I just finished reading an article that has me dumbfounded, and I just couldn't help but reply to it... so here you go, my opposing position for the article titled More Women are Choosing Not to Have Children and Here's Why.
The article starts out by stating a fact that on it's surface is probably just plain ole fact, but when you really consider it has a FRIGHTENING implication...
In 2014 47.6% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 did not have children. I've taken the liberty to look up the birth rate for the United States, according to this article there are 59.6 births for every 1000 women, a woman must have 2.1 babies in her lifetime to maintain the population at it's current level, accounting for each of it's parents, plus some deaths along the way (it's sad, but not all children will grow to become reproducing adults). The United States of America falls just above 2 births per woman, which means we will maintain our current population... however not all women are out having babies, and that is what the article "More Women are Choosing Not the Have Children and Here's Why" is talking about. Why would we choose not to have children, knowing that our country, our species depends on us raising children?
Well according to the author women are choosing not to have children for several reasons, and each of the reasons were given directly from women who choose not to have children themselves.
Reason 1?
Not even sure this is really a reason to be honest, but terminology. Women are saying they are 'child-free' instead of childless... implying that they didn't fall into the cracks, they choose instead to be there. I don't even remotely understand that, no judgement in that, I just honestly don't understand, my whole life I wanted to be a mom, and when I finally got pregnant with my first child I was anxious to tell the whole world. I remember grocery shopping at a local store and wanting to tell the cashier about my pregnancy.. any excuse to announce my happiness to ANYONE who would listen! I was bummed when it took FOREVER for someone to finally ask me 'are you pregnant?' I wanted nothing more than for the radiance I felt from becoming a mother to be evident to EVERYONE who I came across. So to say I don't relate is and understatement.
Reason 2?
Three is a crowd.
The main reason to remain childless is because they can... because they can? Is this power? I am of the opinion that when I live my life it touches others... and that touch creates my legacy... I want to leave a legacy, and in our social media era I think it is safe to say most everyone wants to leave a legacy, they want as many 'likes' and 'comments' on their quirky lives as possible, they want attention, and they want to leave a lasting impact on the world... opinions are flying rampant all over Facebook and Twitter and all the other places people tend to leave them... and we all want attention, it is natural, even good I would venture to say, that we want to leave an impact on the world around us.
How are we going to leave the biggest impact? Personally, I think that if I can reach 100 people in my life, give them a taste for who I am and all that, then that is pretty good, but probably only 30 of them will be around when I die and able to come to the funeral... BUT what if I created some people who i infused not only with my DNA but also with my ideas, my thoughts, my world view, and was a part of their every day lives, the nitty-gritty parts for more than 18 years, and then after that even I held some kind of responsibility and vested interest in their lives and they in mine... how many more people would I reach? If each one reaches 100 people themselves, then for each of those people I raised to be as much like me as possible (not the goal, just a thought to ponder) then for each child that I raise I get 100 more 'followers'... yeah, so I currently have 4 children and one more on the way, for each of them I get 100 people (all figurative, I have no idea how many people I will have impacted in my life) that means my meager 100 then turns into 500 people simply because I have deeply involved myself in the lives of those I raised for 18+ years. My impact just got a lot bigger people!
So why wouldn't I as a selfish human want to impact a larger crowd simply by raising some of that crowd myself?
The article says that we've wrested this important life altering choice out of the hands of the patriarchy... OH MY BULL!
No one told me I had to have kids, and my husband certainly holds a part of this responsibility in his hands... capable hands I might add... hands that provide for our financial needs and serve as a guidepost for the direction of our family... We are a TEAM, no patriarchy here.. just a well oiled machine with kinks and road bumps along the way, but all in all a good team. We decided most everything together, no one forced anyone in this household to bear children, or to financially support said children.
Sara Tenenbein is quoted saying " Just the two of us is awesome, maybe we don't need to add more humans to the equation." The only thing I have to say to this is, yes you do... if you don't... you in the figurative sense but also in the very real sense of human survival, don't 'add more humans to the equation' eventually the human race DIES... so yes, someone has to make the TERRIBLE (sarcasm) sacrifice of having children to further the human population of the world... or we won't exist anymore.. and as more and more people choose not to have kids, or to wait until their fertility is at a minimum and they may not be able to have children at all, the population suffers from it. Not only in the sense that we eventually have no more humans to inhabit the planet, but also that the few children our generations will produce will have to support you as a senior citizen, and the less their are to pay for your lifestyle, the more restricted your lifestyle will be, you NEED to prepare for your OWN future, and one of the best ways to do that is to have small people in your life now so that someone loves you enough to pay your bills when you are old and you don't end up eating cat food in a dark one room apartment with no electricity in the middle of the winter.
