Key to a Good Marriage? Share Housework

Anna Gregoline | July 4, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_re_us/marriage_sur vey

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sun Jul 1, 6:54 AM ET

NEW YORK - The percentage of Americans who consider children "very important" to a successful marriage has dropped sharply since 1990, and more now cite the sharing of household chores as pivotal, according to a sweeping new survey.

The Pew Research Center survey on marriage and parenting found that children had fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of factors that people associate with successful marriages — well behind "sharing household chores," "good housing," "adequate income," a "happy sexual relationship" and "faithfulness."

In a 1990 World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance among the same items, with 65 percent saying children were very important to a good marriage. Just 41 percent said so in the new Pew survey.

Chore-sharing was cited as very important by 62 percent of respondents, up from 47 percent in 1990.

The survey also found that, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1, Americans say the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children."

The survey's findings buttress concerns expressed by numerous scholars and family-policy experts, among them Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of Rutgers University's National Marriage Project.

"The popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults," she wrote in a recent report. "Child-rearing values — sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity — seem stale and musty by comparison."

Virginia Rutter, a sociology professor at Framingham (Mass.) State College and board member of the Council on Contemporary Families, said the shifting views may be linked in part to America's relative lack of family-friendly workplace policies such as paid leave and subsidized child care.

"If we value families ... we need to change the circumstances they live in," she said, citing the challenges faced by young, two-earner couples as they ponder having children.

The Pew survey was conducted by telephone from mid-February through mid-March among a random, nationwide sample of 2,020 adults. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.

Among the scores of questions in the survey, many touched on America's high rate of out-of-wedlock births and of cohabitation outside of marriage. The survey noted that 37 percent of U.S. births in 2005 were to unmarried women, up from 5 percent in 1960, and found that nearly half of all adults in their 30s and 40s had lived with a partner outside of marriage.

According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers is a "big problem." About the same proportion — 69 percent — said a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up happily.

Breaking down the responses, the survey found some predictable patterns — Republicans and older people were more likely to give conservative answers that Democrats and younger adults. But the patterns in regard to race and ethnicity were more complex.

For example, census statistics show that blacks and Hispanic are more likely than whites to bear children out of wedlock. Yet according to the survey, these minority groups are more inclined than whites to place a high value on the importance of children to a successful marriage.

The survey found that more than 80 percent of white adults have been married, compared with about 70 percent of Hispanics and 54 percent of blacks. Yet blacks were more likely than whites and Hispanics to say that premarital sex is always or almost always morally wrong.

Among those who have ever been married, blacks (38 percent) and whites (34 percent) were more likely than Hispanics (23 percent) to have been divorced.

Delving into one of the nation's most divisive social issues, the survey found that 57 percent of public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry. However, opinion was almost evenly divided on support for civil unions that would give same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples.

Asked about the trend of more same-sex couples raising children, 50 percent said this is bad for society, 11 percent said it is good, and 34 percent said it made little difference.



This is how I see marriage (we don't want kids). I was a teensy bit miffed by the comment of "The popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults," she wrote in a recent report. "Child-rearing values — sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity — seem stale and musty by comparison." I have sacrifice, stability, dependability and maturity in my marriage - without children. Children aren't necessary to be a responsible adult.

But chores? Yes, sharing is important. =)

Jackie Mason | July 4, 2007
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 5, 2007
We have a 15 month-old daughter. Our marriage was strong before, and it's strong now. We've always shared housework, with occasional spats about who's pulling more weight.

I don't think the baby had a tremendous effect, but if there was an effect, it probably has made the marriage stronger. We have to depend on each other and work together all the time to handle this tremendous responsibility. We share the same joys and worries and celebrations as they relate to the child. We're often in awe of single parents and wonder how they do it.

My brother and his wife recently found out they were having a baby. He asked me for my thoughts about parenthood. I sent him an email with some advice, but I also told him that in terms of the actual responsibility, it's like having to do your biggest weekly chore every single day. For me, this was mowing the lawn. Caring for the baby is like mowing the lawn every day, except you (usually) don't mind doing it. It obviously changes things for you, though. I can't just run out and catch a band playing on a Thursday night like I used to.

Some people equate this change in lifestyle to maturation, and since maturation tends to come with age anyway, there's a certain sense in which that's true. But they're not the same thing - I don't feel like a massively different person now. I'm just in a different place. Catching band shows on Thursday night was not who I was, it was just what I did for fun. Now I'm in a different situation with different priorities.

It's different, for sure. It has increased my understanding of elements of human experience that previously I'd only heard about, and never known for myself. As one recent example, I recently got in a big argument with my wife because she'd left her phone in her purse without locking the keyboard, so got jostled around and inadvertantly called my cell phone and left me three voice mails. I nearly lost my shit when I checked my messages and saw that I had three voice mails from my wife.

Two years ago, you could have called me at three in the morning, drunk, and left three voice mails singing Nordic drinking songs and I would have thought it was hilarious. I probably would have done the same thing to you the night before. Now, however, if the phone rings in the middle of the night or I get three voice mails from my wife, my heart starts beating and my hands get clammy and I check my messages with palpable dread.

Then it's a freakin' keylock issue and I get all pissed off.

This is one of a million ways in which life has changed. I wouldn't call it a maturity issue per se, but it's different as hell, and it's correlated with age. So are other, similar things, like going to bed early, drinking less, and saving for retirement.

Ain't none of us getting any younger.

So anyway, in closing, as to the point, I don't think the baby has had much of an effect on the strength of our marriage because it was already strong. However, if there is an effect, I think it made it stronger. And it's undoubtedly a sprout from which its strength will continue to grow, one hopes, all the days of our lives.

Kris Weberg | July 5, 2007
Childrearing itself probably isn't bad for marriage, but people who think that having a child will strengthen an ailing marriage tend to achieve the exact opposite. If you've already got serious relationship troubles, childrearing is likely to aggravate them just as any new set of responsibilities or stressors will.

Anna Gregoline | July 5, 2007
Sounds like you agree with the respondents in the study - that the child was not key to your good marriage. I would agree that the good marriage has to exist before a kid in order for it to be good afterwards.

Steve Dunn | July 5, 2007
Sounds like you agree with the respondents in the study - that the child was not key to your good marriage.

That's not exactly what I said, and it's pretty far from what the study said, but I think I know what you're getting at.

As long as you and your husband are on the same page regarding the procreation issue, that's all you need to worry about. It's irrelevant what society thinks about marriage in general, or about your choices in particular.

Our child is absolutely "key" to our marriage, but to say that is completely different from saying: 1) our marriage was in shambles before the baby was born; or 2) every married couple should have children or they'll never be fulfilled or mature.

In sum, I don't read the study as validating your choice in the way you seem to think it does, but you don't need a study or anything or anyone else to validate something as personal as your own marriage. There could be a study showing that redneck lawyer NASCAR fans tend to be clumsy writers and bad parents, but it wouldn't tell you anything about me.

