9 ms·

Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal

56 points by kf 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago
Yeah, then you have them. And it's awesome and you wonder why you didn't do it sooner.
- rms 14y ago
  Did you read the article? This is probably a case of a headline chosen by the editor of the publication and not the author of the article.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Yes, I read the article.
- CJefferson 14y ago
  Or you have them and spend the next thirty years regretting it. Which almost no-one will publicly admit, due to the public stigma, and the obvious pain it would cause their children. This is I think the pain point of this article. I personally know two people who wish they had never had children, but they would never come out and say that publicly.
  - bane 14y ago
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly-bitterly-disappointed-retired-naval-officers-email-to-children-in-full.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly...
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Probably a parody? But anyway, I think a big issue is that a lot of parents seem to think children are something like puppets which they can mend to their liking (and that have to adore them no matter what). Of course such expectations will end in disappointment, because children are individuals with their own minds.
      - bane 14y ago
        Actually no, it's been pretty big in the British papers. It's sparked a fairly large national discussion on various child rearing straegies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant-boast-You-Son-submarine-commanders-broadside-father-told-children-You-copulation-driven-kids-let-down.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant-boast-Y... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter-defends-former-submarine-captain-who-told-children-he-was-bitterly-disappointed-in-them.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter-defe...
        Tichy 14y ago
        That seems fairly typical: parents who are convinced they did everything right, and never realize they are emotional train wrecks. So they can blame it all on the children. Whatever - it is a complex issue, having children is not like buying a new TV. You can not predict all the issues that will arise and the emotions they will evoke. So I guess it would be wrong to propose a simple formula for child rearing, as it wouldn't apply universally to all kids. But as I said, if you have specific expectations as to what your kids turn out to be, it is probably a recipe for disaster...
    - scotty79 14y ago
      Wow. That's so bizarre. Guy is complaining that three other people that happen to be his kids don't live to his expectations and (oh God!) they don't ask his or their mother's advice. Oh. And he is ashamed when his friends brag about lives of their kids that he can't outbrag them.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    That's ridiculous because you are not responsible for your kid for 30 years. If you don't like them, you can get rid of them sooner. You could also send them to boarding school at a very early age. Just saying.
    - CJefferson 14y ago
      That depends on how rich you are, and how disabled your children are. Of course, you could just kick your disabled children out into street, where they can't look after themselves...
      - Tichy 14y ago
        Ok granted, it can go horribly wrong. Although I think there are homes for disabled people. But if that happens, it is of course very sad and not happiness inducing. I've heard stories about people who are very happy with their disabled kids, but it is not something I wish for anybody. Not sure how big the chance is to have disabled children, and if it is much higher than getting into a car accident on your commute to work. So while the risk is real, it is not necessarily a reason not to have kids.
- markkat 14y ago
  You might be mistakenly projecting your own experience here. There a plenty of unwanted children.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    That is very, very sad. I cannot imagine having a child and not wanting it. Perhaps I am projecting my own experience.
- mhurron 14y ago
  Ya I've heard that before, often right after listening to them complain that they can't do things they would like to or after they tell me I should grow up and have kids instead of spending time doing things I want to. Not everything is for everyone. Not everyone is going to think having kids is awesome.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I have a theory around parents talking about how bad it is. The things that suck about having kids are universal - the tiredness, the continual cleaning up, the lack of time to yourself and so on. The things that are great are largely individual and personal (face it, we all know how dull it is to listen to someone talking about their kids). As a result the bad things get talked about disproportionately - they're things parents can bond over because you go through similar things, they are often self depreciating, can be funny (depending on your view of stories involving bodily fluids) and so on. The good things though you generally shut up about because you very quickly learn to spot the bored look when you do. As a result from the outside I think people who don't have kids can get a skewed view of what it's really like. Personally I'd say it's the best thing I've ever done but one that comes with a massive price tag in terms of what you have to put into it, how hard it is and what you have to give up. No-one should tell you you should grow up and have kids - you should have kids if and when you want to - but don't take the moaning at face value. It's like a millionaire complaining about the problems that come with the money - yes they're real but you wouldn't change it, it's just letting off steam.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      I agree that nobody should be told to have kids, but I think nobody should be told not to have kids either (what this article essentially tries to do). Actually I will probably also become one of those obnoxious parents pestering my kid to have kids (grandchildren for me), because I wish I had had kids way earlier. Some aspects of parenthood are physically taxing and it would be easier if I were still younger... Also chances are I won't get to enjoy being a grandparent because I am so old already. If my kid has children at the same age as I did I would be almost 80...
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  Have you read the article? It speaks of the exact opposite: regretting it AFTER having them.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Yep, I read the article.
- tluyben2 14y ago
  A bunch of people already said it, but there are a LOT of people regretting it (most of them won't say that to everyone), but I know really more than a few parents over 50 saying (with children present) that if they are to do it over they wouldn't. And a lot of people who, after about 10 years, thought it would give 'purpose' but it didn't. Not everyone is the same and although I believe a lot of people really like it; I also think their is a large amount of people who don't but who are not telling you; they will in 20-30 years or maybe never depending on how 'open' your community is.
tomrod 14y ago
The article title is off--the article seems to focus more on a woman not wanting to be domestic as being totally normal, but doing or being so is not accepted in American society. They miss the opposite stigma, which I've noticed--being a young mother who wants to be domestic is often pooh poohed on.
- jeremysmyth 14y ago
