andrea says:

        Mrs nix—I have a problem in general with people flaunting their lives on social media—be it their children, their boyfriend/girlfriend, their husband, their problems etc. IMO, anyone who has to drive it down everyone’s throat that they are happy are in fact typically not happy. I have several friends who posts loads of pics of their kids, but the husband appears nonexistsent although I know he is still there. I just think anything extreme is a bit showy and not my style and I have become appalled at how some of my own friends have diverged this way…I don’t post a lot of pictures, never have never will. I personally don’t want to shove happiness down my single friends throats who see that from other people and cry at night over why they can’t find someone. I just think it all becomes a bit much. A bit look at me I am happy why aren’t you?? I guess I just loathe social media in general over the selfish aspects of it and wouldn’t do it at all if it not for the fact it was the only way to keep in contact with some distant friends.

      • Algernon says:

        Well to be honest, my friends with kids *are* boring. They can’t talk about anything but their kids, and that’s not interesting to me.

      • MrsNix says:


        I certainly agree with you there. It can definitely be too much, and that’s true for lots of things. 100% alignment with you there. I do, however, post pictures occasionally because my family is spread out over all of creation. I don’t do that to shove anything. I do it because I have family and friends who want to see what we wore on Halloween, who want to know how my kid is growing and where we’re living, etcetera.

        But I know what you mean. The 10 selfies every day, the 20 pictures of children and pets and dinner plates but never a picture of the parents. The 30 “inspirational quotes” every day, but never a life update. It’s very artificial with some people. You’re absolutely right.

      • Andrea says:

        I am talking about extreme offenders above btw, not everyone is like this—I have some friends who never post pics of their kids on social media–I get 4 seasonal picture collages via email instead from one of those moms.

      • Timbuktu says:

        I’m a Mom and most of my friends are Moms , and none of my real friends are boring. Yes, we’re distracted, and having a long conversation is hard, but we still talk about world news and politics on the playground almost every day.
        I don’t believe anyone BECOMES boring after having a child. If you didn’t have much of an inquisitive mind before, having a child could narrow your horizons even further, but intelligent people, and all of my friends are well educated, articulate, etc. can have an interesting conversation anywhere, they do not need to work to do that.
        Quite frankly, I talked about my job more than I talk about my kids. And we’ve all had the experience of hanging out with 2 friends who work in the same office or field and can’t seem to talk about anything else, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to snickering, dismissive comments about how all investment bankers/realtors/lawyers are “boring” because they talk shop at a party.

      • Mel M says:

        @timbuktu, Thank you! I totally agree. You don’t just become boring when you become a parent and I think that’s a really shortsighted rude comment. To generalize all of your friends that have chosen to have children like that. This is why there will always be that US vs Them mentality. I have plenty of friends that are just as crazy fun as they were before kids but we just don’t see each other as much as we used to.

        If you are an interesting and fun person to begin with, motherhood does not just snuff that out. Maybe what your idea of fun is has evolved some and now involves things your children can participate in and maybe that doesn’t sound like a good ‘ol time to people without kids but that does not mean you are boring. When my friends with kids get together yes, we will talk about our kids but we also talk about current events, politics, food, our husbands or partners, work and loads of other topics. In fact some of the most intersting women I have met are mothers and I think it has made me a better person then I was, not a boring person. I wonder what all of your “boring” friends would say about you now. I don’t look at my childless friends with eyes rolling thinking they are missing out and they look at me as boring now. I just have different priorities and responsibilities then they do now. Just like we all had different priorities and responsibilities 10 years ago. We’ve all grown.

    • Lostara says:

      I completely agree with Algernon and Andrea – my experiences exactly. Maybe that’s partly the reason for several of my friends being gay men: they will not getting babies and become boring….. 😉

  30. Amy says:

    Btw she is KILLING it in that suit as well as the dress below, she has impeccable style and knows how to pair things just right with her hair and makeup.

    • TheCassinator says:

      I know! What’s the designer ID on that suit?!?!

      I would walk through fire to get that suit/look that boss in it!

  31. Dirty Martini says:

    I don’t know about running the world, but I had what was a good and quite successful executive level career while being the mom of 1 and being single for a significant part of it.

    I really do believe you CAN have it all…..profession, family, and yes motherhood and a little time for yourself….but not every day. You have to accept and seek balance (or maybe integration is a better word) over time. Some days the job got priority, some days the kid did. Maybe I’d leave early some days to get the kid and spend time together…..but then yes I’d work after he went to bed rather than curl up on the couch. Technology can keep you in touch from anywhere you are and keep things moving professionally. But yes sometimes you have to physically be present at work and I was when that was the priority place to be. And I was with my kid when that was the #1 priority too. The kid never suffered or wanted for anything, and if I needed to be there, you betcha I was. Some days I ran myself ragged of course. I was also in a professional situation that was helpful to that balancing and was blessed to be surrounded by supportive colleagues to that balancing who knew I would deliver professionally.

    Being the lone female executive — and someone who called it exactly like it was– on the executive team was more the challenge for me than being a mother. THe whole male bonding experience, camaraderie, sports talk etc. My penchant to roll my eyes at their hubris or let them know when I thought egos were blinding their assessment of a situation. That made them more uncomfortable than the existence of my kid.