As I write this, I think the single most important factor in the success of marriage can probably be boiled down to being "on the same page." If one person is a neat freak and the other is a slob, there's a problem (not necessarily irreconcilable, but something to deal with). Ditto religious/atheist, Duke/UNC (I deal with this one every day), pooler/splitter, early bird/night owl, Ford/Chevy, want kids/don't want kids, what have you.

As long as you and your spouse are on the same page, you're fine. Society's attitudes can kiss your ass.

Steve Dunn | July 5, 2007
If you've already got serious relationship troubles, childrearing is likely to aggravate them just as any new set of responsibilities or stressors will.

And on the other hand, if your relationship is already healthy and rewarding, childrearing can take it into new and unique realms of experience that are richer and more rewarding than what you experienced before.

I'm struggling to articulate myself on this issue. Maybe the point is that while having children is not essential to a good marriage, it's not irrlevant, either.

Anna Gregoline | July 5, 2007
That's not exactly what I said, and it's pretty far from what the study said, but I think I know what you're getting at.

? Did we read the same study? It says the people consider other things besides children to be more key to a happy marriage - you agree with that by what you wrote. Your children did not create your happy marriage - you and your wife did. I see that many people aren't that happy with their spouse and so they decide to have children as a "fix." If you didn't do that, then good for you, and it's probably part of why your family works.

As long as you and your husband are on the same page regarding the procreation issue, that's all you need to worry about. It's irrelevant what society thinks about marriage in general, or about your choices in particular.

I'm not worried about people judging my relationship or anything like that. But I am interested in society's attitudes about marriage and do not find them irrelevant in the least. I found this study encouraging. I made no comment on society or people judging me or my marriage. I don't care if they do or not.

Our child is absolutely "key" to our marriage, but to say that is completely different from saying: 1) our marriage was in shambles before the baby was born; or 2) every married couple should have children or they'll never be fulfilled or mature.

I see the link between the idea of a child being "key" to the marriage as absolutely linked to the idea of your #2. That's what society repeats ad nauseum, anyway.

In sum, I don't read the study as validating your choice in the way you seem to think it does, but you don't need a study or anything or anyone else to validate something as personal as your own marriage.

Sheesh, I never said it validated my choice, or that I needed validation. I don't. Can't I be happy that people are focusing on making themselves happy first and viewing marriage as a way to find that happiness without involving childrearing? There are enough unhappy children trapped in unhappy families because people weren't focused on creating a good marriage first before bringing children into it.

As long as you and your spouse are on the same page, you're fine. Society's attitudes can kiss your ass.

I can still be interested in them, no? You seem to think I'm insecure about my choices and I have no idea why. I'm a little confused by that, but ok. Just sharing an article I enjoyed.

Steve Dunn | July 5, 2007
? Did we read the same study? It says the people consider other things besides children to be more key to a happy marriage - you agree with that by what you wrote.

I wrote about my own marriage. As I understand the study, it measured people's attitudes about marriage in general. I see no indication that the respondents to the study were ranking the factors that are important in their own marriages, or that the respondents were married, or that the ones who are married have successful marriages. I see no indication that the respondents said children were not "key" to a successful marriage, rather that they ranked it comparatively lower than respondents in previous studies. For these reasons and one other very nitpicky reason, I do not think it is accurate to say that I "agree with the respondents in the study" as you appear to be interpreting the study.

I understand this seems like hairsplitting, but I generally choose my words carefully and I like for them to speak for themselves. I think you paraphrased inaccurately.

I see the link between the idea of a child being "key" to the marriage as absolutely linked to the idea of your #2. That's what society repeats ad nauseum, anyway.

I am not responsible for what you think society repeats ad nauseum. What I'm saying is very simple. MY child is key to MY marriage. This does not imply that I think YOU should have a child.

Can't I be happy that people are focusing on making themselves happy first and viewing marriage as a way to find that happiness without involving childrearing?

You can be happy about whatever you want, but if we're talking about the study you cited, it doesn't say that, either.

This is a really silly argument, because I'm pretty sure I agree with you on the fundamental point you're trying to make: which is that it's entirely possible to be mature, happy and fulfilled in a marriage without children.

The reason I'm arguing with you is to clarify that MY child is relevant and important in MY marriage. I read your response to my post as misinterpreting both the study and what I had written. Yes, I said our marriage was strong before the baby was born. However, I refuse to be lumped together with anyone (not you necessarily, but anyone) who thinks children are irrelevant or counterproductive not only to marriage, but to the richness and depth of human experience. Of course it's not for everyone, but it's not nothing, neither.

Kris Weberg | July 6, 2007
And on the other hand, if your relationship is already healthy and rewarding, childrearing can take it into new and unique realms of experience that are richer and more rewarding than what you experienced before.

Sure, because in a healthy and rewarding relationship the decisions surrounding childrearing and the reactions to unexpected events and circumstances surrounding it are made in, well, a healthy and rewarding way. Having children is, to put it lamely, an intensifier. The character and quality of the marriage will tend to determine whether the good or the bad things are intensified and developed.

That said, children pretty much have to be the center of a healthy marriage once they've been born and are sticking around (i.e., you're not putting them up for adoption, or taking on some kind of proxy or alternative parenting arrangement). If you're raising children and the marriage isn't recentered around them or redeveloping around childrearing, things will not go well, at least so far as parenting is concerned.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but when you say "What I'm saying is very simple. MY child is key to MY marriage.", I tend to unreflexively add a "since having a child" to that somewhere. Unless you were having a childbearing and rearing was happening before you and your wife were wed -- a perfectly valid life choice -- I'd assume that your marriage was working before you started raising a child. It's working in a higher, er, key now, but it wasn't keyless then.

The other side is pretty easy, too -- if you don't want to recenter your marriage/relationship around childrearing, don't have, or at least don't hang onto, a child. That doesn't mean the relationship is unhealthy; I'd argue that being able to make a mutual assessment about whether to have children and thinking through what will change because of childrearing is part of being in a healthy marriage/relationship.

Jackie Mason | July 6, 2007
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 6, 2007
Maybe I'm misreading you, but when you say "What I'm saying is very simple. MY child is key to MY marriage.", I tend to unreflexively add a "since having a child" to that somewhere.

Sure, of course, but there's still a bit more nuance to squeeze in. It's important that we were on the same page about procreation along the way. We always hoped and planned to have children, this mutual desire was key to our relationship and marriage. Thus the concept of childrearing, if not the physical reality of it, has been key in our relationship all along. That said, as I've already tried to make clear, I think that being on the same page with one's spouse is far more important than the binary yes/no choice itself.

What's most interesting to me about this conversation is the extent to which people (not just people here but in commentary all over the place, including within the article Anna linked above) are using the modest findings of the study as a springboard for broader observations unsupported by the study itself. A perfect example of this is the quote about "X-rated fantasies and desires of adults" and there are many other examples. At the end of the day, people apparently still think having children is in the same league as "income" and "housing" so to a certain extent I think the movement is a bit like shuffling around the top-10 colleges in the U.S News ranking. It's not like Yale is suddenly on par with Northeast Buttfuck Community College (and I mean this as no disrespect to NBCC grads - I'm sure it's a fine institution).