  It's way off. If not wanting kids was the norm, we'd die out pretty quickly (feel free to disagree if you have stats, author!). The author (editor?) of the headline is mistaking "normal" for "acceptable".
  - lusr 14y ago
    Terrible article. It lumps together all the following scenarios and more: 1. A woman forced into motherhood by a partner who refuses to allow her to terminate the pregnancy 2. A forced mother (rape, abandonment) who was unable to opt for termination for whatever reason 3. A stay at home mother who thinks its too much hard work (as compared to...? We never find out what their expectations are) 4. A resentful mother with the wrong or unsupportive partner and whose anger and resentment towards said partner may now be directed at everything related to them (e.g. children) 5. Women who had children "too early" and feel resentful missing out on youthful freedom 6. Women who miss their youthful freedom Etc. Some of these are quite understandable, some appear to be naivete, and some appear to be pure laziness or a lack of responsibility (i.e. deficiencies in moral character).
    - king_jester 14y ago
      All of the things you listed are experiences that women who have children have. All of these issues are related to one another - women are denied access to birth control, esp. abortion, and are often primary care givers to children whether they have that child voluntarily or not. The cultural narrative for women in the US is that you leave behind your life and identity as a sacrifice in order to support your child/children, which is something that may lead someone to feel that having children is not fulfilling. People do not live in a vacuum and cultural messages and images about child raising that women see and experience shape how they approach having a child (if they even plan their pregnancy, which the article shows is not true for a lot of people). The author of the article, Jessica Valenti, is a feminist author and that forms the background for this piece, which is why this piece takes a look at many different experiences that women have in regards to having children.
styluss 14y ago
You can't force someone to love the other. Even a child.
vidiviciveni 14y ago
If you ask a mother what her greatest achievement in life is, she will likely say her children. This article is pure nonsense. In fact it even goes as far as to say it's "unhealthy" to want children. This sounds more like a desperate attempt to justify her own decisions. What is disgusting is the fact she tries to push this idea on others. We live in twisted times indeed...
Tichy 14y ago
Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? Where I live there is some pressure to give your kid to kindergarden at age one (three used to be normal). We ended up giving our kid to kindergarden at age two, because we somehow convinced ourselves it would be good for his social development. But the overall feeling is: he is disappearing from our lives way too fast. Now he is in kindergarden most of the time (except afternoons and weekends). Then it will be school, and today's kids seem to be pretty stressed out with that. After school kids tend to move out, we are lucky if he even stays in the same city or country. I think if you don't enjoy your kids, there tend to be options. Giving them up for adoption would be the most radical, before that there is kindergarden and boarding schools (admittedly they cost money). I get that not everybody enjoys their kids, but I still feel sorry for those people. For me it is the best thing that ever happened to me. It makes me angry that society takes it for granted that as a normal dad I would not even see my kid much during the week, because I would be working in an office. Also for all those mums longing to work, I wonder what jobs do they have? In my personal biased opinion, most jobs suck. Perhaps they just imagine work life to be much more glorious than it really is? If what this article said is true and many people are so eager to give up their kids, I actually think the state should make that possible. Must be hell to grow up with parents who hate you.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan. He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - your kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean. I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way. WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531... Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... [1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.
AutoCorrect 14y ago
what you're looking at here is the death throes of a civilization. Abortion on demand, free contraception, and a radicalized group that believe motherhood is slavery. But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'.
- CapitalistCartr 14y ago
  Extreme views are interesting, but the more "out there" the view the more it needs some supporting evidence. How about some here?
- justinph 14y ago
  Judging by the rate the population is still increasing, I would hardly say the death throes are imminent.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  "But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'." Your ignorance is nothing to do with your gender. Please don't hide behind it. I know you intend it to be ironic in some way, but I rather suspect that you actually DON'T have any decent thought behind this tripe and are using some ridiculous pretense of gender-war as an excuse.
- nollidge 14y ago
  The reason you are wrong has nothing to do with your gender.
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  wow, the PC brigade is really out there - looks like I hurt some feelings with my previous comment. Seriously - how long will it take until 1st world nations collapse? We're close to it now in the US - SS will be an inverted pyramid before Gen-Y starts to retire - who's going to pay for it? The same with all of our other 'help the children' programs. It's been a pyramid game all along, and now the generation of the bottom level of the pyramid (meaning new bodies) is being voluntarily reduced. 2.1 is the replacement rate for a couple (the .1 is insurance against pre-reproductory death). The United States is currently at 2.06, trending downward from 2010 (see STATISTICS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...). Care to guess who's at the top? Hint: it's not 1st-world nations. The Italian government has been paying women to have babies, Germany is shrinking in population, Russia is emptying out. Why? Birth-control, abortion on demand, and an educational system that denigrates being a parent. Argue if you want, but the numbers speak, and they're telling a pretty dismal story: Here lies humanity, they became so smart they forgot to procreate.
jobigoud 14y ago
I think it's less frowned upon here in Europe. Who want's to miss 10-15 years of her life anyway ? All the personal projects, travels, parties, etc. As the article says, we spend most of our live trying to avoid it. So now, to have a child is an active decision. You go out of your way, it doesn't just happen. So it must be a project that you should be able to justify, a rational decision. Show me your decision grid, advantages/drawbacks, etc. No really, what is the point at the individual level ? (I understand the point at the species level, but we don't act at the species level). Pushing another human in an already overcrowded planet ? Forcing him to pay for you when you will be old ? The best thing you can do for your child is not having it.
- Tichy 14y ago
