I just read an article that I'd like to hear what others think about it. K is for Katherine and Idgie both have kids (which should be obvious if you have been keeping up with the mulch-eating and amazonmom postings) while I don't have any and am not very interested in ever going there. I just read this article that says I may be part of a much larger trend. The two points I'm glad they brought up in the article is that this doesn't mean I hate kids (I don't) and that older childless people who have been surveyed did not express regret about their decision (this is one of my worries about my choice).
Also you may enjoy taking this survey that is linked to from the article. I answered 6 out of the 8 in the affirmative. Apparently "If you answered affirmatively to even four of these prompts, you share a mind-set with those that choose not to bear children." I'm not surprised.
I read about this article last night. Though there is no denying that a lot of people I know are postponing babies indefinitely or not planning to have kids, I'm not sure this article does a good job framing the individual decision in the wider context. It is stretch to say there is a global trend in no babies. Lip service is paid to the economy, access to birth control, and rising standards of living world wide. Those considerations have much more to do with a global falling birth rate than a fraction of upper-middle class urbanites deciding not to procreate.
ReplyDeleteIf, instead, the article said, "In my circle, my friends aren't having babies because they cost too much, impinge on my fun time, and smell bad. And this decision is not as contraversial as it once was, even a few years ago" I would be intriqued. OR it was a piece about increased education of girls in tribal areas and access to birth control have lead to a global decrease in birth rate. Instead, the author goes too far trying to conflate the two with sketchy results.
The bottom line is that in places where women can control the number of babies that have through birth control, legal abortion, and societal mores that give women decision-making authority over thier body, the natural birth rate is just below 2.
Hmm, I can't disagree that most articles could have deeper analysis, but that's what happens when something is 3 pages, not 200 pages. I also think there is a big swing between 0 kids and 1+ kids. I think the natural birth rate being just below 2 has everything to do with those things you listed: birth control, legal abortion, and a women's ability to contribute to the household income (and not just contribute to its number of children). I'm not sure those same things explain the difference between 0 and 1 though. I agree that I'd like to read more about if the 0 kids choice is happening in more than just upper-middle class urbanites. For example, I wonder how acceptable/normal it is to have no kids in Des Moines, IA or Charleston, SC.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder things like that and would read that article.
ReplyDeleteFrom my limited time in Charleston, it was OK not to have kids...just as long as you were going to have them soon. But I wasn't there long enough to find out if there was another crowd were that mentality was not as strong.
Ok, I've been thinking about this a lot.
ReplyDeleteMags, as someone who has decided not to have kids, do you think the conversation has gotten any easier? Does being in a major metropolitan area help? Do you get different questions here than with relatives in other areas of the country? What are your reasons for not procreating? Do you think you could be budged from that position?
I personally think socially, especially in this part of the country, people are more accepting of all lifestyles, childless included. That said, you are still in the minority. Does it feel that way? FWIW, Mr. Idgie feels like a minority in his group of friends because he has a kid and no one else does.
I am following this conversation intently but I currently have nothing interesting to add. I don't understand why people get all annoyed by other people's life choices. I've never understood why people are up at arms about gay marriage (once separated from the religious institution, which I can respect). Who cares if you don't want to have kids? Who cares if you want to have 12 cats?
ReplyDeleteThough, this makes me think about the Quiverfulls (e.g. the Duggars) who have lots and lots of kids. They irritate me, and they shouldn't, according to my previous statement. Seems like they are taking up more than their share of natural resources.
Anyway, keep talking.
Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you, Idgie. You asked a lot of questions there; it seems a little overwhelming. Let me see if I can address the first of them.
ReplyDelete“Do you think the conversation has gotten any easier?”
Gotten any easier since when? I’m in my late-twenties, and I’ve been saying this since I was 10 or so, and the response hasn’t changed in that time. Most of the time the nice reaction is “You’ll change your mind” or a slightly nicer “Will you change your mind?” as if I can predict if my future self will change her mind. (BTW, this was the response I received from my gynecologist when I mentioned it to him recently when discussing my birth control options.) The most annoying response was the favorite of my mothers to throw back at me: “You’re selfish.” As if my mother (or anyone I know for that fact) had children as a selfless act. She WANTED kids so she had kids. How is that not the definition of selfish? Did I beg to be born? I don’t think so. (If I had, I would have begged someone like the owner of Wal-Mart or Microsoft to have me.)
Another anecdote: I recently learned that a friend that I’ve known for a year or two now (someone I would have even said was a close friend) wasn’t all that interested in having children. She was equally surprised that I felt this way. Obviously, we uninterested folks don’t go telling it to everyone we meet, or even friends, because we tire of the reaction.
I do imagine that this conversation has gotten easier since, say, 100 year ago. I’m pretty sure saying something like this might have gotten you committed for hysteria, or lack of femininity, or some diagnosis made up by male doctors (the only kind that existed) who liked their wives to stay an underclass of only baby-makers and dishwashers.
“Does being in a major metropolitan area help? Do you get different questions here than with relatives in other areas of the country?”
These two are easy: Maybe and No. I think there is likely to be more people like me in a major metropolitan area because there are just more people, period. I don’t think the questions differ though.
I’ll try to come back and tackle another of your questions soon.
A recent article seems relevant to this conversation: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/us/10birth.html?emc=eta1
ReplyDeleteRelevant quote: "There are far more women in their 40s without children now than there were in past decades. In 1976, just 10 percent of all women ages 40 to 44 had no children. That percentage had jumped to 19 percent by 2010.
White women in their 40s were more likely to be childless than Hispanics. Just 12 percent of Hispanic women from 40 to 44 were childless, compared with 20 percent of whites, 17 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Asians."
I think the most interesting point is that 1 in 5 women are childless in their 40s--meaning basically that they will forever be childless minus adoption. That seems like a lot of people to me.