So, for whatever it's worth, I agree with the general sentiment that people shouldn't think having children will magically make them happy. And people shouldn't think that childless couples are incapable of fulfillment. (One of my law partners never had kids, and let me tell you, there are a LOT of perks associated with that decision).

Jackie Mason | July 6, 2007
[hidden by request]

Derek Kendzor | July 13, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 14, 2007
[hidden by request]

Derek Kendzor | July 15, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 17, 2007
I think you paraphrased inaccurately.

I think we're just viewing it differently, is all.

I am not responsible for what you think society repeats ad nauseum. What I'm saying is very simple. MY child is key to MY marriage. This does not imply that I think YOU should have a child.

I was trying to say that your good marriage didn't start with a kid? Or maybe it did, I don't know you, I was working on the supposition that you got married and then had kids. My point was you had a solid foundation before having kids. Of course your child is key to your family and marriage now - you're all one unit. I'm not negating your child by saying that your marriage started first, unless, like I said, I'm wrong about the order.

This is a really silly argument, because I'm pretty sure I agree with you on the fundamental point you're trying to make: which is that it's entirely possible to be mature, happy and fulfilled in a marriage without children.

That's not what I'm trying to say - I'm saying I'm pleased that OTHER people are feeling that way, which is what I got from the study.

The reason I'm arguing with you is to clarify that MY child is relevant and important in MY marriage.

In no way was I saying your kid was irrelevant to your family or your marriage. Puzzled you came to that conclusion, still.

I read your response to my post as misinterpreting both the study and what I had written. Yes, I said our marriage was strong before the baby was born. However, I refuse to be lumped together with anyone (not you necessarily, but anyone) who thinks children are irrelevant or counterproductive not only to marriage, but to the richness and depth of human experience.

Wow. Totally not what I was saying at all.

(However, having my own children WOULD be counterproductive to my own life and therefore counterproductive to the richness and depth of MY human experience. All in the personal. I would agree with you in the general sense).


Maybe I'm misreading you, but when you say "What I'm saying is very simple. MY child is key to MY marriage.", I tend to unreflexively add a "since having a child" to that somewhere.
Unless you were having a childbearing and rearing was happening before you and your wife were wed -- a perfectly valid life choice -- I'd assume that your marriage was working before you started raising a child. It's working in a higher, er, key now, but it wasn't keyless then.

That's what I was trying unsuccessfully to say. For some people though, I imagine sometimes it is keyless without kids - I'm thinking of some infertile couples divorcing after all avenues of having a kid fail.


But that people are starting to realize that kids aren't something that you just do as a married couple.

That's why I'm encouraged about things like this.


What if Will died, my parents would obviously be gone, my sister and his family moved away. Who would I have but a child or two? Rather depressing thought, but something to consider! It's easy to want to be carefree now in my 20's. But what about later on? Would I totally regret it?

I don't see this issue as central to having kids, but rather to being a mortal being. We could all find ourselves alone. Sooner rather than later. Having kids as a guard against lonliness is a reason, but I don't find it a compelling reason for myself. Kids can die too. A million things could happen - life is just that unstable.


In my job I come across a lot of people in all stages of their lives. Honestly the ones without kids SEEM the least happy. It is great to travel the world and whatnot, but does it matter if you can do it at the drop of a hat?

Can you explain why you think childfree couples seem the least happy to you? I'm honestly curious.

I'm also wondering about the second part - not all childfree couples can travel the world at the drop of a hat - being childfree doesn't necessarily equal less responsibilities, more vacation, more resources.

Until I had kids I thought there was only one kind of responsibility. Saying you are responsible because you pay your bills is one thing. Saying I am the guardian and protector of these other beings no matter what, at all costs, right up until the day I die. I am respnsible for teaching them how to live and how to think. That responsibility is a whole other level(that is so much more satisfying, to those who want it).

Part of my reasons for not having kids are about that responsibility, for sure. I do not want it. This is something that turns me off about some parents. Some parents have a kind of superiority complex about having this responsibility - as if they are morally and mentally superior than someone without this in their lives. Maybe that's neither here nor there in this discussion though.


I do believe their (childless couples) idea of "fulfillment" is inferior.

You can believe what you want, but I do find that offensive and hurtful to hear. There are many times that I've heard such things and it really hurts to hear your life path is deemed inferior, even if it's a valid choice. Either you think it's valid or not. Comments like that imply that childfree people are deluded. We're not. We simply believe differently than you, and are quite happy with our choices. Happiness is not on a sliding scale, if you're happy, you're happy, case closed. I don't understand the point of judging yourself more happy than someone else. I don't need anyone's validation, but I would like the respect of being on an even playing field. Or maybe I just hurt to hear that kind of thing.

My husband and I are fulfilled in our life. There's nothing inferior about that compared to someone else's fullfillment, however they or we find it.

Anna Gregoline | July 17, 2007
Also, I wonder what your impressions of childfree "fullfillment" is? That makes a difference in knowing why you think it's inferior to the life choice of having kids.

Aaron Shurtleff | July 17, 2007
I considered not replying to this, but I almost feel I have to.

People who don't want it to work out have crappy relationships.......people who work hard to make it work.......have good relationships.

Not to piss on anyones fire but having kids "magically" made me happy. I do believe their(childless couples) idea of "fulfillment" is inferior. I can say that as I've been in both places(if only briefly in my early 20's.

Tony Peters | July 17, 2007
I was gonna stay out of this one after it turned to talking about children. i do not now nor have I every wanted children, i respect those that have them but I chose not to procreate. I had all the kids I needed when I was on the ship and I still enjoy teaching but I have no desire for that to be my 24/7.

As for waiting till june to travel....please GMAFB I travel for a living I have been places during the peak season, which is to say when all the kids are out of school, and during the off season. The big difference is the number of people in your way and the amount of money you HAVE to spend...usually the first isn't a problem for me and the second isn't such a big deal when the government is paying the bill but when I vacation I like to get more bang for my dollar/yen/euro/pound. Having the privilege to travel when we want is a choice we made and besides my animals are my children, leaving them in the care of friends is a lot easier physically and legally than with humans.

Amy Austin | July 17, 2007
I also had not commented for a number of reasons (no kids, but also on the brink of divorce, and I'm not even sure that Anna doesn't have me on "Hide" -- since she never comments, even obliquely, on my posts), but hey... time to be a joiner, I guess. More importantly to my sense of laziness, I suppose, I didn't feel up to putting into words all of the above sentiments that have since been adequately expressed (esp by Aaron) -- otherwise, I may actually have come to Anna's defense sooner... because, as another childless-by-choice individual who is frequently frustrated by our procreative culture, I can definitely appreciate her original intent in posting; and I think and hope that she clarified it well enough in her point-by-point response to Steve's last post. (I also hope -- stupidly, perhaps -- that she *is* reading my comments and realizes that we are not always at odds in opinion... and I still read whatever she has to say.)

Lori Lancaster | July 17, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 18, 2007
...and apparently, even with tons of different contraceptives, fertile as hell.

I think everyone knows where I stand.

