moved from Main List: on not having children

[Amy Z]

Cindy and Elkins debated about the reality of the "I'm 33 and oh my 
god I suddenly realize I want kids" phenomenon.  I think Cindy's 
right, it does really happen; but in support of Elkins, I don't think 
it happens nearly as often as the myth claims.  Rather, many women 
(like Kirstini) know perfectly well that they want to have children, 
and that they really ought to do something about that by, say, their 
late thirties or risk its never happening.  But they're in graduate 
school, or they're in the early stages of a competitive career track, 
or they keep dating people who would make the world's worst parent, 
and so it doesn't happen.  And then they're over 30 and it still isn't 
a good time to take three years off work, and besides, their boyfriend 
just moved out, and they start to panic.

To digress, it's telling that while unwed motherhood has skyrocketed 
over the decades, *teenage* motherhood has not.  There have been times 
when there were more teenage mothers than there are now; but the 
teenagers used to be *married.*  My grandmother was married at 17, had 
her first child at 19.  Can you imagine the looks she'd get if she 
tried that in 2003?

>  linlou:
> 
>      Just wanted to add my own perspective here. I was married and 
> had my first child at nineteen. Had my second at twenty-one.(That's 
> it, I'm done.) The comments I hear all the time are along the lines 
> of "Why did you have kids so young? You missed out on enjoying being 
> young." Comments like these, from the point of view of my personal 
> choice, are absolute rubbish. I usually reply with something along 
> the lines of "What did I miss out on, exactly, that I can't still 
> do?" I'll only be forty when my youngest graduates from high school. 
> I have plenty of time to enjoy my life and I'll even be young enough 
> to really enjoy my grandkids once they come along. (Though that 
> better not be for a while yet as my kids are only 13 and 10 
> respectively :) ) I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the 
> criticisms aren't reserved for the women who decide not to have 
> children but for anyone who does not have kids with-in the age range 
> that society has decided to dictate as well.

Excellent point.  During some long-ago discussion of a similar topic 
somewhere around here (it might have been on the Mods' list--not to 
tell tales out of school, but it isn't all policymaking and message 
un-pending), someone pointed out that it seemed that the acceptable 
range of ages for a woman to get married was ridiculously narrow.  
Anything under, say, 24, was too young, while if one wasn't at least 
engaged by 30, relatives began to panic.  It's true!  (Adjust exact 
figures for your cultural norms.)

> It really is two sides 
> of the same coin where the coin should really be melted down and 
made 
> into nice shiny buttons or something.
> 
>       -linlou,who wishes she could think of something better to make 
> than buttons

Earrings?  Earrings are always nice.  ;-)

Re: David's point about the burden upon society, I dunno.  Of course 
the individual decision has an effect on everyone else.  But I don't 
think most of us think it through that way.  It may be true that by 
not having a child, one is effectively asking the government to 
support one in one's old age, but is that what goes through anyone's 
head when they say that it's selfish not to have kids?

And, after all, if I produce a child, that may help ease society's 
burden when I'm old and gray, but what happens forty years later when 
the *child* is old and gray?  Another senior mouth to feed.  In other 
words, do any of us pull our weight?  Do we produce enough revenue in 
the form of taxes and GDP to make the government think it's worthwhile 
to take care of us in our old age, or don't we?  And if we don't, then 
what good is it to have children?  The children will take on some of 
the burden of supporting us (or maybe they won't; there's no law 
requiring them to, at least in the US), but who will take care of 
those children?

One place the social effect of individual childbearing choices *is* 
given a lot of weight is in the different attitudes toward women of 
different classes.  *Parents* rich and poor alike may want their 
daughters to turn out grandkids, but the *government* is quite adamant 
that poor women shouldn't have kids and middle- and upper-class women 
should.  Since women have fewer children the more education they have, 
the government is beating its head against the wall on this one.  And 
yet there you have it.  Rich women should be staying home taking care 
of their children, because it's the right thing for women to do.  
(Never mind that after a few months of this unsalaried activity, the 
women are unlikely to still be rich.)  Poor women should be working, 
not staying home taking care of their children, since they're more 
likely to be on the dole if they do that.  

Basically, human beings are expensive.  There aren't too many of us 
who actually come up with every penny it takes to raise a child, all 
alone.  We have parents who look after them, employers who provide 
their health insurance, colleges who give them free tuition, or a 
government that gives them food stamps.  I sure as hell can't afford 
to raise and college-educate a child unless I have at least two of 
those four pitching in, and I'm a multi-degreed professional. 

One more thought on the selfishness issue.  I think perhaps what's 
meant by "it's selfish" is not so much "it's selfish to do what you 
want," but "it's selfish not to want to devote one's life to taking 
care of someone else."  Yes, I think that's it, because the point the 
argument flares up is often when a woman (always, always a woman--I 
never hear anyone say this to men) says, "I have other things I want 
to do.  I want to be an artist / I want to travel around the world / I 
want to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry / I want to make partner in a 
law firm.  Having children would make that very difficult."  People 
bristle when someone makes this true and obvious statement, as if 
preferring painting in oils over changing diapers is selfish instead 
of just a preference.  (The art museums wou