Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 December
2004 November
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
My Links
Mrmetropolitan's Blog
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Welcome to Beverly's Oasis for Random Thoughts.
Please take a look around often as I will be updating when you least expect it. I hope you enjoy all that you read and I whole-heartedly welcome any comment you have.
~Beverly
|
| Is it wrong not to have children? |
| 11.09.04 (6:03 pm) [edit] |
Hello loyal readers. It has been quite some time since I posted last. I apologize if this made your lives unbearable. ;)
While doing some research for an extra credit paper I came across a very interesting newspaper article that I would like to share with you all. It is about a subject that means quite a bit to Josh and I.
CHILDLESS BY CHOICE
GROWING NUMBER OF COUPLES LIVING LIVES WITH 'NO COMPLICATIONS'
Author: Barbara Yost, The Arizona Republic
When Cathy Rhodes was about 12, she asked her mother what motherhood was like. The answer: rewarding but challenging.
"I don't think I want to do that," the girl replied. "Is that OK?"
Her mother said it was.
True to her word, Rhodes, now 39, elected not to have children. She and her husband of 12 years, Mike, 37, devote themselves to their careers.
"I like my life," says Rhodes, who works in marketing and lives in Scottsdale. "I love my career. I'm not willing to give that up."
Rhodes is part of the community of women who have opted out of motherhood, and their numbers are increasing.
In 2000, 19 percent of women 40 to 44 (considered the end of child-bearing years) never had a child, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That was nearly double the 10 percent who were child-free in 1980.
Although the numbers include women who are unable to have children, the rise represents what sociologists consider a little-acknowledged trend with wide implications both for individuals and for society. Although child-free couples report greater marital sati! sfaction and more freedom, the idea still is not completely accepted. And economists worry about what the trend might mean in terms of society's ability to support an aging population with fewer workers paying into such programs as Social Security.
Kristin Park, an associate professor of sociology at Westminster College near Pittsburgh, has done an extensive study of child-free couples and said it's primarily an Anglo phenomenon. Couples without children, she said, are more educated than average, have higher incomes, are more likely to have professional careers and are less religious. And they are not without stigma.
"Not having kids is odd at best," Park says. "There are still some negative images against people who deviate from a 'normal' family."
When Carol Wilcox, 49, and her husband, Paul, 53, married 24 years ago, neither wanted children.
"In the 1980s, it was a radical decision," Wilcox says.
People told them they were selfish or, a! ssuming they were infertile, urged them to adopt.
"The culture we came from was very traditional New England families," Wilcox says.
But the couple felt having children was no requirement for happiness. They spent long hours with their gourmet food and antiques business in Rhode Island.
"That was our baby," Wilcox says. "We got used to a life that was free."
When they needed a "baby fix," they played with their nieces.
"We like kids a lot," she says. "We're happy to play with them and spoil them and send them back to their parents."
Indeed, married couples who choose to remain child-free report the highest levels of marital satisfaction among all couples, says Mary Benin, associate professor of sociology at Arizona State University.
"In the research I've done and others have done, there's a huge transition to parenthood for married couples," Benin says. When couples have children, she says, the marital relationship often takes a back seat as parents try to balance work and family.
"People! who are married and don't have kids have less of those conflicts. These people are extremely happy. ... Childless by choice is an option that works well for some people."
When Rhodes became pregnant several years ago and then miscarried, it was a "wake-up call," she says. She and her husband had to make a decision whether she would have a hysterectomy to treat her severe endometriosis or try pregnancy again.
She had the surgery.
"I love children," says the former high school drama teacher. "I just don't want to bring them home and raise them."
Marielle Marne, 38, is frank about not loving children. She says with a laugh that they tend to be "sticky and needy."
As a little girl, she told her family she didn't intend to be a mother, and they believed her, never pressuring her to change her mind.
"I like animals," she says. She and husband Steven Moore, 47, have 11 pets at their Cave Creek home. "People say I'd be a great mom. I don't! believe it." She describes their life as "no complications."
S eparate from the social implications, the continuing trend toward childlessness does have broader implications, according to David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.
New generations are needed to support the pensions and retirement of the elderly. The Census Bureau recently issued a pessimistic report forecasting that the nation's population growth is slowing, worsening the financial status of the Social Security system. By 2050, the population will grow by 49 percent, down from the 87 percent gain in the previous 50 years.
Already social scientists have become alarmed about dropping birthrates in some European nations, Popenoe says, including Spain and Italy, where rates are well below replacement level.
In 2002, the birthrate in the United States was 13.9 per 1,000 people, the lowest rate since data have been available.
America's national character also would change if more couples! chose to remain child-free, Popenoe believes. We would lose our child-centeredness, he says. Children would be less valued and become a lower priority. Unsavory elements now held in check to protect children, like pornography, might explode, he believes. "It's good for a country to have children. It keeps morality in line," he said. "Children are what life is all about."
Cathy Rhodes, however, looks forward to the day when all choices are respected equally, when women don't have children just because it's the thing to do. She urges women to weigh the pros and cons of raising children and not be swayed by romantic notions of motherhood.
"We'd live in a much better world," she says. "Every child would be a wanted child."
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the last comment. Not to say that unplanned children don't end up being wanted and loved, but I think that a lot of people shouldn't, in fact, be parents. (I'm not thinking of anyone personally, so no one take offense, please) If every child was a well thought out choice, I believe children would be more appreciated as human beings and not so much as a way to go along with society or for personal renewal.
Don't get me wrong, I love children. I work with wonderful girls and young women at Oasis. I also especially love my little sisters and nieces and nephews. I just think that it is very wrong how society views the necessity of children. It should be up to the woman what she does with her body and life. If she does not think that it is in her best interest to have children, then isn't better that she doesn't? This also applies to men. If they do not feel comfortable being a father, they should not be pressured to do so. If someone realizes their inadequacies in that area, isn't it in the best interest of the future children that they are mature enough to see themselves as who they are and not who society wants them to be? Which is better, a person who contributes meaningfully to society in a new and creative way, or someone becoming a bad parent because their heart isn't in it?
I admire my relatives and friends as mothers; I do think that it can be a beautiful thing. I also think that a person's personal liberties free from societal pressure is a beautiful thing to be respected.
Do you think that children should be had just to sustain the economy and support everyone else? I don't. I see this as selfish and very wrong. If society changed dramatically in such a way that a low birth rate did interfere with this, I'm sure our country could adapt and work just as well, if not better.
I also don't think that just because less people were to have children that we would all turn into perverts and seek child porn. As Josh pointed out, this is a very weak argument on Mr. Popenoe’s part.
Sometimes I wonder why people think it is fine for not yet committed couples to start having children at that point in their relationship, but think it is so wrong when someone chooses not to bring another person into the world and their unstable life. Honestly, society is so backwards sometimes.
What do you think?
~Beverly
|
|
|
| |
|
|