Yeah... in line at the OB/GYN's office, apparently. ;-D (I know you know I kid, Lori...)

No, really, though -- it's great that you and Steve and Derek are all part of happy (and fertile!) family units... far more tragic is a scenario such as Aaron proposes: having children only to find that you *don't* have warm fuzzies about stepping up to the plate and, consequently, ruining an otherwise (let's just say minimally) "well-functioning" marriage. I am happy for everyone here (but me & Scott, perhaps) that feels like part of a fulfilled (or even uber-fulfilled) marriage (or even partnership) -- that's great.

I am only trying to empathize and agree with the initial motivation in this discussion... that it's nice to see a greater spread in public opinion about the importance of children to marriage -- that you *can* have one without the other. Time was, and to a certain extent still is, that if you are dating someone long-term all you ever hear from family/friends is "So when are you two getting married?" and subsequently -- once the two of you finally commit to the ("Holy") Institution of Matrimony -- "So when are you two going to have children?" As though it's the only driving force behind a relationship between "man & woman" (I won't even get into how these attitudes *don't* translate for same-sex relationships and how long it might take for that matter of public opinion to meet in the middle). I am very grateful to my own family -- whose values I know to be of this more "traditional" (or "old-fashioned", some might say) vein -- for *not* antagonizing me with such questions... (well, my dear Meemaw was perhaps guilty of the marriage question on occasion, but not obtrusively so), but I am sure that there are still folks out there for whom this line of questioning still (unhappily) exists.

I think -- and I think Anna was trying to optimistically say so, too -- that it would be Really Great if it became equally valued by society to choose a child-free "partnership" (that would include gays) and, by doing so, to contribute to society in less traditional, but equally valuable, ways. I also agree with Lori's statement that Some people that choose to be child-free would make wonderful parents, and other parents should have given up their children for adoption..., but I can almost promise you that the child-rearing opinions of any child-free individuals may be so quickly dismissed by parents that your head would spin. Most of us "unfulfilled" people are smart enough to keep our heads on by keeping those opinions to ourselves, but how might this mentality affect, say, a childless teacher trying to make a positive impact on other people's kids??? Childless or not, it seems that the current educational system is so laissez-faire and PC as to be almost worthless when it comes to cultivating well-mannered future generations -- thus the growing popularity of home schooling, which goes hand-in-hand with the home churching, which brings us back to the cultural/societal weight placed on "family first". It may well take a village to raise a child, but I think that most parents these days are either truly disinterested in any outsider influence or else so absent and totally reliant on "the village" that they might as well not be parents -- it seems to me like kids today either have the watered-down "holiday" celebrations found in public schooling or they're placed in the Christian/Catholic blinders of home/private schooling. The "happy medium" appears to be such a rare find anymore. Do I digress??? Probably... Is there any such thing as a consensus of opinion? I don't think so...

Amy Austin | July 18, 2007
And to carry on with my potentially offensive and "communistic" (or at least Democratic, which to some may be the same thing) line of thinking about "the village"... (and I may end up wishing I'd kept my mouth shut here...), I also have to say that I believe having children in order to secure a caretaker in your old age is second only to having them to save a failing marriage as an item on the list of Worst Possible Reasons for Parenthood (sorry, Jackie). Wouldn't it be nice if as a society that values individuals and their freedom of choice instead of the one that values "family first", we could implement a health-care system that obliterates this reason for propagating???

Jackie, I suspect (hope?) that Derek was being a little bit facetious in his overly-enthusiastic statement about "poppin out babies"... I hope...

Derek Kendzor | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | July 18, 2007
Ha! I tricked at least two people into responding when they weren't going to! ;)

I just had a few quick comments, then I'm going away again (promises promises):

Lori: Catholic + contraceptives?! Is that valid? I'm calling the Pope! ;)

Jackie: While I think it is commendable that you would change your travel itinerary based on whether you do or do not have kids, I think you might be in the minority. And, really, that's fine too. I've been on planes with cranky children (and I know it involves pressure build-up in their ears (or at least that's what they tell me), not bad parenting!), and I can only imagine a 10 hour flight of that! But, anyway, also based on the number of children I've seen going to R rated movies (my brother lets my 6 year old nephew watch horror movies! *sigh*), not everyone makes what seem like logical decisions.

Amy: I still hear the "When are you having kids?" every holiday when I see the extended family, so I assure you it definately still happens!

Derek: I'm still kind of new around here, so I don't think I ever met you before. Hi! I didn't feel particularly like you were trying to start an argument (or at least maybe not maliciously so...). If you have a strongly felt opinion, you should by all means express it, I think. I, personally, did not take offence. I just had strongly felt opinions of my own to express! :) My wife also has an irrational, overly emotional husband!

Tony Peters | July 18, 2007
10 hour flights....some days I yearn for such a short travel....I digress

I still hear the "When are you having kids?" every holiday when I see the extended family, so I assure you it definitely still happens! thankfully I don't get this anymore but then it's common knowledge in my family now that it's an impossibility

Denise Sawicki | July 18, 2007
I'm of the child-free camp because I'm nuts and couldn't raise a kid and I know this. Lori, your post was very well put. By the way, I think I did post a link a long time ago to a page of the "humanity is a plague" variety. I hope I didn't unduly offend you with that. I'm just a huge pessimist, so I find myself thinking that way from time to time, but I wouldn't try to change other people's choices.

Amy Austin | July 18, 2007
If you have a strongly felt opinion, you should by all means express it, I think. I, personally, did not take offence. I just had strongly felt opinions of my own to express! :) My wife also has an irrational, overly emotional husband!

Ditto on that... and well, if I had a wife, ditto on that, too. Seems that it works out better for a marriage if the wife *isn't* the irrational, overly emotional one -- or maybe it's just that only *one* party can be the irrational, overly emotional one... I don't know. I do know that it takes even more work to be in a marriage where at least one party is an irrational, overly emotional person... and that some folks, like those who choose not to become parents for similar reasons, just don't have it in them to do that work... especially if they give all of themselves to the work of their occupational choice and don't have much left over for the marriage/kids. Maybe I'm just in a really shitty mood right now because today is my 7-year wedding anniversary, and I'm the only one who gives a shit.

Steve Dunn | July 18, 2007
This is a bunch of people who basically agree with each other, quibbling over the details and playing linguistic jujitsu.

At the end of the day, I bet we could form a consensus around the following:

1) It's good for some couples, but not all couples, to have children.
2) It's possible to be happy and fulfilled with or without children.
3) Different strokes for different folks.

What gets people riled up is when they perceive their own choices as being devalued or disapproved of by those who made the other choice. People without kids are defensive about not having kids. People with kids are defensive about the suggestion that their kids are non-essential, or worse, emblematic of an oppressive and judgmental "breeder" culture. It's natural for people to be defensive about the important aspects of life.

Amy Austin | July 18, 2007
Hiiii-yA.

Lori Lancaster | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | July 18, 2007
Heh. I can't get the image of a little...I mean young Lori striking a pose and pledging to fight for JUSTICE!!, like Amelia from Slayers! *heehee*

And I kid about the little thing. Pleasedon'thurtme!