Reason 3?
Babies are Gross.
First, I disagree, PEOPLE ARE GROSS. The fact that you can wipe your own butt and do not rely on someone else to do so does not mean that you are never in contact with human feces... we all poop. We all vomit on occasion too, and while you are a grown up, when you get sick and miss the toilet or the bowl you keep by your bedside to puke into, who cleans it up? If you are lucky enough to have a spouse who will not puke at the sight of someones vomit then you may not have to clean it yourself, but chances are, if you're spouse is the type to clean up after you, then you may at some point have to clean up after them... it is a fact of life, people poop, and people puke, and sometimes they do both at the same time... Babies are tiny people... so naturally they do that which all people do. Is it gross? sure, but no more disgusting than you are, and in some ways, size based, a baby is much less disgusting than you.
Also, though hard to explain there is a great satisfaction in knowing that you are capable of caring for a small person who is entirely dependent on you for survival. Not to mention the ADORABLE expressions that randomly play on a sleeping baby's face... they are enough to make you melt.
Married couple and researchers from Kansas State University, Gary and Sandra Brase, have been looking into the reasons some people don't have babies and they determined that people who were exposed primarily to the negative side of babies, crying, diapers, and what-not, have less desire to procreate than those who are exposed to cuddles, smiles and generally happy parts of infancy and childhood. Is it any wonder really that if you focus solely on the negative of anything you will most likely not want to be a part of it? Where as if you see the positive then you'll want to experience it for yourself.
Recently I was talking to a friend about transitions, when my husband and I got out of the military we went to live temporarily with my parents and they had a giant bedroom that they gave to our family, it actually wasn't too uncomfortable for my husband and I with our two children to live in this one bedroom together. of course there were the sneaky intimacy moments, and the frustrations of kids waking in the middle of the night and or choosing not to go to sleep because they had each other to entertain themselves. But overall my memory of us all sharing that space isn't too bad. My friend however said she was 'glad not to have children sometimes'. This struck me a little off. This same woman has wanted to have children and has not yet been able to carry a pregnancy to term, and so I know her intent wasn't that she just plain didn't desire children, but rather that she saw them in this situation to be a hindrance... whereas I did feel that things were hindering me, but it was never my children, it was our situation, my husband being unemployed after serving in the US Navy for 8 years, moving back into my parents house after having established my own routines and expectations for my family for several years... things like that, not the kids.
Culture around the world, in many countries would like us to believe that children are a burden, but really they are such a blessing, and while difficult to raise, they are amazing to watch grow. So sure, they might be 'gross' just the same as you and I, but they are also incredible and imaginative, and intuitive. If you focus on the negative you'll only have negative feelings toward them, but if you look for the good (and it really isn't that hard) then you'll understand that while life with children is different, and difficult, it is also far more rewarding and fulfilling.
Reason 4?
Women have Jobs.
I have much to say about this. So much that I have to reign myself in a little. I have been unemployed for the past 10 years. And if I look into the future and count all the worries I could have it is quite terrifying to think that if anything happened to my husband I would be the breadwinner of my household and I've got little work experience to put on my resume. I have plenty of skills, just none that would translate well without misleading people onto a resume. HOWEVER, it is ENTIRELY possible to live a GOOD fulfilled, and pleasantly comfortable life, without having two working adults in the home. So whether women are choosing to have jobs, or they are financially dependent on their jobs, I'm not entirely sure, but the article suggests that because women have jobs they choose those jobs over the idea of having children.
What do you value? Coffee at and overpriced and overrated cafe? well perhaps you should keep that job... but if you don't care about that, but instead care about deep relationships with people who will help you to become a better human, then perhaps your job isn't what will make that possible, you can find that in many places, including in your children... shocking I know.
