Why is it women who are childless are told they are missing out, but men who are childless are congratulated for being "smart"? No need to feel sorry for me or think me strange because I am a woman unmarried, not dating and childless as I am also someone who gets to pursue her hobbies, visit with friends when I like and never have to ask anyone's permission to do so. Actually I like kids and wouldn't mind having children, but its the husband I want no part of!
The letter that came in the mail to me last week:
"I'm constantly defending myself and offering explanations to people who think something is wrong with me because my husband and I have chosen to be a family of two. Am I really missing out? How can I convince my critics and myself that it's OK to be childless?"
Here's my advice. Stop trying to convince your critics.
The more you offer arguments on your own behalf, the more defensive you will sound. Just let folks know--lightly or humorously--that it's your choice. Their reactions are their own problem.
Many women have been raised with the message that we should want to have children. But (to state the obvious) women differ from one another. To assume that women should all be mothers is like assuming that all men should be accountants if they have the brain for math. And child-free is a better term than childless when a woman makes a choice to not reproduce. (Now that I think of it, let's delete the word "childless" from our vocabularies. Like "spinster" and "old maid," the word carries too much negative power to define who we are. Certain words need to go by the wayside).
A large percent of women who are coupled up do not have or want children. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of American women without children has risen to an all-time high of 1 in 5. This is a big jump from the 70s when 1 in 10 women ended their childbearing years without having a baby.
If you don't have children are you missing out? Of course. But women who do have children are also missing out. Every significant life choice is a mixed bag that precludes other experiences and choices.
Most importantly, fire the critics who have set up outposts in your head. Remember that other people can't make you feel misguided or inadequate. They can only try.
Selfishness abounds...
"I like kids and wouldn't mind having children, but its the husband I want no part of.." You need one to have the other hun. Unless you're a lesbian that is...
That's ridiculous. IVF? Not
That's ridiculous. IVF? Not to mention that there are adoption agencies out there that don't prohibit single people from adopting a child. Don't speak of need in a religious or moral/ethical context when you don't know the values and beliefs of the person to whom you're preaching.
I am glad I came across this
I am glad I came across this article. I was taking a walk today and I started thinking about this issue. I am in my twenties and I am not interested in raising children. I see myself making different choices in life knowing who I am and what I enjoy. I do not see myself wanting to raise children/ do not want to raise children. I think underneath the surface of raising children/not raising children, marrying/not marrying, finding a partner/not finding a partner are concerns that each person has to grapple with such as fears about loneliness (what it means to be alone and who to choose for company), aloneness (knowing how to spend time with oneself in solitude), comfort, meaning and purpose in life, rejection/belonging, responsibility, leading a moral life etc. Wanting to "HAVE" a child (purpose/meaning), interacting with that child later in life (having someone for company/contact), having a partner (fear or aloneness, loneliness, "dying alone", having a "family") all address these underlying concerns especially the issue of finding meaning through interacting with other people [a person can create a community and create many meanings in life if they wish to see that meaningful contact with others can come from many sources]. A person has to grapple with these issues whether they choose to raise a child or not, whether they find a partner or not, whether they have a "family" or not. A person can find meaning, comfort, their own definition of aloneness without having a child, a partner, a family if that is what they wish/ how they choose to spend their life. A person has to answer these questions before having a child I think. Placing a child in a position of being the persons meaning/ purpose (also placing a partner, "family" in this position) places a great burden on another. The question people ask is do you want to "HAVE" a child. A child is not a possession. Choosing to raise a child is a life choice. A child is a separate human being who needs to be guided. Some people choose to find meaning in this way (by raising a child) but do not place a burden on the child by saying the child is their purpose/meaning. Choosing to raise children is one choice among many. I think underneath the judgement people make about the choices other people make (whether to have kids, find a partner, have a nuclear family) is their own need to grapple with these questions. You have to answer them whether you have kids or not and when you have children and you haven't yet answered them...the thought of being "alone" upon dying or being lonely is still scary. I choose to continue to grapple with these questions. To feel okay with not having children in my life path and to build the confidence to say so to others. And to find people who celebrate my choices as I wish to celebrate/ learn to celebrate theirs... where the people I surround myself with have kids or not. So, to all the people out there who ask: No! I do not want to raise kids.
Smiling
I would have loved to take that walk with you. Thoughts similar to yours run through my mind too. Keep asking and enjoy peeling the layers. I enjoyed reading your comment. Thanks...
It's not as if it's only
It's not as if it's only childfree women who are seen with astonishment by people who can't understand that others' life choices are different than their own. The article is spot on, except that it looks as if it's only a concern for women :-)
To raise or not to raise a munchkin
Not all people are natural parents. Hello. My own mom told us all "What a life I would have had without you children!" Ouch. Whenever I meet a woman who has decided not to have kids and is clear on all that, I always say "Good for you! You know yourself!" Although I have adored being a mom, in fact, it's my favorite life adventure, I don't believe it's for everyone. In fact, I always said "Thank you, universe, for giving me boys!" because I doubt I would have been quite as solid a mom to girls. Just an instinct...So I say bravo to all healthy life choices. There are many productive magical paths to choose on this planet. Raising munchkins is just one.