Tony: Impossible? An odd word to use, in these modern days of science, but I'm not going to pry. Although I guess even commenting is prying...

Denise: You're pessimistic? I'm the one who brought unhappy relationships and parent-hating children scenarios into this discussion! :)

Steve: Although it pains me to agree with you... ;) You are right. Although your implication that kids are an important aspect of life offends me!

(Oh my god, such a joke!)

Lori: I am, honest to God, still cracking up thinking about you as Amelia, giving these huge flowery speeches about the power of Good and JUSTICE!!!

Amy: I've got a couple of friends who are proving that emotional/irrational people can survive in a marriage together...so far. They have huge fights from time to time, of course, but when they make up, they make up spectacularly (and they're not shy about sharing either...) :( [That's sharing stories about the making up. Did that sound bad? It looks like it sounds bad...]

Um...I don't want to make things worse, but you brought it up, so... It's your 7th anniversary? Wow. This year will be my 7th, too. How strange. I mean, I'm sure that other people got hitched in 2000, so it's not that strange, but still... um... Let's pretend I said whatever is the appropriate well-wishing statement for this occasion, and just avoid the actual awkwardness of it. I'm sure that lots of us "give a shit", though possibly not the people you feel should be.

Amy Austin | July 18, 2007
;-) Thanks, Aaron (and "little" Lori, too ;-D). At the time of the comment, I was a little bit sore about not getting any response from my acknowlegment of the date (2 pre-sent e-cards that I knew had been picked up)... but I did get a "thank you" call shortly after and my first "I forgot" ever (hm, wonder why?) -- I won't go further into the "actual awkwardness of it" (so true), but thanks for the thought. (And like your comment to Tony -- who, btw, isn't really shy about his snip-snip -- I probably ought to forego my urge to comment on your friends' "sharing", except to say that I know exactly what you meant... but sadly, cannot relate to having those stories to share.)

Tony Peters | July 18, 2007
Aaron......Vasectomy....not impossible but certainly improbable without surgery. The fight I had to have with the surgeon was amazing...eventually I had to threaten to have my Senior Medical Officer talk to his boss if he wasn't gonna stop preaching to us.


it's 14 years for us, some of that time was not so good but eventually things worked out. No that's not right I absolutely love my wife and often question why she puts up with my insanity. My belief is that a good marriage has ups and downs both people have to contribute 100%, when that doesn't happen things go wrong.

Anna Gregoline | July 18, 2007
This is a bunch of people who basically agree with each other, quibbling over the details and playing linguistic jujitsu.

Absolutely true and I agree with much of what has been said since the last time I posted. Still wondering why childfree couples are considered as appearing less happy by Derek, but oh well. I find it surprising, though, still, how defensive parents can get at the mere whiff of a possibility of anything negative in regards to their kids. I wasn't implying anything at all about kids being "non-essential" to you, which sounds like another way to say, "not important." I was talking about the bare bones institution/idea of marriage. I don't know. I have a long history of being misunderstood and hated here though, so I guess it's not too surprising that my words might come across wrong.

I get really tired of the whole "fullfilled" thing. Not from here, but I hear this all the time from parents in regards to having kids, about how much more enriched their lives are now. I'm happy for you, really I am, but it comes with the subtle unsaid (if the person is polite and respects people's reproductive choices) implication that if you don't have kids you are missing out on the greatest life experience ever. Which, even if the person believes it, it's tiring to hear. Because no one wants to miss out on something, or be perceived as foolish because they don't want to partake. But the fact is, I really don't. The only reason I see as a reason for me to breed is if I was overcome by a burning desire to have a baby AND to parent that child. I don't have that. Can't imagine having that. So no other reason is justified.

It's hard for me to even state my childfreeness in public or to people I am doubtful will understand. I had my yearly check-up yesterday and had a new doctor. She was very nice but confounded me with the question, "Are you two going to make babies?" Probably because it was a strange way to ask, and I know she's only after my reproductive health because that's her JOB, but I floundered. I was too chicken to say no. I said, "Maybe, not yet." She still looked at my expectantly and said, "Never?" I said, "Maybe in the future" again. It made my heart pound to think about defending that to someone who was an OB. Maybe it would have been ok - maybe it wouldn't, and she would have bingoed me about having a baby, but I couldn't take having to defend it. Maybe it was the wall of babies on the way in that I had to stare at while they took my blood pressure, but it just didn't feel like friendly waters.

Lori Lancaster | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 18, 2007
All you have to do is be honest and say that you do not feel like you are ready for that kind of responsibility. Sure, again its skimming the water abit, but still, its not the OB's job to make you feel like you have to pop one out. Bah.

That's the point though, Jackie. I don't know if I'm going to be questioned on it or not, and I'd rather just not. It's not the OB's job, but she might hit me with an argument where I'd rather there be none. I don't know. It's unsettling.

In anycase, I think they usually ask that so that if you are, they can recommend vitamines w/folic acid and the like that they would like you on before you conceive, due to studies done in the past that have show it to be benificial. All you ever have to do is be firm. And, if they harrase you, walk out.

I know. That's why I said it's part of their job to ask, they are in the reproductive health business, after all.

I've had a better experience with male OB/GYNs than female ones. Although, there is a midwife at that practice, and she is very pleasant as well.

I like my doctors, this new one was nicer than my last one. I don't trust male doctors for female parts - I know they know the same stuff but I feel a lot more comfortable talking to someone and describing symptoms to someone who has the same equipment. There's a different understanding there.

Jackie Mason | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 19, 2007
I have a long history of being misunderstood and hated here though, so I guess it's not too surprising that my words might come across wrong.

You're not misunderstood. You communicate very clearly.

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
ANNA: My name isn't Jackie.

Jackie-actually, she (Anna) just basically quoted all of mine and called me you. Maybe she has some kind of screened comments buffer thing on. To each their own I suppose. A bit silly though.

Lori, that was really uncalled for over a simple mistake. I'm sorry. I meant to say Lori.

Thanks, Steve. I try my best but I don't think things come out right sometimes.

Lori Lancaster | July 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
I thought your response was really strange for a simple error - I thought it was uncalled for to jump to the conclusion that I must have had evil intentions instead of making a simple mistake. I don't have you on any kind of screen. I'm not out to "get you" or insult you in any way. I made a mistake, as we all do typing on the internet. Don't know why you dislike me so much, Lori, but I have nothing against you. If you'd like to talk it out, my email is agregoli (at) hotmail.com.

Thanks, Jackie! I thought that was pretty interesting. I think there might be two camps: The people who, understandably, are deliriously excited about becoming a parent, and really, truly honestly want people they care about to feel the joy they feel.

And then I think there is the other, nasty camp - the people who are convincing themselves they ARE truly happy, and so turn to such rhetoric to convince themselves. Or it's simply that there are a lot of nasty people out there that like to feel superior, no matter WHAT the topic. And children provide a really big trump card for how saintly, hard-working, fulfilled and awesome they are.