  32. Algernon says:

    I’ll probably get killed for this, but yeah, kids do tend to sidetrack professional women. Of course there are exceptions, like Melissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo, but just what I’ve seen in my own professional life is that the moment a woman announces she’s pregnant, her career takes a detour, if it doesn’t derail entirely. In ten years working in the world, at least half the women I’ve known through work who had kids ended up either not coming back at all, or taking reduced positions (ie, working part-time or taking a co-op position and sharing a single office with another working mother, literally two people accomplishing one person’s job). None of the women in senior positions in my company have children. The other half come back and accept that they very likely won’t get promoted out of middle-management. My job requires a lot of travel, and a lot of the office moms simply aren’t willing to be on the road 2 weeks every month.

    This is not their fault, it’s dictated by the patriarchal society in which we live, where women are still too often forced to choose between work and home. As many of others have said, you really *can’t* have it all, something is going to have to give. I get what Kim Basinger is saying, though. The way things are *now* is not supportive of working moms, and one way to radically highlight that is to say that if women stopped having kids we would advance a lot further and in greater numbers. It’s just a hyperbolic way of pointing out the discrimination working mothers face, where they’re systematically “punished” for having children.

    • Lostara says:

      Absolutely right.
      Few weeks ago I read the results of a study which compared the earnings of straight and lesbian women. According to that study there are far more lesbian women in high positions and earning more than straight women, which is highly due to the fact that lesbian women are not side-tracked and/or twarthed out by babies/children. Which sounds absolutely logic.

  33. JenB says:

    Andrea-you’re so right about the lifestyle impact of no kids/kids. I’m also 34 but with little boys and even when we hang with other parents I feel like it’s impossible to have a meaningful, coherent conversation. I miss it a lot. But I do think it will get better when our kids get older. The under 5 years require so much attention. Parents are definitely “in the weeds.” What sucks even more is how much I feel like I need that adult connection because of the parenthood stress. Catch 22 in a way.

  34. MildredFierce says:

    Havard Business School (MBA) has pondered this issue

    Why admit 50% women into the a class – when in 10 years almost 40% of female graduates drop out of the work force to have babies? Why should a woman take a spot – if she doesn’t want to run a Fortune 500 company -because that is the only way to break the ‘glass ceiling’ through numbers. More women running companies successfully the easier to hire more women from the share holders POV.

    I worked as investment banker on Wall street. One of the top bankers – had child – in 1.5 week later she was back. Many women would not have chosen to be back in a week and half. But that is precisely the choice that allowed this woman to be head of the department.

    Women can’t have it all. It is false construct. Something will and has to give. I am feminist. But I understand and seen the reality of “having it all.”

    Let’s see if this woman’s child grows up to be well adjusted. A live-in nanny. Maybe, maybe not.

    Nora Ephron had really great wonderful insights on working mothers. She said – a child wants his mother. He doesn’t care if she is miserable in the other room. The point is she is there…

    • Andrea says:

      I am a feminist too and I do not believe particularly in the US under the maternity laws you can have it all. I do think in other countries like Canada where I am at now with 1 year maternity leave more allowances for flexible hours etc, we as women can get closer to that, but certainly not with 6 weeks maternity leave and fears of being fired when you get pregnant etc!

      I do also think that something has to go by the wayside, be it your job, husband, friends, something has to give when you have young children…and we see this all the time. I have had male friends complain to me about lack of sex from wives and thinking of straying because of it—some divorces end because when the kids came along their foundation simply wasn’t strong enough and it wasn’t realized until the kids came along. Something has to give unless you plan to go at 80-100 hours a week on all the above and no sleep.

    • boredblond says:

      Thanks for jogging my memory..I had read this and didn’t know it was Ephron. Bottom line..the best you can do in life is having YOUR all, not ‘ it all’..the older I get, the happier I am that I (usually) only listened to my own drummer.

  35. Lola says:

    I think she meant what she said, and it’s all about control. She didn’t say anything about “having less time” or “sidetracking”.
    It’s of course not an ethic thing to do, and it keeps that “men vs women” society that nobody needs. But, I think what she’s saying is true.

  36. Kelly says:

    I chose not to have children but not to rule the world (You wouldn’t want me ruling the world, Queen Kelly would demand obedience and submission!) rather I’m just selfish and don’t want my time sacrificed to another thing. It’s hard enough sharing it with a husband.

    • Lostara says:

      Another selfish woman here. And I am even more selfish – I don’t have a husband / partner. I do whatever I like with my time…. 😉

      • Kelly says:

        Even smarter! I do have dogs…and sometimes I whisper to them, “Don’t ever die” so I think if I wasn’t selfish, I’d be so afraid of something happening to a child of mine, that that alone would prevent me from having any. Then again, I might just feel that way about my dogs…

  37. LadyL says:

    Why anyone would listen to this very dim woman that barely leaves her home is beyond me.

  38. ToodySezHey says:

    Per your past comment Algernon,


  39. feebee says:

    That would also doom the world. But it’s also pretty funny because given the state of women’s rights at the moment. Women aren’t allowed to say no to babies in some places. I know she wasn’t being literal but it’s interesting to think about.

  40. Nibbi says:

    She looks amazing.
    THAT is what aging damn well looks like. I suppose it doesn’t hurt to be insanely gorgeous and have good bone structure to begin with, but still. She looks like *herself,* with a few natural lines, as happens over the years…

    and i dig what she’s said about the no-babies thing. have babies, don’t have babies, do what you WANT, ladies… but i think that is what should be emphasized. no one should be made to feel that she ‘should’ or ‘must’ or ‘is supposed to’ have babies, it’s not for everybody. i’m getting damn tired of all the celebrity and royal baby-bump-watch-worship. there are more to women than uteruses… like, the potential for a heck of a lot of power, other than “mommy” kind of power. it doesn’t mean i’m knocking “mommy” power. it means i want more people to speak up for childfree women.