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.
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.
[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.
I've heard about that, even own the book but didn't read very far yet. I remain skeptic. Maybe it holds for "standard parenting techniques", but I am more interested in for example the approach of László Polgár http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
He raised 3 kids to become chess grandmasters - and he announced he would do that before they were born. I don't think he was abusive either.
Somehow nobody really wants to talk about that, it is weird. Perhaps it scares people to think that they might be responsible for not making their kids brilliant. And the elite might have an interest in not letting the secret out - somebody has to do the slavery jobs in society, after all. Yeah it is a bit paranoid, but I have become a bit cynical about the setup of our society. Actually it doesn't even have to be an elite trying to hold us down, I think research has shown that people are most happy if other people are not better off than they are, so people are always trying to hold each other down.
Of course I wouldn't condone methods like the tiger mum (I think she is basically a criminal), but I don't think Polgar was abusive, for example.
I guess if you can influence if your kid is Lutheran or Catholic, there are also other things that might have a bigger impact (even Catholic vs Lutheran might make a big difference, I don't really know? What with different work ethics?). Lutheran vs Catholic or "technical vs liberal arts" and so on?
Caplan's empirical results certainly don't rule out effects from extremely non-standard (e.g., Polgar) parenting techniques. Then again, the anecdotal results of the Polgar family are also quite consistent with his thesis.
Laszlo Polgar and his wife are both obsessively ambitious and quite intelligent, and Laszlo even obsesses about chess. Caplan's thesis suggests that if raised by others, the Polgar girls might merely have picked up poker or math rather than chess.
If I recall Caplan's book correctly, "technical vs liberal arts" is suggested by twin studies to be primarily genetically determined. The separately raised twin of a civil engineer is far more likely to be an electrical engineer than to work in HR, for example.
As for Lutheran vs Catholic, it's certainly extremely important - if your kids get it wrong, they will be tortured in hell forever.
The interesting thing about Polgar is that he announced he would raise gifted kids before he even had them - he didn't even have a wife then, instead he looked for a wife willing to do the experiment. He wasn't obsessed about chess, he just picked it because it was easy to measure success. He then studied it himself so that he could teach his kids.
Sure, it is still an anecdote, but he repeated it three times with his children. It seems incredibly lucky if all of his children just happened to be super-gifted and would have become prodigies in any discipline just because of their genes, and him knowing they would be like that before they were born.
I don't know whom you're listening to, but it seems to me that everybody is talking about it. To what extent you should 'pressure' kids to pursue an activity you believe will be beneficial vs letting them find their own way is one of the big parenting debates.
Perhaps it scares people to think that they might be responsible for not making their kids brilliant.
I think it's more that most parents aren't interested in making their children "brilliant" in the sense of being amazingly good at one very niche endeavor (although you don't have to look far to find plenty of parents who are). Most parents seem to prefer attempting to raise more rounded and well balanced children.
That assumes pressure is the way to raise gifted kids. What I mean is nobody seems to look into proven ways to "produce" gifted kids. If you google for Polgar, only few things come up, mostly chess related, which isn't the point at all. His book is out of print, not sure if it was ever even translated to English (he is Hungarian). That is what I mean by nobody seems to want to discuss it. Not only Polgar, also the other examples I read about in "Bounce" (for example there was apparently a Russian "factory" for tennis stars).
Tiger mom made a splash, but I think that was because people wish they could just force their kids to be brilliant.
I actually don't think "my kid played piano in [some famous concert hall]" is worth destroying the soul of your kid for. But what if the some technique (non-soul destroying) could be used to raise people who are brilliant in fighting cancer or programming social networks?
You are right, everybody worries about making their kids succeed, but people don't seem to look at the right aspects of it. They just follow the path layed out by schools, to put more pressure on rote learning.
I've never been comfortable w/ Caplan's ideas. Maybe the average stays consistent, but outliers differ based on parenting techniques. Surely quality of education plays a large role. He also seems to ignore the large body of evidence which shows socioeconomic background plays a big role in kids' success.
