The case against having kids

They can hurt your career, your marriage, your social life, your bank book. Why bother?

by Anne Kingston on Friday, July 24, 2009 12:20pm - 654 Comments

In a culture in which Jennifer Aniston’s childlessness provides weekly tabloid lamentations, a female star who goes public with a decision to remain so demonstrates courage. In a recent interview in U.K. Cosmopolitan, the 36-year-old actress Cameron Diaz, who is childless, expressed a disinclination to have children, citing environmental reasons: “We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.” She noted stigma still exists: “I think women are afraid to say that they don’t want children because they’re going to get shunned.” But she also expressed optimism the tide was turning: “I have more girlfriends who don’t have kids than those that do,” she said.

Now the childless in North America have their most defiant advocate in a mother of two: Corinne Maier, a 45-year-old French psychotherapist whose manifesto, No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not to Have Children, created a furor when published in France last year. Count on the same happening when it’s released here this week. Among Maier’s hard-won advice: “If you really want to be host to a parasite, get a gigolo.”

The societal shift in attitudes toward childlessness is most evident in language, with the buoyant “child-free” replacing “childless,” a word stigmatized for conveying a void or handicap. The childless minority has always been with us. But in the past why they didn’t procreate wasn’t the concern of mainstream academic study or social debate: to the extent it was even considered, it was assumed that they couldn’t due to some biological reason or chose not to for negative reasons, such as having had a bad childhood themselves.

The arrival of the pill in the 1960s, which allowed women to delay childbearing, also permitted them to forgo it altogether. Support groups popped up to allow like-minded people to congregate—the first being the National Organization for Non-Parents formed in Palo Alto, Calif., in 1972.

With the advent of the “child-free” came a rethink of the reproductive imperative, formerly assumed to be hard-wired in every human brain. But as demographer David Foot, a professor of economics at the University of Toronto, points out, social factors also play a role, the most significant being female education, which was also abetted by the pill’s arrival. “The higher the education a woman has, the greater likelihood that she won’t have children,” he says. This is consistent across cultures, he notes. The birth rate in Iran, where women go to university, is lower than that in the U.S., where census data reveals voluntarily childless women have the highest incomes compared to other women. In the U.K., 40 per cent of university graduates aged 35 are childless; it has been estimated that at least 30 per cent will stay that way.

Why this is happening is the subject of much theorizing: educated women delay childbearing until it’s no longer an option; they refuse to pay what economists call the “motherhood premium” in which the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth and then drop, while fathers’ incomes are unaffected; they recognize that raising children is a sacrifice of time, money and freedom they’re not willing to make; or they simply don’t want to have children and are able to say no.

(The matter is complicated, Foot observes, because income level is also linked to procreation. What is known is that paying women to have children doesn’t work: the only variable proven to increase the chances of women having children is to offer a supportive social network, as evident by the rising fertility rates attributed to government initiatives in Scandinavian countries and France, where generous tax breaks, incentives, and maternity- and parental-leave provisions have resulted in the birth rate rising to 2.7 per woman, the highest level in Europe.)

A growing literature on childlessness has emerged. It has been deemed a “revolution” in The Childless Revolution: What It Means to Be Childless Today by Madelyn Cain, herself a mother. Academic treatises such as Mardy Ireland’s Reconceiving Women: Separating Motherhood from Female Identity attempt to diffuse stereotypes. There are also the cheerleaders, viz. Nicki Defago’s Childfree and Loving It! And the issue has been politicized in books such as Elinor Burkett’s The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless, which contends the “child-free” subsidize “breeders.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.ypsee.com/implants_dentaires_etranger.html implant dentaire

    so cute, by the way couples who dont want to have kids they are sick and afraid of life and not my type .
    implant dentaire

  • Steve

    It's a good thing for Elaine that her mother didn't share her thoughts 29 years ago.

  • Pandora_360

    I am 34 and I thought I wanted kids but I really don't think I want one or two or three. I enjoy my friends kids and then they go home lol. There is nothing wrong with this and I am within my rights to just say "NO". Just because I have ovaries and a vagina doesn't mean I should run out and have children.

  • Bev. Cooke

    What bothers me is that in order to justify the choice not to have children, the article, and some of the authors of the child-free books seem to want to demonize having children. What's wrong with making a personal choice and being respected for it, regardless of whether it is to have, or not have, children?

    I also protest that this is the "first generation" that is childless by choice – a minority is NOT a full generation, and two of my aunts, who died eight and ten years ago at 87 and 94, were single and childless by choice. They were courted, they had the opportunity to marry and have children and chose instead not to (Well, actually one of them did marry – at 75!). Two of my four cousins have chosen to remain single and childless as well – and they're now in their 70s. Several members of the generation just below mine are also childless by choice – so it's been going on very quietly for a while.

  • Ede

    I think it is great if you choose not to have kids. It is your choice and being the mother of 4, I loved being a " mom" But it is not for everyone and with the restrictions on what authority adults have over children is a scary prospect. I see so many children out of control because the parents are afraid to assert themselves. The kids suffer because they have not learned boundaries. Teachers can no longer discipline kids at school and the kids know it. They run over what authority the adults should possess. So, DO NOT judge anyone for not wanting kids. If I had to do it again in this day and age I would opt not to have children.

  • theintellectual

    i have a perfectly good case that stands well on its own. kids are loud and annoying. why anyone would want to saddle themselves with the snot nosed little buggers to the rest of their lives is beyond me.

  • Mizzumi

    Great article, I completely agree.

  • Daily Grind

    I have 2 children, and did so half-heartedly, believing the LIES that: 1-babies are a "bundle of joy", 2-so much fun and experiencing life to the fullest and 3-we will regret not having them when we get older. Now, I regret having them, for all the reasons stated in this book. I hope that books and resources on the benefits of NOT having kids, and the data that REAPEATEDLY show that childless couples are HAPPIER, become accepted, and HEARD in our culture. Heard just as loud, or louder, than the "motherhood is joy/fulfillment" messages.

  • Marc Soubliere

    Most Canadians would more than agree children are a matter of choice. Why agonize over minority opinion? Population is fragile thing, careful what we wish for.

  • Jean

    I feel that the childfree people are not selfish and are helping the planet by not contributing to overpopulation. They will not have to worry about descendants inheriting the grim future that the human race will experience. The world has more and more problems all the time. Most kids are spoiled, whiny, lazy, irritating, expensive and more trouble than they are worth. Get a dog instead. Dogs are much more enjoyable than kids.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Brozewicz/1422577987 Robert Brozewicz

     Actually the developed countries are geared towards limiting number of children. The horrendous property prices, the incredibly hard ways to get a decent job (you need experience and without experience you will not get the job and hence experience) the promoting of women to the point that not only men have harder times to impress them, but women are more focused on themselves and limit chances of having children. It is amazing that despite that we still have great deal of new born babies. Finally, there is another thing. While the “developed” countries have less and less babies, the “developing” ones have good number of them. The end result will be not the extinction of human race but of European race. The winners will be Africans and Asians. Well, I am not sure if the winners, but the Earth will be populated anyway. Humans of recent strand may be just 100-250 000 years old, but in the past what is little known there were many other streaks of human species with often highly advanced culture and technology, even as many as millions of years ago. True, though that this strand of humans is nearly slated for extinction anyway, at it is done on a high level. 

From Macleans