  After a while the travels and parties get old... Besides, if you really wanted to, you could still do all that with kids. It's true that you can't really rationally decide to have a kid, because you can not know beforehand what it is like. In the same vein, why do people have pets? Seems just as irrational... But why - why live at all? What is the point of anything? As for the overcrowded planet, most of the overcrowding seems to be done in other countries. In my country population count is falling. Having kids seems like a pretty fundamental human right, so why should I give that up just because some other people can't control themselves (and I know it is a more complex issue)? Are you sure that you haven't been brainwashed? Some people benefit if you believe that you shouldn't have children. Meanwhile the people owning the TV stations and newspapers probably have 20 kids with different women, who will happily take up the space you are not occupying with your own children.
- equalarrow 14y ago
  Heh, I used to think like that. When my wife and I met we were like, "kids? no f-ing way". But then we decided we wanted one. We could have gone thru life as the two person 'family'. We could have kept building our income, buying more things, striving for that next 'personal goal'. Don't get me wrong, we still do that to a point, but having a kid - from two no kids people - is the best thing we've ever done. It's also the most difficult thing. We're sleep deprived, irritable, spaced out, and longing for free time. But through all this, we still say it's worth it. Worth it because we are part of life. We're all someone's child and while having children isn't for everyone, I feel like becoming the teacher is the most important thing I'll ever do. My wife's step-father just had his dad pass away this Aug - both his parents live with him on the bottom floor of his building. Now it's just him and his mom and his girlfriend. He's definitely 'paying for them' as they're on their way out. But I'm sure if you asked him if this was a problem, he would tell you absolutely not. I don't see raising our son as missing my life - I've had my share of studying philosophy, succeeding, failing, living, etc. I'm now ready to put that into practice and help someone else learn what life's about (sure, from my pov, absolutely), to guide them. This is the best thing I can do for my child; strive to provide a stable, nurturing environment. There are so many amazing things in life and I think it's a gift to experience it. I think it's easy to just focus on the negative or the reasons of why not to. I really do wish everyone could have an awesome life. I think that's how it's meant to be lived - as awesome as possible. So, kids aren't for everyone. I don't feel like it's an exclusive club. But I do feel like it's a natural part of life and I'm glad I'm getting to experience it.
skreech 14y ago
Having a kid is like changing the difficulty level of life from "Normal" to "Hardcore". Unlike video games, there is no switching back. So be sure you are committed and finished with playing on the "Normal" setting. You'll probably want to have high stats in Maturity, Communication and Patience. Oh, and your relationship is going to lose HP.
netcan 14y ago
I have a strong association of a desire to have children with good times. Plenty. Safety. Relief. An aversion to children is a sign of bad times. Turmoil. War. It's part of our stories and our mythologies. The heros return from war bringing safety and bounty. Pair up and rase children. I suspect this is part of our biology. How much of this has always been. How much of it is a result of our present world.
- calinet6 14y ago
  Biologically speaking, it's logical to not want to bring children into a harsh world incapable of nurturing them. It could be an evolutionary or rational feedback. I think much of this has always been, and this is largely a case of "if you go looking for something, you'll find it." Also, they're pushing a book. Funny how that works.
  - fmstephe 14y ago
    There is a fairly strong connection between poverty, stress and high reproductive rates. The baby boomer generation is largely the product of WWII. The birth rate of Palestian's is significantly higher than that of the Israeli population. Birth rates in very poor countries are almost always significantly higher than in developed wealthy countries. (IANAE :)
    - Tichy 14y ago
      But does that correlation still hold in developed countries? I guess reasons to have more kids in poor countries is that they'll help you with your work and take care of you when you are old. Besides, some of them are going to die prematurely, so you need to create more to have some successes. The cost for having a kid might be low. In developed countries things are pretty much turned on their heads in that respect?
- paganel 14y ago
  > I have a strong association of a desire to have children with good times. Plenty. Safety. Relief. An aversion to children is a sign of bad times. Turmoil. War. This reminded me of the story of my ex-wife's grand-mother who around 1942 or so went very closed to the WW2 Easter front lines dressed up as a man (that's what the legend says, anyway) to meet her husband, my wife's grand-father, who was serving in the Romanian Army. Nine months later, July 1943, their first kid was born, my ex-father-in-law. ~60 years later my ex-wife was trying to explain to me that we shouldn't have kids because times "are to unstable, we don't have enough money etc". So there's that ... A little OT, my ex-wife's grand-father was quite a man, he got wounded 3 times on the Eastern front, and even though he had been raised in a traditional, Romanian peasant family he said that he couldn't believe in God anymore after what he had seen in there. After the war he returned to Romania and because he used to be an elementary-school teacher before WW2 and had experience with kids he was in charge with running a foster-home where he took care of orphaned children for a while, until things around the country settled down a bit. Those kids still looked at him as a father-like figure well into them growing up as adults and becoming grand-parents themselves, a bunch of them were present at his funeral 65 years after he had taken care of them. So there's that again :)
rohern 14y ago
I was intrigued by the opening paragraphs up until she got to: "Because no matter how many different kinds of public images women see of themselves, they're still limited. They're still largely white, straight upper-middle-class depictions, and they all still identify women as mothers or non-mothers. American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother. It goes against everything we've been taught to think about women and how desperately they want babies. If we're to believe the media and pop culture, women -- even teen girls -- are forever desperate for a baby. It's our greatest desire. " You cannot assert things like and not provide evidence. This is a gargantuan statement about society that is left totally unsupported. I think this is a very bad habit of people in the humanities and it needs to go away before I take this kind of criticism seriously.
- paganel 14y ago
  This is a magazine article (quite well-written, IMHO), it's not a scientific paper. So in that respect of course it has to make some generalizations, which in this case I think they're mostly correct.
  - rohern 14y ago
    I do not think you understand what science is. Scientific papers do not present data and models and analysis because they are scientific papers. They do these things because they lead to testable claims of knowledge. It is not done for the style of it. If you are reading all your magazines under the presumption that they make no claims about the world and are simply a kind of ironic entertainment, okay, but that is not at all how this article portrays itself.