Loved this quote:

But parenthood as panacea? I'm not buying it, and neither should anyone who's not really into the idea of being a mom or pop.

Because parenting is hard work. Having a baby doesn't solve everything in life - but I do hear people talk about it as if it does.

Lori Lancaster | July 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 19, 2007
Anna: Perhaps Lori mentioned the possibility of some kind of a "screen" because of my mentioned suspicion, due to your lack of response to anything I say, that you have hidden all of my comments. Or, you are simply ignoring me... but I don't know if you're really capable of that unless you hide me. Just tell me which it is, and I'll leave it alone.

Jackie: Good article.

Lori: Not sure you read the same article? Unless I did not read it thoroughly... didn't see any mention of tummy-touching anywhere in it. Seig Heil. (tsk, tsk)

Aaron Shurtleff | July 19, 2007
I read an interesting article in the local newspaper (which of course I can't find online anywhere) which is totally not related to this, but it is...sort of. It was discussing how the study found that most professional men who had personal photographs in their office had entire family pictures, while most women had photos of just their children, no husband. They hypothesized that men use their photographs as a sort of status symbol (Look at me! I have the Amercian Dream! A happy family!), and so will show the entire family unit. However, women tend to use the photograph as a sort of declaration, along the lines of "You have me for 8 hours a day, but this is my priority!", stating (of course) that after the children come along, the wifely priorities shift from husband-centric to child-centric. Keep in mind that I read this! I don't agree or disagree with it necessarily. I don't think it's fair to put people in such categories, like a wife is only (or even majorly) focused on a husband, and then on children (when/if they come along). They also briefly state that the reason the father isn't in the picture could be simply because he's taking the picture, or that most of the really picture-worthy occasions (kindergarten graduation, sports games, etc.) are traditionally attended more by the wives than the husbands (like guys do nothing but focus on their career to their children's deficit!). It didn't strike me as particularly scientific, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
I don't think I agree with their hypothesis, but if this:

It was discussing how the study found that most professional men who had personal photographs in their office had entire family pictures, while most women had photos of just their children, no husband.

is really true, I find that sad.

Lori Lancaster | July 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
Oh well. No one can say I didn't try.

Lori Lancaster | July 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
I've tried to find out why you seem to dislike me so much. I don't want to fight with anyone on this site. If I've done something to offend you, I'd like to know about it so we can work it out. It's not like I enjoy thinking people don't like me on here. It's because I genuinely like many of you that I come back. You don't seem to want to discuss it, however, so moving on...

Steve Dunn | July 19, 2007
I have four pictures in my office - three of the baby alone, one with the baby and my wife. I guess this means I don't use the photos to prove I'm living the American dream. I use my car for that instead.

But seeeeeeeeeriously... you gotta gotta gotta take social science with a grain of salt. Two grains for newspaper articles about social science.

Now I think I'll go home, load up the baby in the stroller, and parade around the neighborhood for no other reason than to lord the robust grandeur of my fertility over my nebbishy and miserable childless neighbors. And I shall buy a Rolex! I'll do it!

Anna Gregoline | July 19, 2007
LOL, Steve! I love the your phrasing, "lord the robust grandeur of my feritility!"

I think you also need to buy a sports car to prove to the neighborhood you truly "have it all."

Oh, and fling business cards at your neighbor's doors as you pass by! =)

Amy Austin | July 20, 2007
More than slightly off-topic, but I find the origins of the expression "take it with a grain of salt" fascinating:

In ancient Rome, the general and politician Pompey believed salt was an antidote to any potential poison in his food, so he added a grain of it to everything he ate or drank. That’s why when people are skeptical of something, they “take it with a grain of salt.” (from Real Simple -- That really is the "real simple" derivation, by the way... further digging will turn up some slightly different renditions and opinions of the etymology, but it all boils down to the same idea, really.)

Lori Lancaster | July 20, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 20, 2007
Lori - I wrote you back, thanks for writing me. I really don't want to upset you, I like you a lot! I think you're a great contributor to TC and I enjoy your posts.

The internet is a hard medium - no facial expressions, no tone of voice, no wild gestures =) And I have such a manic picture up here right now, ugh! I'm sure I come across pretty crazy sometimes. I swear, though, I really just want to post and be merry with the rest of you.

Also, I will say I've been VERY stressed out lately - no excuse not to type carefully but maybe it's been coming out too forcefully. I'm going to try and post slower and re-read everything to try and ensure it comes out the way I want it to.

Anyway, this discussion on the topic has been very interesting! To get back on track....

What do you think the three most important things in a relationship are?

Steve Dunn | July 20, 2007
What do you think the three most important things in a relationship are?

Children, money, and children.

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.

I'll go with candor, affection, and forgiveness.

Amy Austin | July 20, 2007
She seemed honest in her statement that she wouldn't necissarily choose to ignore or screen someone's comments.

And yet... I am still getting the feeling that "the rest of you" doesn't include me. Because if it did, then what would be so difficult about saying so in one of a couple ways:

Amy, I still read what you say -- I just don't have any response and/or prefer to avoid potential conflict.

Amy, I've given up trying to have intelligent discourse with you -- you are correct that I am ignoring you. By all means, though, carry on.

Anything else is just a flat-out indication that my comments are hidden and/or not being read. Not that it breaks my heart, really... it just makes it a little weird/awkward when responding to a discussion that she started -- especially when I'm trying to be supportive of her! I guess it's just as well, because if that's what she feels it takes to co-exist here, then who am I to pick at the scab. Whatever.

Denise Sawicki | July 20, 2007
If anyone's being ignored I am sure it is not out of meanness but more a desire to preserve the peace.
Ha, I am alarmed that I haven't made any enemies here myself, I seem to do so in real life quite easily.

Jackie Mason | July 20, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 20, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 21, 2007
Hm... e-mails -- never would have thought of that one, Jackie. I already have Anna's addresses, and last I knew, she had mine as well. Maybe you'd like to give me yours, too, so that I can let you know in private that e-mails can be ignored as well. If you don't want to post it here, though, I completely understand -- I wouldn't want to do that, either. So I'll just go ahead and also mention that Scott could be scarce for any number of reasons that he has been in the past.

Jackie Mason | July 21, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 21, 2007
I know what you were referring to, Jackie -- correspondence sent. Thank you.

Scott Hardie | July 21, 2007
Sheesh, I go on one business trip... Really, it's all good. I got as tired of playing the "can't we all just get along" police as you got tired of arguing. Any open talk is going to involve a little stepping on each other's toes, so we don't always need to worry about offense or derailment. In general, we all like each other and don't mean to offend. I like that about TC, and I have an article to share about that, but I'll do so separately.