My personal opinion is that Caplan's book presents a minority view based on some limited statistics. Strangely it seems to show up a lot on HN.
Why are you so sure of this? Most of the evidence I've seen suggests variation in education quality accounts for very little of the variation in educational outcomes - student race is the biggest predictor and student income is a distant second. This applies internationally as well as intranationally.
He also seems to ignore the large body of evidence which shows socioeconomic background plays a big role in kids' success.
He explicitly acknowledges his data applies primarily to children raised in middle class first world nations. He doesn't ignore socioeconomic background, holds it constant and lets other factors vary.
If you have statistics which contradict Caplan, I'd love to see them.
If he holds socioeconomic status constant, how can he arrive at student income being a strong predictor? Doesn't equal socioeconomic status kind imply equal "student income"?
Also I wonder how quality of education is being measured?
The social status of people on exactly the same income can differ markedly. My first idea on how I'd disentangle SES effects from income would be parental highest degree. I imagine the average MBA is smarter than the average BA but dumber than the average PhD. And JDs and MDs will make more than any of them. If you restrict your sample to those with over 100K in annual income there will still be some people who are self employed trades people even.
And the way I'd bet would be that the children of (Educational attainment group X) have more in common with their counterparts with poorer parents than with the group (has rich parents).
Read Bryan's book, read Judith Rich Harris' “The Nurture Assumption”, read Amy Chua's book. Read the literature on heritability and mutability of personality traits and intelligence. It's all left me thinking that if I'm going to go for more aggro I'll just go for another child or earning more money.
And Amy Chua really, really did not beat the soul out of either of her daughters. The space of non abusive First World middle class parenting styles encompasses her easily.
I only read the newspaper articles about Amy Chua, and if they were true, then in my opinion she tortured her daughters. I remember that they had to repeat piano pieces zillions of times and were not allowed to go to the toilet until they got them right, for example. That's torture. Sure, it could always be worse, but it's probably soul crushing enough. That her kids might not hold it against her doesn't mean a thing because kids always love their parents. In my country there was a case recently of a father abusing his daughter sexually for years and offering her to other men, yet in court she still felt sorry for testifying against him and called out "I still love you, daddy".
I'm sure lots of middle class parents abuse their kids, too, but that doesn't imply the Chua style is non-abusive.
Especially since the torturing was done apparently in the pursuit of meaningless status symbols (daughter played in famous concert hall once, great grades at school).
The thing is, kids always grow up, no matter what you do to them. So you can always say "see, it worked out alright". Until the day when it all falls apart and the emotional backlash happens (in the form of something like the Nazi regime, for example - yeah, quote Godwin's law, I don't care...).
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.
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.
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).
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.
The thing I fear even further is encouraging people who read articles in the NYT to not have children. Or, people who read hacker news, even.
I don't care what your views are, or if you want or don't want children, but I do consider it at least partly a responsibility of capable, intelligent people to reproduce. It's almost in-line with the article's generalizations, but I'd apply it to both sexes fairly.
It's a sad paradox: the people who have the rationality and conviction to consider not having children are—evolutionarily speaking—the ones we want to have children.
>> 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!).
If 60% of women don't want kids, but the remaining 40% all have at least three each, population would still grow.
Anyway, I think you're discussing semantics here. Saying something is 'normal' does not necessarily imply the converse is 'abnormal'. In general 'normal' does not mean 'the norm' or 'according to what the majority of people think', just that it's not completely crazy to think in a certain way.
I definitely consider not wanting to have kids to be normal, no less than wanting to have them. There are very good reasons for deciding you don't want to have kids, maybe even more so that the opposite. In fact, most reasons for wanting to have kids are pretty egocentric if you ask me, and the number of kids growing up under terrible circumstances kind of seems to confirm that.
Imagine that you have a population of 200 humans (100 male, 100 female). Only 40% of the women want kids, which, in this case, means that 40 women want kids. They each have three kids, for a total of 120 kids produced by the population of 200 adults. I don't think that this would lead to population growth.