This portion of the article blames the united states government for not providing sufficient pay and leave for those who choose to have children, but I disagree... you can have an amazing life without coffee houses, and deadlines, boardrooms, and all that... I know because I have that. And it wasn't dependent on my house, my car, or the places I ate out. I've lived in my parents house (my lowest point), a 5th wheel with 3 children (an adventure of necessity), rental houses, my own 1070 sqft house, and now my dream house.... all these places didn't really change my happiness level at all.. I was perfectly happy with my family no matter where we were because; and I say this with all honesty, we were together.
Reason 5?
Selfish isn't all bad.
Selfish is selfish is selfish... who you live for is indicative of your personal health and well being. People who live only for themselves have less friendships, and people with less friendships will have less people to lean on in troubled times. And for mental health it can be beneficial to have a more selfless approach to life. Here is an article that talks about that. Some even believe that men who are involved in family life will live longer than those who are alone, whether by choice or circumstances, but specifically those who choose to be alone... because they are in their nature behaving more selfishly, whereas those who are alone by some other design than their personal choice might be more likely to volunteer and spend time with extended family to get that same sense of selflessness.
One quoted woman (Mayer) in the article even says that if "freedom" equals "selfishness" then bring it on... I can't imagine a more sad view of raising children.
As a home school mother, I find that I have ultimate freedom over my life. Sure I have to come up with a babysitter to be able to do the things I once didn't have to think twice about doing, but that really hasn't been an issue because for the most part I really don't want to do those once sought after things anymore. I'd rather spend an evening making pizza and popcorn and watching a movie with my family than going out to a club to dance, or a concert to listen to music, or even a theater to watch a movie, most every weekend. On occasion I do still enjoy those things, but for the most part I don't need them, I have more satisfying things to do with my children, right here in my home.
Reason 6?
This one shocked, me, not because it was listed, but rather because it wasn't the first thing listed...
Children Cost a lot.
When I was pregnant for my first child my husband and I talked about money and the idea of me working to help pay for the cost of raising a child... at the time the most money a job had ever paid me to work for them was $9.50 per hour, and I wasn't working there any more. One Child in daycare for a woman who works 37 hours (never worked 40 because the boss didn't want to risk paying overtime)
Putting our infant in daycare would have cost us around $7,000 a year (this is an estimate based on the area we live in and doesn't represent the entire country as the cost varies depending on location). My total income would have been around $18,000 before taxes, and we planned to have three children, so while I might make a bit of money while we had only one child in care, and I might even get a raise at my work place or find a job that would pay me more, I could expect that I'd probably max out at about $20,000 a year because I am not the main breadwinner in my family but only an added income and my dedication to family and current level of education (then and now) wouldn't really allow for me to make the big bucks... so once we put three children in daycare my income would still be pretty low considering the added cost of things like gas to bring kids to daycare and myself to work each day. For simplicity sake I just multiplied the cost of daycare by three (we wanted them close in age so I'd probably be paying for all of them at the same time at one point) and that means that I'd be paying more in daycare cost than I made in a year of working. At the time and even now this makes ZERO sense, so we opted that I become a stay at home mother. Now the entire cost of our family rested solely on my husband's shoulders, but the things our children would learn would come from our family alone... and that was worth the trade off. I wanted very much to be the one to raise my children, not a daycare, not a teacher, or a babysitter, but me. I felt God had entrusted them to me and I shouldn't take that lightly, and wouldn't allow someone else to fulfill my purpose in their lives. Not to mention the fact that little did I know it at the time but I don't respond well to a breast pump and would not have been able to maintain an exclusively breastfeeding relationship with my infant if I had to drop them off at a daycare every day, thereby increasing our cost to add formula for feeding said baby.
So do babies cost money? Sure they do, but you don't have to buy a new stroller, you get a nice used one for very little money, I did. You also don't have to get a new pack'n'play for baby, you don't even HAVE to have one in the first place but if you decide it is necessary it is easy to find a nice quality one that doesn't cost the price of new, from just about anyone. I got mine for $35 and have been using it for 9 years, and it is still in great shape and works just as well as when I got it. You also don't need a traditional changing table, just a caddy with diapers and wipes on my bedroom floor is all I use now, but at one point I had a changing pad on a dresser, and it worked wonderfully. We bought our crib used as well, still in great condition and it has been used for four children, and was a great $90 find, and will be used for the 5th baby as well. Not buying new things has great benefits. You can get affordable new clothes from Good will and thrift shops as well, though I personally steer clear of some of the baby resale shops because they cost nearly as much as the new clothes at wal-mart and target. Having a child doesn't have to cost a lot.