I apologize if a shortcoming of my code caused anyone to get confused about who wrote what. Because the TC database is huge (22688 comments, 12.6 megabytes), the snippets you see on the Current Discussions page are not pulled dynamically every time you look at the page or it would take a very long time to load. When someone writes a new comment in a discussion, that discussion is quickly tagged with a new snippet. But if that brand-new comment is then deleted, the discussion can get confused as to what is actually the latest snippet and who said it. I've tried to correct the problem where it happens, but so far my only effective solution has been a weekly script that cleans up the entire database every weekend. I'll continue trying to fix what you'd think should be fairly simple. :-\

I sit here with access to the Hidden_Authors table, wondering if I would do more damage by revealing its contents to settle this, or not revealing. Anyone who worries that they've been hidden by someone else would do well to remember that this tool wasn't created so that we could block the people who annoy us or who are unworthy of our attention or anything like that; it was created to avoid arguments by allowing people to continue using the forum without being incited by other authors who unintentionally but consistently incite them. In other words, please don't take any offense at the possibility of being blocked – everyone here has said something that riled others, even my old friend Derek who has been here two weeks, but we all want a peaceful and respectful forum most of all, and that's our motivation for using the hide tool, not to offend by silence. (And for the record, I won't reveal the Hidden_Authors table.)

And speaking of site tools, when I once suggested that arguments be taken to private messages, that was on a version of the site that allowed private messages. Currently I'm the only "site user" who can be reached this way. Do I hear demand for the private messaging tool to return? I would hate for any of you to get spammed by posting your real addresses here.

As for the main discussion, even if I wasn't out of town all week, I wouldn't have had much to say. I rank among the childfree people here who bristles every time he is called "selfish" for not wanting kids, though in the last year I have begun to develop a yearning for them. My desire fluctuates back and forth. Mostly I want kids in my future because I don't think this carefree bachelor existence of mine can go on forever – I don't want to be single and immature and friend-oriented when I'm fifty, and hopefully not still this fat. By chance, I have a good friend who fits that description and I sincerely support his choice; it's just not what I want for myself. But I also don't want to work like a dog until I have gray hair on my head just because I have to pay for several college tuitions, and I don't mind that this supposedly makes me selfish, given that I feel no obligation to beings who don't exist yet. But the societal stance against childfree choice is unfair, and there isn't much one can say to elaborate on that, so I won't get into it further.

I believe that Derek's comment about intelligent people's obligation to have kids is a cynic's semi-humorous, semi-desperate call to action to preserve our society. Derek likes the dumbing-down of America even less than we do, and genetics is one way to fight it long-term. Rent Mike Judge's Idiocracy for a cinematic equivalent of the same argument. Anyway, my point is, his comment was about society in general, not about childfree choice, if I read him correctly.

Derek, I too would like to read some of your insights about the apparent unhappiness of childfree people in your store. I believe what you say; it just sounds like there could be an interesting anecdote or two in there. But I don't want you to say anything that could get you in trouble at work.

...And just now I received notice that some authors have cleared things up in email. Hurray!

Amy Austin | July 22, 2007
It doesn't matter... I'm 99.999% sure I already have the answer on my own, and I find it pathetic.

Anna Gregoline | July 23, 2007
But I also don't want to work like a dog until I have gray hair on my head just because I have to pay for several college tuitions, and I don't mind that this supposedly makes me selfish, given that I feel no obligation to beings who don't exist yet.

Keep in mind, you're totally able to kick them out at 18. =)

Derek Kendzor | July 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 24, 2007
The first woman just sounds like a drunk! There are alcoholics of every age. I find it interesting that you blame her drunkeness on lonliness when there's no way to know why she started drinking.

Do you see the pharmacists without children outside of work? If you knew me at work, you would think I was an unhappy childfree, because I hate my job and I'm not typically joyful at work. Yet, my job is the ONLY thing I'm unhappy about in my life. Outside of work , I'm as sunny as can be because I'm with my husband and working on art, etc. So you never can tell - work brings out the bitchiness in all of us sometimes!

You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your impressions of the childfree - it doesn't sound like you know very many.

Anna Gregoline | July 24, 2007
Timely article at Purple Women blog:

To Be A Woman
Guest Post by LynnS
Ireland

"It is insulting and condescending, not to mention untrue, to claim that a childfree person is somehow incapable of understanding and experiencing the depth and variety of emotion a childed person does."

Last month, I bumped into an old friend of mine I hadn't seen for several months. She looked pale and haggard and a good deal thinner. I suggested we go for lunch to catch up. On our way to the cafe, she told me that she'd taken a leave of absence from her job to care for her elderly father, who'd been diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. All I could do was listen as she confided in me about her father's deteriorating condition - she was finding it increasingly difficult to care for him though she's a nurse, yet she wouldn't hear of him being put into a home.

In the meantime, two women were at the table behind us - one of them had a baby aged about six months. I couldn't help overhearing the mother say to her friend "You don't know what exhaustion or sacrifice is till you've had a baby".

Uhmmm . . . excuse me? Isn't what my friend doing a sacrifice? She also looked pretty exhausted to me!

I was offended by her comments but it got me thinking. Why do some parents feel the need to hijack emotions in this manner? It's not just exhaustion or sacrifice the childfree apparently don't understand.

It's unconditional love. It's true happiness. It's selflessness. It's responsibility.

What does this mean?

Are we to believe that our own experiences and feelings pale in comparison to those of parents? Are we to believe that every life experience, no matter how good or bad, no matter how ordinary or extraordinary, can't possibly compete with the exalted state of parenthood?

As for parents themselves, why are they so quick to dismiss and invalidate their lives pre-children?

Irritating as this is, there's something else which disturbs me: the sometimes spoken, sometimes implied belief that you have not fully lived life until you become a parent.

The belief that as a childfree person, you are in a state of arrested emotional development. The belief that raising children is the only worthwhile thing doing in life. The belief that simply by reproducing you automatically become a complete person. The belief that children are necessary to allow you to fulfill your potential as a human being - which includes living through the whole gamut of human emotion.

Hogwash, I say.

Parental hijacking also makes me suspicious. If you are at peace with the decisions you make, it should not be necessary to "big yourself up" by dismissing and invalidating your life pre-children. It is insulting and condescending, not to mention untrue, to claim that a childfree person is somehow incapable of understanding and experiencing the depth and variety of emotion a childed person does. It is not the job of the child to help you fulfill your potential. That responsibility is yours and yours alone.

Jackie Mason | July 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 24, 2007
"It is insulting and condescending, not to mention untrue, to claim that a childfree person is somehow incapable of understanding and experiencing the depth and variety of emotion a childed person does."

Uhhh, well, on the other hand, parents understand the experience of parenthood, which can be deep and emotional. While childless people can experience other forms of depth and emotion (and obviously be exhausted, etc) they don't understand the depth and emotion of parenthood.

This is just obvious. It should be no more controversial than saying there's a limit to what a man can understand about what it's like to be a woman.

I think everyone's gotten the point that Anna and others are very very very annoyed by any suggestion that the childless life is in any "less" rich or rewarding than parenthood. However, the opposite is equally annoying - the suggestion that there is nothing unique, or uniquely rich and rewarding, about parenthood.

If you don't want kids, don't have kids. But don't kid yourself into thinking that everything everyone says about parenthood is just a bunch of lies concocted to make you feel bad. The profundity is real, and it's not oppressive of anyone to acknowledge or even celebrate this obvious truth.