You're right, unless you would somehow ensure that of the 3 kids every mother has, 2.5 are female ;-)
Anyway, looking at the worlds' population right now, I don't think we have to be afraid mankind will go extinct anytime soon because not enough children are born.
The problem with the article is it lumps together a whole bunch of different reasons for not wanting kids as if they're all equally reasonable reasons. It also doesn't address "normal" within any objective framework.
It's an interesting question in evolutionary theory whether there is an advantage to have a split of "breeders" and "non-breeders". Non-breeders, people who don't mind being e.g. soldiers and mine-technicians, seem pretty useful to society (actually a necessity once a large enough population of violent "non-breeders" evolve to threaten the breeders).
However they don't really contribute much genetically unless perhaps the "breeder" vs. "non-breeder" flag is entirely random and therefore allows for certain individuals to randomly specialize without negatively affecting the genetic potential of a family of mutations.
Intuitively, the value of "non-breeders" would seem to be very... expendable. I doubt people who are against having kids would enjoy that label, though. I wonder what other evolutionary value non-breeders bring to a species.
Perhaps having non-breeders who divert all their energy towards science and progress produce such an important species advantage that even if they don't necessarily contribute to the genetic pool they do contribute to the overall preservation and extension of the underlying genetic code.
You're leaving out the most important factor. Since females are the limiting factor in animal reproduction (for most species, but importantly including humans), there is tremendous selective pressure, both biologically and culturally, for males to be the expendable ones. The specialization of individuals into breeding and non-breeding roles is the entire purpose of gender.
I'm familiar with the theory that men are more expendable [1], but I don't think you can take that to imply that men don't have a breeding role. Men are critical to the family unit. Beside that, I'm suggesting that even on top of gender roles there is a breeder/non-breeder split. Otherwise all women AND men would have an urge to raise families, which is clearly not the case.
You're right. Unmarried and childless men are more expendable than married men with children. But not even unmarried or childless women are expendable. Even married men with children are more expendable than unmarried or childless women.
The article is specifically talking about constructed normality for women in regards to motherhood. Certainly it is totally OK to want or not want children, but mass media messaging and cultural assumptions about women and how they interact with children (their own and others) are a factor in how people make decisions for having children, hence the section in the article about rates of unplanned pregnancy and attitudes of mothers in an unplanned pregnancy.
You're assuming that people do what they want. This is a similar argument to the idea that homosexuality can't be genetic as if it were then the gene would have died out.
That's not true because basically for as long as culture has existed there has been pressure to conform to a societal norm which generally involves male / female relationships and children. As a result of that many (though not all) people instead of doing what they want have done what society expects of them.
As it goes I think you're right that it's the norm in as much as I think there is a biological imperative there (anecdotally having kids I can vouch for this), but I think your logic supporting the argument is off.
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.
I can't even count on one hand conversations in the past 6 months I've had with co-workers and friends in which I've had to explain why I don't want kids and "Well.. wait, what are you going to DO with your life then?!" One of these co-workers sits near me and goes off almost every day about how wonderful his are and how everyone should have them. The other day, he even tried convincing another colleague of having her own even though she was averse. The whole thing was awkward.
I had a high school science teacher that told me "we all feel that way when we're young, but just wait until you're older." This can totally be the case, but for me it's a lot more than that.
I've heard countless arguments that children are the only thing that bring meaning to one's life. I've been told that I just won't understand until I have one. Those sentiments are echoed throughout this thread and every other thread about children. Look at the one about 60% of startup founders having children and wives - can't we take away that the reason most people have children is simply because we grow up being told that's what you're supposed to do?
This may seem trivial on the outset, but hearing it day after day is defeating - particularly when there's general societal pressure on top of it. When people ask me why I made this decision, I try to keep it brief and just tell them I'm devoted to my career. Quite frankly, I shouldn't need an excuse; I'm of the mindset that too many unqualified people are having children and those children are being tossed by the wayside as they grow up in crummy neighborhoods or bloated classrooms.