- king_jester 14y ago
  I can see how you would say this, but Jessica Valenti is a well known feminist author who was written several works on this very subject, so she takes this position based on her previous knowledge and study. She is most known for Full Frontal Feminism: http://www.amazon.com/Full-Frontal-Feminism-Womans-Matters/dp/1580052010/ http://www.amazon.com/Full-Frontal-Feminism-Womans-Matters/d...
- 14y ago
paganel 14y ago
> Some cited the boredom of stay-at-home momism. Many complained of partners who didn't shoulder their share of child care responsibilities. I don't have kids yet, but when and if that will happen I'll try to make sure that the mother of my kids won't ruin her career and her sense of self-worth by becoming a stay-at-home-mother. That's how I grew up, with both my parents having full-time jobs, if it was good enough for me as a kid seeing my parents happy and all I hope it will be good enough for my children.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I actually would prefer a stay-at-home mom. The wife's job is creating a lot of stress. Women who work tend to be in a foul mood (just my experience anyway).
codegeek 14y ago
Don't let the naysayers discourage you. Having and raising kids is one of the most wonderful experiences you can have in your life. yes, it is incredibly difficult, painful at times. But it is all worth it. I strongly believe that if kids turn out bad, their parents should be blamed for the most part if not all.
- king_jester 14y ago
  The article clearly shows that some people don't want to have children or have found having children to not be as satisfying as you did. We can't make decisions for others, and perpetuating messages and depictions of child raising as fulfilling is really misleading.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    So propaganda against children is OK, but for children is not? If people say what makes them happy, what is wrong with that? It doesn't imply that it would work for everyone, but it implies that it might work for some other people, too. Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption?
    - king_jester 14y ago
      There's nothing wrong with having children and having that experience be a great one. However, that kind of story is the dominant narrative in US society and people deserve to hear alternative points of view and experience for those where it didn't turn out OK or as a positive experience. Those kinds of stories and experiences don't get a lot of exposure, esp. in regards to media representation and cultural norms. > Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption? The article went over this, as there are a wide variety of reasons someone has a child, planned or not. Some people may have children that they were forced to, or may find that the life they imagined having with children never materialized and that they do not want to continue being a parent. Also, cultural norms and representations of parenthood and expectations of how to interact with children heavily influence the perception of being a parent, so when these norms leave out the experience of people who regret or are not happy with being a parent, we are misleading people. Adoption and foster care systems are not a perfect solution, it would be better to provide more information and experiences for people to help them evaluate whether or not a child would be for them.
alxndr 14y ago
"Over 60 percent of the children studied were reported as planned, almost 30 percent were unplanned ("mistimed"), and 10 percent were unequivocally "unwanted." The results of Barber's research showed that the children who were unintended ... got fewer parental resources than those children who were intended. Basically, children who were unplanned didn't get as much emotional and cognitive support as children who were planned.... Across the board, children who were wanted got more from their parents than children who weren't. Children who were unplanned were also subject to harsher parenting and more punitive measures than a sibling who was intended." Wonder if this effect on children is stronger or weaker than the oft-GOP-touted effect that raising a child with a mother and a father is the best way to do so -- i.e. how do planned-for children raised by single mothers compare to unplanned children raised by both fathers and mothers?
codegeek 14y ago
My wife is pregnant with our first child and here is what we are going through right now: - Financial budgeting and planning. Our expenses are going to go up by about $1500 (NYC metropolitan area) - Everyday, we struggle through talking about what we need to buy for the baby, should we do this, should we do that ? - Are we going to be good parents ? Will our kid turn out ok ? - We are not going to have any more time for ourselves. Forget those dinner and movie nights out. Forget about socializing outside especially for the first few months ? - Will I get time to work on my side projects etc. at all ? It is so hard right now and with the baby, it might be even more difficult. Now, if I had to choose between not having a child so that all the above issues disappear OR having a child, I would go for the child in a heartbeat. The point is that you can always justify why not to want/have kids, but I strongly believe (my opinion) that you will be missing out on one of the greatest gifts of god if you don't have them i.e. children. Just my 2 cents.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Eventually you should try to find a babysitter (grandparents often work well, but not everybody has the option) and go out without the child. Although I admit we have done that only twice in the last two years... What costs 1500$ more - per year, or per month? Because you'll move to a bigger apartment? Our kid (2 years) actually sleeps from 8pm till 8am, so in theory there is still plenty of kid free time. Don't worry so much :-)
  - codegeek 14y ago
    Correct. The $1500 is per month for a babysitter included (hopefully). We are not moving yet but planning to after the kid is about 6-7 months old.
- fr0sty 14y ago
  As the father of an almost 2-year-old: Baby spending is a gaseous thing. It expands to fill the size of your budget. All a baby needs is onesies, diapers, food, some blankets and a place to sleep. A car-seat and a stroller for going out (plus some blankets, etc for keeping warm). Anything else is gravy. The kid will be fine. Quit worrying. You will have to ease back into outside social engagements but you will sort things out. Young children sleep a lot.
kephra 14y ago
Looking at humans as domesticated apes: We are not fixed in being pair bounding or tournament species. But the current western culture is pair bounding. Its typical for pair bounding domesticated apes, that the poor and uneducated breed like rats, in the hope that one of the 9 children survives and can feed me, when I'm a grandpa. The more wealth and education someone has, the less children they have, because it makes sense to have fewer children and invest more into them. Till a culture runs into the problem that the average mother has less than two children. This had been a problem for every high culture, regardless if we talk about Greeks, Romans, or later high cultures. And US is not yet at this point, because CIA tells me 2.06 children per mother, while Germany has 1.41 children per mother. The solution would be to get rid of the pair bounding culture, because domesticated tournament apes have exactly the opposite children per mother distribution. Rich man have several women, and those have several children. Poor man have no women, and no children.