I think that an important
I think that an important aspect of a couple remaining childless is why they chose it.
At high risk for producing a genetically diseased or disabled child?
At high risk of dying from pregnancy?
Earns at or below subsistence level?
Mentally or physically unsound?
Devotes entire life to higher cause or calling?
Unstable and dangerous social or environmental climate?
Wants freedom to do as one pleases?
Material wealth accumulation or career progression?
Dislike or disinterest in kids?
Immaturity?
Some people are unsuitable to be parents. But for the rest that aren't, it would be helpful to balance our personal freedom with our social responsibility, on which our freedom is dependent.
Adults nurture kids, who become adults that nurture other kids. When old, the kids they nurtured will nurture them and other kids. That is how our society functions.
Remember that we are adults today and can enjoy life's pleasures because our parents and others made it possible. Why should the buck stop with us? Pay it forward.
We will need enough quality younger people to keep our society running well when we retire. If we are going to be dependent on these children when old, it is only fair to nurture them as parents or secondary nurturers.
Parenthood also often improves us - Learn to mature, love deeply, live for others, question status quo, care about the future, be a role model, develop patience and perseverance, etc.
It's interesting that you
It's interesting that you assume that people who don't want children are either under financial, medical, or social pressure, or are immature, self-centered, and materialistic. Did it ever occur to you that plenty of well-adjusted men and women just don't want to be parents? That sometimes people marry because they love one another, and not just because they want to procreate? Lots of people who are "suitable to be parents" don't have the desire to be. Your assertion that "adults nurture kids who become adults that nurture other kids" is a lovely thought but also a bit of a stretch judging by the daily news. You also imply that being a parent somehow imbues you with a greater ability to love, feel empathy, act as a role model, etc. Are you saying that those without children are incapable of the same? Based on my own experience as a single woman who chose not to have children I can tell you that reactions from others in society just like you have absolutely forced me to "question status quo" and "develop patience." I've also spent countless hours working for charities, I love my family deeply, I do care about the future, and I have been a role model to others. Perhaps what parenthood hasn't taught you is tolerance for others' lifestyles, and the ability to think for yourself and to let others do the same. People who opt not to have children are not evil or maladjusted, they're just different from you. They're no less worthy of respect than their married counterparts. The prejudicial attitudes against childless couples are unfair and archaic. Life is not one size fits all! And frankly, my dear Scarlet, it's none of your business what others choose to do! Please descend from your bully pulpit and focus on bettering the parts of you that parenthood hasn't improved.
I find your response to my
I find your response to my comment more like a personal emotional outburst than accurately addressing the points that i am making.
Also the written tone in my comment was respectful, non-aggressive and non-vindictive because everyone, single, married, childless or with kids, deserve as much respect, self-worth, love and understanding as everyone else. We all deserve to be treated fairly and kindly e.g. when raising points for discussion.
Instead of being angry and attacking all the things I did not write and points I did not make, it would be more constructive to comment on what I was trying to say.
My exact words in the previous comment was that 'parenthood OFTEN improves us' in certain areas. I was comparing a person before and after parenthood, not a parent vs non-parent. And 'OFTEN' implies that NOT EVERY parent improves in any, some or all of those areas. So your heated deduction from my statement (Non-parents are incapable of or worse than parents in those areas) is not accurate and fair to me.
I agree with your point that every person has a right to choose how they want to live their life especially in the area of marriage, kids etc.
Can you constructively comment on my main point, which is:
If large enough numbers of people, regardless of their personal reasons, choose not to have kids AND raise them well, the society and economy will be in deep trouble. So for the good of us all, those who can have kids, should have kids, while the rest of us help them out.
Still not getting it
"If large enough numbers of people, regardless of their personal reasons, choose not to have kids AND raise them well, the society and economy will be in deep trouble."
And? Society and the economy can also be in deep trouble due to overpopulation. What about people who have kids and cannot or will not raise them properly? This is more of a problem to the planet than the relatively smaller numbers of people who do not reproduce at all, regardless of reason.
"So for the good of us all, those who can have kids, should have kids, while the rest of us help them out."
Nope, not even this kind of manipulative coercion will get me to have kids. My husband and I simply do not want to be parents. The world will keep on spinning in its own delightful, horrible, dysfunctional way.
Absurd
'Pay it forward'
This is one difference in the view of those who want children and those who do not. The innate importance of continuing the human race for fear of humans running out or not enough 'good' ones being about.
This could be a very narrow minded or out there comment but I wonder if people with this view point have underlying fear and anxiety in terms of feeling connected to something greater than themselves. A lack of a spiritual foundation?