In my [somewhat extremist] view, I wish we had better indicators of potential health concerns and weren't afraid of telling people with financial issues that they need to get on track before they're allowed to reproduce; if you couldn't get approved for a loan that would cover the first year or two (or more) of childcare, how do you think you actually will? I know that's not a popular opinion, but having grown up in a home where everything was put onto credit cards that were deliberately timed to line up with bankruptcy claims, and knowing what kind of life that is, that's my take on it.
Worse, there are a lot of women that don't realize until it is too late that they probably weren't cut out for it and the implications it has on their aspirations and careers. Some women feel so detached from their newborns that they become dissociative. Some resort to Facebook, while others resort to much more unfortunate (and long-term) solutions.
Anyhow, those of us in the childfree mindset absolutely exist (and in higher numbers more recently), but for the sake of our sanities we don't talk about it unless we want an onslaught of people telling us how we should actually feel and live our lives.
I wish this was true. Most of the "childfree" people I know are really obnoxious and in-your-face about it.
Most of your post makes a lot of sense. Kids are expensive. Some people aren't cut out for parenting. Some people just have other priorities. And it's obnoxious to have people telling you "you should have kids" when you've chosen not to.
That said, the argument that you "just won't understand until [you] have one" is entirely correct. It's like having never been sexually active. You can choose to be celibate or childfree, but you don't and can't really know what it's like on the other side of the line. (It is, unfortunately, a decision it's impossible to make in a truly "informed" manner -- you can only truly understand after making the decision.)
> I wish this was true. Most of the "childfree" people I know are really obnoxious and in-your-face about it.
Interesting, where do you live? I have yet to find anyone else in my social circles that has made this decision, nor have I heard anyone outside of the internet take this stance in my presence, especially naggingly so.
I was always decided that kids would not be what gives meaning of life to me. That wouldn't even work, because what would you tell your kids? That they also have to have kids to find meaning in life? And so on with their kids...
So it may surprise you, but it is possible to want and enjoy kids even if you don't think they'll save you from a meaningless life. My kid does make me want to do better in life, though, because I want him to be proud of me later on.
Also, you know, perhaps those obnoxious parents really mean well? You seem to assume some conspiracy (we only want kids because we are told we should), when really perhaps they just see the happiness it brought them, and that makes them want to share it.
What makes you so sure the brainwashing is on the "kids make you happy" side and not on the "it is awful to have kids" side? Let's put it that way: the people who decided against kids probably have more spare time for writing articles defending that decision.
Half of your reasons also don't seem to be relevant to you, or are you too poor for kids and too stupid to raise them well? I rather doubt that, so why do those arguments even concern you?
I really don't care if you have kids or not, I just think it would be a shame if you (or others) decide against kids for the wrong reasons, and later regret it.
I agree with everything you say about being childfree and I can tell you as a man that I hear the same things you do when you express your feelings about not having children (I am assuming that you are female from your username, apologies if that is incorrect).
However, this anecdotal evidence says nothing about society as a whole.
> However, this anecdotal evidence says nothing about society as a whole.
I didn't bother bringing religion into it because that's a whole 'nother can of worms, but it has such a societal impact on what's deemed "acceptable" if not downright "expected" that we've illegalized the options available for people because of it. I've also read a few AskMeFi's in which husbands and wives have both asked the best course of direction for a babycrazy spouse that wouldn't take no for an answer once they sealed the deal, due either to religious belief or family pressure. Unfun stuff.
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/d...
Classifying women as mothers or non-mothers seems correct. What other possible categories are there? Either you are a mother, or you are not (in fact the same classification system could be applied to men, too). Just saying.
Also, really, do non-white women also think of white, straight upper-middle-class women when they think of "the model woman"? That seems very unlikely to me.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 :)
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.
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 :)
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?
Ah, don't forget to integrate the "skirts length theory"[0], if we are driven to reproduction because the environment is better, than a stronger drive to sex makes sense :)
[0] Good times beget short skirts and economic crisis make them longer
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.