56 points by kf 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago

Yeah, then you have them. And it's awesome and you wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

rms 14y ago
Did you read the article? This is probably a case of a headline chosen by the editor of the publication and not the author of the article.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Yes, I read the article.
CJefferson 14y ago
Or you have them and spend the next thirty years regretting it. Which almost no-one will publicly admit, due to the public stigma, and the obvious pain it would cause their children. This is I think the pain point of this article. I personally know two people who wish they had never had children, but they would never come out and say that publicly.
- bane 14y ago
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly-bitterly-disappointed-retired-naval-officers-email-to-children-in-full.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly...
  - Tichy 14y ago
    Probably a parody? But anyway, I think a big issue is that a lot of parents seem to think children are something like puppets which they can mend to their liking (and that have to adore them no matter what). Of course such expectations will end in disappointment, because children are individuals with their own minds.
    - bane 14y ago
      Actually no, it's been pretty big in the British papers. It's sparked a fairly large national discussion on various child rearing straegies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant-boast-You-Son-submarine-commanders-broadside-father-told-children-You-copulation-driven-kids-let-down.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant-boast-Y... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter-defends-former-submarine-captain-who-told-children-he-was-bitterly-disappointed-in-them.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter-defe...
      - Tichy 14y ago
        That seems fairly typical: parents who are convinced they did everything right, and never realize they are emotional train wrecks. So they can blame it all on the children. Whatever - it is a complex issue, having children is not like buying a new TV. You can not predict all the issues that will arise and the emotions they will evoke. So I guess it would be wrong to propose a simple formula for child rearing, as it wouldn't apply universally to all kids. But as I said, if you have specific expectations as to what your kids turn out to be, it is probably a recipe for disaster...
  - scotty79 14y ago
    Wow. That's so bizarre. Guy is complaining that three other people that happen to be his kids don't live to his expectations and (oh God!) they don't ask his or their mother's advice. Oh. And he is ashamed when his friends brag about lives of their kids that he can't outbrag them.
- Tichy 14y ago
  That's ridiculous because you are not responsible for your kid for 30 years. If you don't like them, you can get rid of them sooner. You could also send them to boarding school at a very early age. Just saying.
  - CJefferson 14y ago
    That depends on how rich you are, and how disabled your children are. Of course, you could just kick your disabled children out into street, where they can't look after themselves...
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Ok granted, it can go horribly wrong. Although I think there are homes for disabled people. But if that happens, it is of course very sad and not happiness inducing. I've heard stories about people who are very happy with their disabled kids, but it is not something I wish for anybody. Not sure how big the chance is to have disabled children, and if it is much higher than getting into a car accident on your commute to work. So while the risk is real, it is not necessarily a reason not to have kids.
markkat 14y ago
You might be mistakenly projecting your own experience here. There a plenty of unwanted children.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  That is very, very sad. I cannot imagine having a child and not wanting it. Perhaps I am projecting my own experience.
mhurron 14y ago
Ya I've heard that before, often right after listening to them complain that they can't do things they would like to or after they tell me I should grow up and have kids instead of spending time doing things I want to. Not everything is for everyone. Not everyone is going to think having kids is awesome.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I have a theory around parents talking about how bad it is. The things that suck about having kids are universal - the tiredness, the continual cleaning up, the lack of time to yourself and so on. The things that are great are largely individual and personal (face it, we all know how dull it is to listen to someone talking about their kids). As a result the bad things get talked about disproportionately - they're things parents can bond over because you go through similar things, they are often self depreciating, can be funny (depending on your view of stories involving bodily fluids) and so on. The good things though you generally shut up about because you very quickly learn to spot the bored look when you do. As a result from the outside I think people who don't have kids can get a skewed view of what it's really like. Personally I'd say it's the best thing I've ever done but one that comes with a massive price tag in terms of what you have to put into it, how hard it is and what you have to give up. No-one should tell you you should grow up and have kids - you should have kids if and when you want to - but don't take the moaning at face value. It's like a millionaire complaining about the problems that come with the money - yes they're real but you wouldn't change it, it's just letting off steam.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I agree that nobody should be told to have kids, but I think nobody should be told not to have kids either (what this article essentially tries to do). Actually I will probably also become one of those obnoxious parents pestering my kid to have kids (grandchildren for me), because I wish I had had kids way earlier. Some aspects of parenthood are physically taxing and it would be easier if I were still younger... Also chances are I won't get to enjoy being a grandparent because I am so old already. If my kid has children at the same age as I did I would be almost 80...
pretoriusB 14y ago
Have you read the article? It speaks of the exact opposite: regretting it AFTER having them.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Yep, I read the article.
tluyben2 14y ago
A bunch of people already said it, but there are a LOT of people regretting it (most of them won't say that to everyone), but I know really more than a few parents over 50 saying (with children present) that if they are to do it over they wouldn't. And a lot of people who, after about 10 years, thought it would give 'purpose' but it didn't. Not everyone is the same and although I believe a lot of people really like it; I also think their is a large amount of people who don't but who are not telling you; they will in 20-30 years or maybe never depending on how 'open' your community is.

tomrod 14y ago

The article title is off--the article seems to focus more on a woman not wanting to be domestic as being totally normal, but doing or being so is not accepted in American society. They miss the opposite stigma, which I've noticed--being a young mother who wants to be domestic is often pooh poohed on.