You can 'pay it forward' just by being a good person and contributing by not causing more problems or helping others.
You fail to mention the high amount of parents who abuse, neglect or bring their children up in ways that impact other people or the environment(important for future generations) in negative ways.
The population is only getting higher(that statistics are there). Orphans are always needing homes. I find it interesting that so many parents have often rude and egotistical and narrow minded views on why people do not have children or should have children.
It would be great if more parents could start to be more honest on why they actually have children or decided to have children.
Its idiotic to state in this day and age that a person has children to contribute a good person into the world.
The world is not lacking in babies and children that could be guided into wonderful adults.
Carrying on your family line and praising your DNA(when most parents do not have their health checked prior to conception). Is quite egotistical. Nature is competitive and having your own children is competitive?
Painful but the right choice
My husband left me for another woman, one of the reasons being that he wanted kids and over time I realised I probably didn't - that maternal instinct just never seemed to come, as much as I tried to find it. I felt like I was missing a gene or something was emotionally wrong with me - the rest of womankind seemed to love bouncing babies on their knees, why not me? Despite the unbearable pain of the breakup, I will never regret my decision and know I will find happiness in other ways. Possibly a nice relationship with a like minded soul. Possibly just lots of cats! Best wishes to all, parents, kids and child free couples and singletons, I think there is a place for us all.
Based on my experience, you
Based on my experience, you can be a good mom even if you don't like kids as ironic as that sounds.
I didn't like kids and still don't. They are expensive, messy, annoying, needy, etc. But I love my kid, because he is MY kid and not coz he is a kid. I didn't feel anything for him at birth, but as i got to know him and established a relationship with him, i learned to love him. Isn't that the same for any other relationship?
Also, pregnancy hormones will normally change the mommy's brain to like their own babies at the very least.
That said, I have known some very shallow and self-centered parents who didn't care for anybody except themselves.
So sometimes it isn't about whether one has a nurturing gene or not, but rather how able one is in loving another person be it a baby, kid or adult.
Evidently, expressing that
Evidently, expressing that you don't want to have children to a (prospective) partner yields enough of a survival advantage to genes that it has remained in the gene pool. I'm having difficulty understanding the evolutionary mechanism at work here. Could you shed any light on this ? How come people choose not to have children if it deselects their gene pools from suriving ? Even if this is 'just' a psychological by-product of consciousness/sentience, how come it has survived the last 50.000 to 60.000 years of the evolution of modern man ?
A couple theories on that ...
Short answer? Because throughout the ages a lot of people were forced/coerced to have children when they didn't really want to. Thus, the psychological meme of not desiring children has continued to perpetuate.
My theory? It's because this "world" isn't real. It's a construct designed to get reactions from us (based on scientific discoveries concerning the way electrons behave at the subatomic level only when observed by an observer, i.e. "us"). Nothing appears or disappears that wasn't part of the original construct, which explains why obviously destructive behaviors continue to occur all over the planet when it is patently clear that these behaviors will have negative consequences to all involved, even the perpetrators who engage in these destructive behaviors. It also explains why ideas and memes, such as not wanting children, continue through the generations. To perpetuate the illusion of free will, successive generations must be allowed access to the idea to "choose" not to have children.
Laywomans theory
Its an interesting point you raise and one I often thing about.
I believe that it is not related to 'bad' genetics. I know a number of people who have been an incompatible match genetically for having healthy children(or have had poor health themselves) and yet have still felt the desire to reproduce, sometimes even after knowing.
The opposite of that is the healthy people I have known who have decided to not have children.
This is probably an area many would find uneasy to explore that the meaning of life is not always to reproduce, but to contribute.
Children take up a lot of time, physical energy and 'life force' If parents barely get any time to themselves, no time to ponder about life, to meditate, time for hobbies, time for work that contributes to the rest of humanity, work that needs them to remain emotionally detached to a certain extent, or to have a large amount of spare time or energy.
They either negatively impact their children by not nurting them to their full extent by trying to divide themselves up, the child does not have a close bond with the parent as is split between other caretakers(which has psychological implications if this is not always the same person regularly for extended time), or they do not do any of those things because all of the time is going onto the child.
A person without children is able to dedicate themselves more to other things that can positively impact other children whos parents could not fulfil those things.
I would think of humans more as bees, ants, wolves, those without children can infact be contributing to the overall raising of the 'queens' offspring (forget the male/female ratio) if every wolves, ant, bee decided to single off in pairs, have their own and split between working and parenting, its raises the question of whether the quality and survival rates would remain the same. (Yes I know we are not bees or wolves or ants but I hope my point is still understandable, the majority of animal groups have a few that remain childless or for longer in order to help raise the others, maybe its an inbuilt survival mechanism to help with the rearing of other offspring that if left and the childness animal or insect had their own, it would impact them and their 'group' in a negative way, therfore them having their 'own' is less beneficial )