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.
Agree with all of this as I have experienced it all myself in the last year.
Things worked out so much better than I imagined that I'm starting to think couples with the "kids ruin everything" attitude were actually looking for an excuse to disengage socially.
I would also suggest:
- Get the baby used to going out - friends' houses, restaurants. A bottle with a slow nipple buys you a lot of time if the baby starts fussing in a restaurant.
- Find a good babysitter
- When going out, do more planning than usual to make sure you have an awesome time
That last bit has made a huge difference. By treating your entertainment time as precious, the experiences you have are so much more fun and memorable.
Thanks :). I wish my wife thought the same though haha. She has a list of about 100 items and trust me, she has a way of justifying each one of them. :)
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 :-)
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.
I agree with you. It's one of the few things why we live. We(human race) would die out if nobody would have kids. Taiwan and Japan are two countries with a really low birthrate and you can see the aging process very well.
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.
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?
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.
In general I suppose it is bad if people can't be honest with their feelings. As one extreme example, I think post-pregnancy depression is actually quite common and can even drive mothers to suicide. Since they can not talk about it because they are supposed to be happy, they often don't get proper treatment.
As for helping people evaluate, that seems tricky. How could you simulate the experience of having kids? I guess most people just extrapolate from what they see around them and what they experienced in their own families. And on the case of unwanted pregnancies it wouldn't help anyway.
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.
Kids are fun. I'm getting my fifth one (including one adopted) and it never gets old. Think about the most challenging complex corporate information systems project you ever owned and pulled off, or think about the best work of art you ever produced... Only ten times more fun and ten times more challenging. Other personal projects definitely suffer, but that personal project dwarfs them all.
There are many ways to contribute to shaping the world into something you believe being the right direction. Kids are one of them. Not having them is rational too but, if you believe in yourself, you may want to pass some of that on to the next generations directly. Making an impact by other means is good too, but nothing quite equals the primal satisfaction of leading your own clan into the future. And before anyone mentions, I'm an atheist - so there are no religious motives here.
In France, having kids may not be the communal project it once was, but nowadays with crazy good medical support, day care, kindergarten, schools and all sorts of benefits, I cannot possibly claim that our ancestors had it any easier. It does take an awful lot of time, but with the right organization it is the most rewarding thing you'll ever do. Just don't overdo it and you'll be a happy parent.
Who want's to miss 10-15 years of her life anyway ? All the personal projects, travels, parties"
Life as an individual is just one way to live your life. There are a multitude of others - as a family (with children), as a partner, as a mentor, a dropout, a radical - having children will close some doors, but open many others. It isn't correct to assume there is one correct path.
So it must be a project that you should be able to justify, a rational decision. Show me your decision grid, advantages/drawbacks
It is probably sacrilegious to say so on HN, but not every decision in life can or should be calibrated on the basis of pure logic with a positive and negative column. It is (of course) eminently sensible to think about what kind of life you could provide for a child, but there is also a sense in which having a child is an adventure into the unknown - In the same way you wouldn't review crime statistics for every country in the world and decide to only travel to the safest spots.
What is the point at the individual level ?
Companionship, fun, adventure, challenge and delight all spring to mind.
Pushing another human in an already overcrowded planet
I thought you said that we don't act at the species level ?
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.
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.
It's less frowned upon in wealthy societies in general. Here in London the average age for first time mothers is deep into their 30s. It is about time when you've had your long travels around the world, and years of parties. I don't think the expectation here exists that young people are going to look after old people, unlike the developing world.
About young people looking after the old; Here in France it's not an expectation, it's the law.
My grand mother needs to go to a retirement home, her retirement pension doesn't cover the full cost. My mother and I are required by law to cover the rest (at least that part that is not paid for by the public health system).
I'll gladly do it, but who am I to impose that to another person ?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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?
> 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.
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).
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'.
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_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.
"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.
I've upvoted you, because I tend to agree. But you really didn't do yourself any favours by that last line: "But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'."
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.