jeremysmyth 14y ago
It's way off. If not wanting kids was the norm, we'd die out pretty quickly (feel free to disagree if you have stats, author!). The author (editor?) of the headline is mistaking "normal" for "acceptable".
- lusr 14y ago
  Terrible article. It lumps together all the following scenarios and more: 1. A woman forced into motherhood by a partner who refuses to allow her to terminate the pregnancy 2. A forced mother (rape, abandonment) who was unable to opt for termination for whatever reason 3. A stay at home mother who thinks its too much hard work (as compared to...? We never find out what their expectations are) 4. A resentful mother with the wrong or unsupportive partner and whose anger and resentment towards said partner may now be directed at everything related to them (e.g. children) 5. Women who had children "too early" and feel resentful missing out on youthful freedom 6. Women who miss their youthful freedom Etc. Some of these are quite understandable, some appear to be naivete, and some appear to be pure laziness or a lack of responsibility (i.e. deficiencies in moral character).
  - king_jester 14y ago
    All of the things you listed are experiences that women who have children have. All of these issues are related to one another - women are denied access to birth control, esp. abortion, and are often primary care givers to children whether they have that child voluntarily or not. The cultural narrative for women in the US is that you leave behind your life and identity as a sacrifice in order to support your child/children, which is something that may lead someone to feel that having children is not fulfilling. People do not live in a vacuum and cultural messages and images about child raising that women see and experience shape how they approach having a child (if they even plan their pregnancy, which the article shows is not true for a lot of people). The author of the article, Jessica Valenti, is a feminist author and that forms the background for this piece, which is why this piece takes a look at many different experiences that women have in regards to having children.

styluss 14y ago

You can't force someone to love the other. Even a child.

vidiviciveni 14y ago

If you ask a mother what her greatest achievement in life is, she will likely say her children. This article is pure nonsense. In fact it even goes as far as to say it's "unhealthy" to want children. This sounds more like a desperate attempt to justify her own decisions. What is disgusting is the fact she tries to push this idea on others. We live in twisted times indeed...

Tichy 14y ago

Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? Where I live there is some pressure to give your kid to kindergarden at age one (three used to be normal). We ended up giving our kid to kindergarden at age two, because we somehow convinced ourselves it would be good for his social development. But the overall feeling is: he is disappearing from our lives way too fast. Now he is in kindergarden most of the time (except afternoons and weekends). Then it will be school, and today's kids seem to be pretty stressed out with that. After school kids tend to move out, we are lucky if he even stays in the same city or country. I think if you don't enjoy your kids, there tend to be options. Giving them up for adoption would be the most radical, before that there is kindergarden and boarding schools (admittedly they cost money). I get that not everybody enjoys their kids, but I still feel sorry for those people. For me it is the best thing that ever happened to me. It makes me angry that society takes it for granted that as a normal dad I would not even see my kid much during the week, because I would be working in an office. Also for all those mums longing to work, I wonder what jobs do they have? In my personal biased opinion, most jobs suck. Perhaps they just imagine work life to be much more glorious than it really is? If what this article said is true and many people are so eager to give up their kids, I actually think the state should make that possible. Must be hell to grow up with parents who hate you.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan. He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - your kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean. I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way. WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531... Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... [1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.

AutoCorrect 14y ago

what you're looking at here is the death throes of a civilization. Abortion on demand, free contraception, and a radicalized group that believe motherhood is slavery. But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'.

CapitalistCartr 14y ago
Extreme views are interesting, but the more "out there" the view the more it needs some supporting evidence. How about some here?
justinph 14y ago
Judging by the rate the population is still increasing, I would hardly say the death throes are imminent.
EliRivers 14y ago
"But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'." Your ignorance is nothing to do with your gender. Please don't hide behind it. I know you intend it to be ironic in some way, but I rather suspect that you actually DON'T have any decent thought behind this tripe and are using some ridiculous pretense of gender-war as an excuse.
nollidge 14y ago
The reason you are wrong has nothing to do with your gender.
AutoCorrect 14y ago
wow, the PC brigade is really out there - looks like I hurt some feelings with my previous comment. Seriously - how long will it take until 1st world nations collapse? We're close to it now in the US - SS will be an inverted pyramid before Gen-Y starts to retire - who's going to pay for it? The same with all of our other 'help the children' programs. It's been a pyramid game all along, and now the generation of the bottom level of the pyramid (meaning new bodies) is being voluntarily reduced. 2.1 is the replacement rate for a couple (the .1 is insurance against pre-reproductory death). The United States is currently at 2.06, trending downward from 2010 (see STATISTICS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...). Care to guess who's at the top? Hint: it's not 1st-world nations. The Italian government has been paying women to have babies, Germany is shrinking in population, Russia is emptying out. Why? Birth-control, abortion on demand, and an educational system that denigrates being a parent. Argue if you want, but the numbers speak, and they're telling a pretty dismal story: Here lies humanity, they became so smart they forgot to procreate.

jobigoud 14y ago

I think it's less frowned upon here in Europe. Who want's to miss 10-15 years of her life anyway ? All the personal projects, travels, parties, etc. As the article says, we spend most of our live trying to avoid it. So now, to have a child is an active decision. You go out of your way, it doesn't just happen. So it must be a project that you should be able to justify, a rational decision. Show me your decision grid, advantages/drawbacks, etc. No really, what is the point at the individual level ? (I understand the point at the species level, but we don't act at the species level). Pushing another human in an already overcrowded planet ? Forcing him to pay for you when you will be old ? The best thing you can do for your child is not having it.