Anna Gregoline | July 24, 2007
Uhhh, well, on the other hand, parents understand the experience of parenthood, which can be deep and emotional. While childless people can experience other forms of depth and emotion (and obviously be exhausted, etc) they don't understand the depth and emotion of parenthood.

Right, of course. The problem is when parenthood is seen as the emotional experience that you are inadequate without having. You did not say that, but often times that "other" form of depth and emotion is seen as less than. Or said in a smug way, like, "Well, you can experience OTHER things but not THIS," implying that "this," meaning being a parent is wholly superior. When The Parenthood Experience is lauded as superior to all other forms of emotional experience, it can be irritating.

However, the opposite is equally annoying - the suggestion that there is nothing unique, or uniquely rich and rewarding, about parenthood.

I certainly wasn't insinuating that, just so you know, with any of this.

If you don't want kids, don't have kids. But don't kid yourself into thinking that everything everyone says about parenthood is just a bunch of lies concocted to make you feel bad.

Huh? That's not the point at all. I don't think people are lying when they talk about parenthood being rewarding, or the most rewarding thing ever FOR THEM, or that they've reached new emotional depths with it, or anything like that. What's annoying and indeed oppressive is when people insinuate what we've already talked about - that someone without that experience is lesser, or childish themselves for not wanting that particular experience. Or simply, that the experience is the end-all, be-all of existence for everyone.

I don't get off on feeling like a victim or anything. I DON'T feel less than compared to anyone who has kids, or wants kids. I know what I want for myself and my husband feels the same. That article really struck a chord with me in saying exactly what I've been saying, but a lot better. =) Especially the part about fulfililng your potential as a human being.

Derek Kendzor | July 25, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 25, 2007
Kids are the ultimate tool to teach you about yourself, about how others work, about how to teach, how to learn, what your own shortcomings are. In my kids I see who I am the good, the bad, the ugly(and the crazy).

I think they're a great way to learn all those things - but I disagree heartily that they are the "ultimate" tool. Everyone can arrive at those things a different way. Ultimate implies it's superior nature to all other forms of experience again. I realize that as a parent you believe this, and I'm not trying to change your mind - but I do dislike that characterization.

I have a limited number of years to jam as much human experience as I possibly can into it(I'm sure Scott is cringing at the grammar). This is one of the largest experiences that one can have. If you don't want to have it, that's cool. Don't deny its "hugeness".

I'm not denying it's "hugeness." It's a big deal. But it's not the only way to experience life to the fullest, for me.

Jackie Mason | July 25, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 25, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 26, 2007
Thank you, Jackie, for bringing up an issue (and excellent mathematical illustrations of it) that seriously concerns many child-free people -- myself included. World population growth -- can't deny the "hugeness" of that.

Derek Kendzor | July 26, 2007
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | July 26, 2007
Sorry... can't see the relevance or how this makes a case against the "hugeness" of population growth in a world with infinite growth potential and finite resources -- unless a whole bunch more of your "smart folks" (and by that, I mean people who even the smartest among us here on TC are not in the same league as) get a whole lot busier on space travel/exploration.

Idiots or not, there's just no way you're not leaving your mark on the planet -- that's like trying to tell me that your shit doesn't stink... and where do you think all that shit goes? What about the trash you produce? And the electricity you consume (one of the "dirtiest" man-made processes there is)? I guess it is true that everyone who runs all of these things are all idiots, though.... I can't wait for all the baby Einsteins to grow up and save us from ourselves.

Anna Gregoline | July 26, 2007
Anna, what Derek and Steve are trying to say is that for them, it is the ultimate tool to finding out about what they are capable of in life, etc. We can't really understand their point of view not having children of our own.

I know - I acknowledged that. It's when those things are stated definitively as opposed to personally that it gets tiring.

I couldn't tell from the story whether that woman reacted to THEIR conversation or it was an unrelated comment that the author picked up on. It kind of makes a difference and without being there it's hard to tell whether her reaction was too strong or not.

I certainly don't think that "idiots" cause more planetary destruction than smart folks - for example, many extremely intelligent people with McMansions and SUVs and disposable everything out there live and ride VERY hard on the earth. It has not much to do with smarts and all to do with environmental awareness and caring about your personal impact.

This was on the news this morning, I caught it while I was in the breakroom.

Random anecdote time! Last night we babysat for a friend of Jesse's so they could go out to a concert. The baby is about 1 year old. We had to put her to bed, and it took about two hours, I would say. We tried to put her in bed and she screamed so much it hurt our hearts and we had to take her out again. We sat on the couch with her for a long while but finally tried again. I spent a half hour at least bent over the crib, petting her back and talking sweetly to her as she started to fall asleep - and then her music player stopped (low battery!). She woke up again and cried and cried. Jesse found more batteries and we started over...I eventually had to slowly back out of the room so she knew I was still there and finally she fell asleep. It was like a miracle. =)

Jesse said during the crying and wailing that it was very good birth control to hear that and feel this struggle - and I know it was only a VERY tiny struggle in an overall day of caring for a child. Still, I was wiped by the end of it. Jesse was in awe of my "female powers" that I got her to go to sleep at all. I don't know about that - I think I've picked up some baby knowledge through osmosis. =)

Jackie Mason | July 26, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 26, 2007
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | July 26, 2007
The problem is when parenthood is seen as the emotional experience that you are inadequate without having.

That's one problem. Fortunately, only Derek has said anything remotely resembling that, and he's since backed away from it. Everyone else has emphatically and repeatedly denied holding such a view.

Another problem is when people interpret innocuous statements and questions about parenthood as being oppressive and rude. Like, for example, flipping out if some stranger at a restaurant uses a figure of speech to say that she's exhausted. Or being offended if a physician asks a question directly related to her medical specialty.

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2007
Anna -be thankful she couldn't walk yet, they get even worse then, walking out of bed or climbing out. :) You did a good job, so many people get angry when they repeatedly try putting their kids to bed and they refuse. Too bad they didn't have her music player hooked up to an outlet.

Oh, I know! Thanks for the kudos. =) I've been through the toddler stage with my niece and it's no picnic to babysit those ages - and she was a very good kid too. I couldn't get mad at this little one - she was so sad and I know she just wanted to know where her parents were. At least when they're older you can TRY and explain things to them. =)

That's one problem. Fortunately, only Derek has said anything remotely resembling that, and he's since backed away from it. Everyone else has emphatically and repeatedly denied holding such a view.

Maybe you could not take it as an attack on you or anyone here? This is a view that is indeed stated repeatedly out in the world - it's a general attitude that I am discussing.

Another problem is when people interpret innocuous statements and questions about parenthood as being oppressive and rude. Like, for example, flipping out if some stranger at a restaurant uses a figure of speech to say that she's exhausted.

As I said above, it's hard to tell from the article if the person DID say it innocuously or if it was a snippy comment in response to an overheard. I believe that makes a huge difference.

Or being offended if a physician asks a question directly related to her medical specialty.

Who has done that? I have heard some childfree people upset about those things, but I don't really get why anyone would be.

Amy Austin | July 31, 2007
Am I the only one laughing?

Tony Peters | July 31, 2007