I recently talked to a mom who is expecting her 2nd girl, and she was expressing the need to decorate the 'nursery' and update her other daughter to a 'toddler room'. All I could think about was how much things change when all the bedrooms are filled and you have another baby on the way... no more decorating the bedrooms. It is fun for the first baby or two, but beyond that, there is no need, and no room, so the cost actually goes down with each additional child you add to your family. Now that we are on child number 5, the only additional expense this one will cost us is diapers, and wipes, things I'm already buying, but now for at least a short time I'll be buying them for two at once, and that is it. Clothes are all handed down, one child to the next, and furniture and baby items will either be gifted to us or reused from the other children. There are those that are of the opinion that children can't wear used clothing, but if money is an object, there is no reason to follow that rule. In fact I noticed a decreasing need for pajamas for my third and fourth babies, they just wore their day time oh so comfortable sleepers or onsies to bed, no need to change them if you don't have to, save on laundry, as they get older they will actually need pajamas, but not when they are little.. not really.
so cost really isn't that big of a deal for people with a brain in their heads and a head on their shoulders.
Reason 7?
Stay at Home Dad's are still the exception
If a mom makes more money than the dad, sure consider the dad for staying home with the kids, if Dad has a disability keeping him from being able to work, sure consider him for staying home with the kids.. for a number of other reasons there may be a reason to consider dad for staying home, but I'd venture to say that woman is more equipped to deal with the needs and demands of a child at home, particularly an infant. From a purely physical standpoint a mom is the better choice because it is her body that has and will continue to provide for an infant. A dad doesn't typically lactate, so if breastfeeding is something important to a family (and if you want to save money on food and healthcare it really should be) then it should be obvious that mom would stay home. Also, hormonal changes in mom's are designed to help their children in so many physical ways that men can do, but just not as well. Oxytocin is shared between a breastfeeding mom and her child, promoting a healthy brain, and development in the child. Skin to skin contact with either parent will help a baby to regulate their body temperature, but seems to work best with mom. A baby can learn to regulate their heart rate also by being skin to skin with his/her mother. Here is another great article to explain the need a child and mother have for each other.
So while I don't think it is bad to have dad instead of mom, I fully believe it is more beneficial for an infant, toddler and young child to have mom, and then as they get older to then learn from and connect to their father more and more throughout their older childhood and teen years, depending on his wisdom and guidance to develop important life skills. It just makes sense that mothers and babies be together in those early years, with all the benefits that a mother's body can have on her child and it's development.
Kohler, a participant in the article was quoted saying "Raising a kid before s/he begins school is more than a full-time job. It's 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with no time off for good behavior. I'm not fit to be around adult human beings when sleep-deprived, let alone a child dependent on me for Every. Little. Thing." However this is the kind of thinking that someone without children would have... and even some with children who have no support systems or who have chosen to focus on how hard things are rather than taking the approach of thankfulness, or at least looking for the benefits of parenting.
The chemical and hormonal communication between a mother and her child is amazingly complex, one of the things our bodies were designed to do was actually to wake as our baby is waking to feed them quickly and then both mother and baby go happily back to sleep... our culture however teaches us to keep our infants in a separate room from us, making it impossible for our bodies to read the chemical make up of our child as they start to wake (even before they have moved or stirred from their sleeping) to be fed, so by the time we are awake and aware of our infants growing need for nourishment, or even comfort, they are already crying for us, and wide awake, which means that we must then fully wake up to calm them before feeding them and putting them back to bed, a much longer process than God intended it to be. A mother who keeps her infant far from her while resting will have less rest than one who sleeps with her infant at most an arms length away from her. At some point this does change and sleep is easier for both when they have their own space, but that I leave up to each individual.
My point is that you don't have to be sleep deprived to be a parent... yes you will have times when you are sleep deprived, but not as many as people make it seem, and if not as many, then certainly not as long as they make it sound.
Parenthood is a gift. And the article I've been addressing doesn't take into account that about 40% of american women approaching the end of their childbearing days will say they did not have as many children as they wished they would have... and that is sad, but also telling. Selfishness is not a long term reward for a life well lived, and children are a blessing that can not be contained in a short article that claims women who have children are under patriarchy control.