Tichy 14y ago
After a while the travels and parties get old... Besides, if you really wanted to, you could still do all that with kids. It's true that you can't really rationally decide to have a kid, because you can not know beforehand what it is like. In the same vein, why do people have pets? Seems just as irrational... But why - why live at all? What is the point of anything? As for the overcrowded planet, most of the overcrowding seems to be done in other countries. In my country population count is falling. Having kids seems like a pretty fundamental human right, so why should I give that up just because some other people can't control themselves (and I know it is a more complex issue)? Are you sure that you haven't been brainwashed? Some people benefit if you believe that you shouldn't have children. Meanwhile the people owning the TV stations and newspapers probably have 20 kids with different women, who will happily take up the space you are not occupying with your own children.
equalarrow 14y ago
Heh, I used to think like that. When my wife and I met we were like, "kids? no f-ing way". But then we decided we wanted one. We could have gone thru life as the two person 'family'. We could have kept building our income, buying more things, striving for that next 'personal goal'. Don't get me wrong, we still do that to a point, but having a kid - from two no kids people - is the best thing we've ever done. It's also the most difficult thing. We're sleep deprived, irritable, spaced out, and longing for free time. But through all this, we still say it's worth it. Worth it because we are part of life. We're all someone's child and while having children isn't for everyone, I feel like becoming the teacher is the most important thing I'll ever do. My wife's step-father just had his dad pass away this Aug - both his parents live with him on the bottom floor of his building. Now it's just him and his mom and his girlfriend. He's definitely 'paying for them' as they're on their way out. But I'm sure if you asked him if this was a problem, he would tell you absolutely not. I don't see raising our son as missing my life - I've had my share of studying philosophy, succeeding, failing, living, etc. I'm now ready to put that into practice and help someone else learn what life's about (sure, from my pov, absolutely), to guide them. This is the best thing I can do for my child; strive to provide a stable, nurturing environment. There are so many amazing things in life and I think it's a gift to experience it. I think it's easy to just focus on the negative or the reasons of why not to. I really do wish everyone could have an awesome life. I think that's how it's meant to be lived - as awesome as possible. So, kids aren't for everyone. I don't feel like it's an exclusive club. But I do feel like it's a natural part of life and I'm glad I'm getting to experience it.

skreech 14y ago

Having a kid is like changing the difficulty level of life from "Normal" to "Hardcore". Unlike video games, there is no switching back. So be sure you are committed and finished with playing on the "Normal" setting. You'll probably want to have high stats in Maturity, Communication and Patience. Oh, and your relationship is going to lose HP.

netcan 14y ago

I have a strong association of a desire to have children with good times. Plenty. Safety. Relief. An aversion to children is a sign of bad times. Turmoil. War. It's part of our stories and our mythologies. The heros return from war bringing safety and bounty. Pair up and rase children. I suspect this is part of our biology. How much of this has always been. How much of it is a result of our present world.

calinet6 14y ago
Biologically speaking, it's logical to not want to bring children into a harsh world incapable of nurturing them. It could be an evolutionary or rational feedback. I think much of this has always been, and this is largely a case of "if you go looking for something, you'll find it." Also, they're pushing a book. Funny how that works.
- fmstephe 14y ago
  There is a fairly strong connection between poverty, stress and high reproductive rates. The baby boomer generation is largely the product of WWII. The birth rate of Palestian's is significantly higher than that of the Israeli population. Birth rates in very poor countries are almost always significantly higher than in developed wealthy countries. (IANAE :)
  - Tichy 14y ago
    But does that correlation still hold in developed countries? I guess reasons to have more kids in poor countries is that they'll help you with your work and take care of you when you are old. Besides, some of them are going to die prematurely, so you need to create more to have some successes. The cost for having a kid might be low. In developed countries things are pretty much turned on their heads in that respect?
paganel 14y ago
> I have a strong association of a desire to have children with good times. Plenty. Safety. Relief. An aversion to children is a sign of bad times. Turmoil. War. This reminded me of the story of my ex-wife's grand-mother who around 1942 or so went very closed to the WW2 Easter front lines dressed up as a man (that's what the legend says, anyway) to meet her husband, my wife's grand-father, who was serving in the Romanian Army. Nine months later, July 1943, their first kid was born, my ex-father-in-law. ~60 years later my ex-wife was trying to explain to me that we shouldn't have kids because times "are to unstable, we don't have enough money etc". So there's that ... A little OT, my ex-wife's grand-father was quite a man, he got wounded 3 times on the Eastern front, and even though he had been raised in a traditional, Romanian peasant family he said that he couldn't believe in God anymore after what he had seen in there. After the war he returned to Romania and because he used to be an elementary-school teacher before WW2 and had experience with kids he was in charge with running a foster-home where he took care of orphaned children for a while, until things around the country settled down a bit. Those kids still looked at him as a father-like figure well into them growing up as adults and becoming grand-parents themselves, a bunch of them were present at his funeral 65 years after he had taken care of them. So there's that again :)

rohern 14y ago

I was intrigued by the opening paragraphs up until she got to: "Because no matter how many different kinds of public images women see of themselves, they're still limited. They're still largely white, straight upper-middle-class depictions, and they all still identify women as mothers or non-mothers. American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother. It goes against everything we've been taught to think about women and how desperately they want babies. If we're to believe the media and pop culture, women -- even teen girls -- are forever desperate for a baby. It's our greatest desire. " You cannot assert things like and not provide evidence. This is a gargantuan statement about society that is left totally unsupported. I think this is a very bad habit of people in the humanities and it needs to go away before I take this kind of criticism seriously.

paganel 14y ago
This is a magazine article (quite well-written, IMHO), it's not a scientific paper. So in that respect of course it has to make some generalizations, which in this case I think they're mostly correct.
- rohern 14y ago
  I do not think you understand what science is. Scientific papers do not present data and models and analysis because they are scientific papers. They do these things because they lead to testable claims of knowledge. It is not done for the style of it. If you are reading all your magazines under the presumption that they make no claims about the world and are simply a kind of ironic entertainment, okay, but that is not at all how this article portrays itself.
king_jester 14y ago
I can see how you would say this, but Jessica Valenti is a well known feminist author who was written several works on this very subject, so she takes this position based on her previous knowledge and study. She is most known for Full Frontal Feminism: http://www.amazon.com/Full-Frontal-Feminism-Womans-Matters/dp/1580052010/ http://www.amazon.com/Full-Frontal-Feminism-Womans-Matters/d...
14y ago

paganel 14y ago

> Some cited the boredom of stay-at-home momism. Many complained of partners who didn't shoulder their share of child care responsibilities. I don't have kids yet, but when and if that will happen I'll try to make sure that the mother of my kids won't ruin her career and her sense of self-worth by becoming a stay-at-home-mother. That's how I grew up, with both my parents having full-time jobs, if it was good enough for me as a kid seeing my parents happy and all I hope it will be good enough for my children.

Tichy 14y ago
I actually would prefer a stay-at-home mom. The wife's job is creating a lot of stress. Women who work tend to be in a foul mood (just my experience anyway).

codegeek 14y ago

Don't let the naysayers discourage you. Having and raising kids is one of the most wonderful experiences you can have in your life. yes, it is incredibly difficult, painful at times. But it is all worth it. I strongly believe that if kids turn out bad, their parents should be blamed for the most part if not all.

king_jester 14y ago
The article clearly shows that some people don't want to have children or have found having children to not be as satisfying as you did. We can't make decisions for others, and perpetuating messages and depictions of child raising as fulfilling is really misleading.
- Tichy 14y ago
  So propaganda against children is OK, but for children is not? If people say what makes them happy, what is wrong with that? It doesn't imply that it would work for everyone, but it implies that it might work for some other people, too. Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption?
  - king_jester 14y ago
    There's nothing wrong with having children and having that experience be a great one. However, that kind of story is the dominant narrative in US society and people deserve to hear alternative points of view and experience for those where it didn't turn out OK or as a positive experience. Those kinds of stories and experiences don't get a lot of exposure, esp. in regards to media representation and cultural norms. > Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption? The article went over this, as there are a wide variety of reasons someone has a child, planned or not. Some people may have children that they were forced to, or may find that the life they imagined having with children never materialized and that they do not want to continue being a parent. Also, cultural norms and representations of parenthood and expectations of how to interact with children heavily influence the perception of being a parent, so when these norms leave out the experience of people who regret or are not happy with being a parent, we are misleading people. Adoption and foster care systems are not a perfect solution, it would be better to provide more information and experiences for people to help them evaluate whether or not a child would be for them.

alxndr 14y ago

"Over 60 percent of the children studied were reported as planned, almost 30 percent were unplanned ("mistimed"), and 10 percent were unequivocally "unwanted." The results of Barber's research showed that the children who were unintended ... got fewer parental resources than those children who were intended. Basically, children who were unplanned didn't get as much emotional and cognitive support as children who were planned.... Across the board, children who were wanted got more from their parents than children who weren't. Children who were unplanned were also subject to harsher parenting and more punitive measures than a sibling who was intended." Wonder if this effect on children is stronger or weaker than the oft-GOP-touted effect that raising a child with a mother and a father is the best way to do so -- i.e. how do planned-for children raised by single mothers compare to unplanned children raised by both fathers and mothers?

codegeek 14y ago

My wife is pregnant with our first child and here is what we are going through right now: - Financial budgeting and planning. Our expenses are going to go up by about $1500 (NYC metropolitan area) - Everyday, we struggle through talking about what we need to buy for the baby, should we do this, should we do that ? - Are we going to be good parents ? Will our kid turn out ok ? - We are not going to have any more time for ourselves. Forget those dinner and movie nights out. Forget about socializing outside especially for the first few months ? - Will I get time to work on my side projects etc. at all ? It is so hard right now and with the baby, it might be even more difficult. Now, if I had to choose between not having a child so that all the above issues disappear OR having a child, I would go for the child in a heartbeat. The point is that you can always justify why not to want/have kids, but I strongly believe (my opinion) that you will be missing out on one of the greatest gifts of god if you don't have them i.e. children. Just my 2 cents.

Tichy 14y ago
Eventually you should try to find a babysitter (grandparents often work well, but not everybody has the option) and go out without the child. Although I admit we have done that only twice in the last two years... What costs 1500$ more - per year, or per month? Because you'll move to a bigger apartment? Our kid (2 years) actually sleeps from 8pm till 8am, so in theory there is still plenty of kid free time. Don't worry so much :-)
- codegeek 14y ago
  Correct. The $1500 is per month for a babysitter included (hopefully). We are not moving yet but planning to after the kid is about 6-7 months old.
fr0sty 14y ago
As the father of an almost 2-year-old: Baby spending is a gaseous thing. It expands to fill the size of your budget. All a baby needs is onesies, diapers, food, some blankets and a place to sleep. A car-seat and a stroller for going out (plus some blankets, etc for keeping warm). Anything else is gravy. The kid will be fine. Quit worrying. You will have to ease back into outside social engagements but you will sort things out. Young children sleep a lot.

kephra 14y ago

Looking at humans as domesticated apes: We are not fixed in being pair bounding or tournament species. But the current western culture is pair bounding. Its typical for pair bounding domesticated apes, that the poor and uneducated breed like rats, in the hope that one of the 9 children survives and can feed me, when I'm a grandpa. The more wealth and education someone has, the less children they have, because it makes sense to have fewer children and invest more into them. Till a culture runs into the problem that the average mother has less than two children. This had been a problem for every high culture, regardless if we talk about Greeks, Romans, or later high cultures. And US is not yet at this point, because CIA tells me 2.06 children per mother, while Germany has 1.41 children per mother. The solution would be to get rid of the pair bounding culture, because domesticated tournament apes have exactly the opposite children per mother distribution. Rich man have several women, and those have several children. Poor man have no women, and no children.