The rude `When are you having a baby?' question

Mercury News ^ | January 10, 2006 | Dear Abby question

[beaversmom]

DEAR ABBY: I am a female who is almost 38 years old. Most of my adult life has been spent in school, working or traveling. It is only in the last two years that I have met someone and settled down somewhat -- although we are not married. We are both artists, so much of our time is filled doing the things that we love and believe in. Neither of us feels a giant void in our relationship or our lives that needs to be filled by a baby.

In the past year or so, several of my co-workers and other people I barely know keep asking, ``When are you going to have a baby?'' or, ``You only have a couple more years -- aren't you going to have a baby?'' or, ``Don't you want kids?''

My family doesn't even ask me these questions! I think they are extremely rude and intrusive, and I resent the simple-minded assumption that just because a person has a uterus and ovaries she must make a baby. How should I respond to these questions?

Childless and happy in Texas

[sitetest]

Dear linda_22003,

"And most didn't."

That's true. And that is why you will be able to enjoy the fruit of your investments in later years.

"You should see all the people on these boards who DO object to paying those taxes, because THEY homeschool."

Well, we homeschool, and our objection is not to paying taxes like anyone else. Our objections stem from several sources.

First, public schools just don't provide much bang for the buck. Even the best of them are typically only about as good as a decent Catholic school, which usually provides an education for half or less of the cost. Most public school systems are more wasteful than the Pentagon when it's buying $600 hammers.

Second, many homeschoolers (ourselves included) believe that we should have equal access to public educational resources as public schoolers, including the ability to participate in public school extracurricular activities, etc.

Third, some homeschoolers (I'm kinda iffy on this one) believe that the government should provide some direct support or relief for homeschoolers. After all, bearing and rearing children is a vital function to society, and that is part of what is recognized in the concept of public education - that society might help bear the cost of educating children, to assist parents in the absolutely crucial task of raising the next generation. Thus, folks who don't fully burden the public educational structure, whether by homeschooling or private schooling, have some claim to state financial assistance.

In Alaska, the state government pays something like $1600 per child per year to a family that homeschools. Sure beats building schools out in the middle of the wilderness for very small numbers of children.

Fourth, some homeschoolers (I'm up in the air on this one, too) just don't believe that governments should play much of a role in the education of children.

Thus, for most homeschoolers, the issue isn't one of saying, "Hey, we homeschool, we shouldn't have to pay taxes," but rather, "Hey, we're entitled to public educational resources too, even though we homeschool," or even, "Hey, the government shouldn't be in the business of education, anyway!"


sitetest

[Alouette]

when people learn that I have 6 kids I always get the rude "don't you have a TV?" remark

When people learn that I have 9 kids the first thing they ask is "are you Catholic?" Then I say no and they ask "are you Mormon?" I say no again and realize we are playing "guess the religion" so I tell them I'm Jewish.

[Wolfstar]

I think many people HAVE kids for selfish reasons. To prove they are "spiritual" or good Catholics/Mormons/Lutherans/Baptists, etc. To have someone take care of them when they are old. To pass on their oh-so-special genes for the good of society. To save their marriage. To get married in the first place. To prove to themselves that they can do a better job than their parents did. To be able to brag about their kids' good grades or sports or musical ability. To boost their own self-esteem through the success of their grown children.

Brilliant, Abigail. Very well put.

So, how often do you and your husband have sex? How come you don't do it more often? Why don't you have more kids?

Game, set and match!

[Antoninus]

Rude? Perhaps. But in writing a letter like this, the author has inadvertantly exposed herself, I think. The real debate on the issue is taking place in her own heart: loving myself versus self-sacrificial love.

For the record, here are some quotes I like from TR.

On motherhood as the true source of progress, Teddy Roosevelt said:

"A more supreme instance of unselfishness than is afforded by motherhood cannot be imagined."

Before an audience of liberal Christian theologians in 1911, he said:

"If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you wil have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground."

On the centrality of the child-rich family to the very existence of the American nation:

"It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders."

On parenthood:

"No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed."

On out-of-wedlock birth versus practiced sterility:

"After all, such a vice may be compatible with a nation's continuing to live, and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is a chance of reform.

In another place, on the same subject:

"...[W]hile there is life, there is hope, whereas nothing can be done with the dead."

On the behavior of 90% of those who practice birth control:

"[It is derived] from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant."

On the "pitiable" child-rearing record of graduates of women's colleges like Vassar and Smith who bore only 0.86 of a child each during their lifetimes:

"Do these colleges teach 'domestic science'?... There is something radically wrong with the home training and school training that produces such results."

[linda_22003]

Good luck with banning birth control or higher education for women. I like a lot of things about TR too, but the world has changed quite a bit since his lifetime. Do you also share his enthusiasm for eugenics?

[sitetest]

Dear steve-b,

LOL! I like your analogy!

However, I think it misses a premise that most folks assume. That's that although you should be able to paint your house on your own, it's likely that many millions of families would be unable to afford education for their children if we didn't all bear the cost together.

I'm not sure I believe this premise. I'm a little iffy on the whole idea of public funding of education, in the first place (at least at the elementary and high school level - public support of colleges and universities can also be partly justified on their contribution to expanding knowledge of the sciences, etc.).

However, if one accepts the premise as true, and one points out that an educated populace will be much more economically productive, then public education can be seen as akin to physical infrastructure, like roads and bridges.

Some folks won't accept that, especially libertarians.

But hey, I'm not a libertarian, I've gone around the track with libertarians more than once on these issues, so those arguments are largely lost on me.

As to whether public education delivers on its promise, as I posted to linda_22003, I don't really think we're getting the bang for the buck that we're spending, absolutely no question.


sitetest

[Antoninus]

More than 70% of us don't. That would be the *majority.*

Did you ever wonder what happens to a society when that's the case? Did you ever stop and think why we have an illegal immigration 'problem'?

[Antoninus]

Ditto. We have seven kids........and if ONE more idiot says "Gee, don't you know what causes that?", I'm gonna deck 'em on the spot.

Ditto. I get that and I only have 3 (with one on the way). I don't get offended when people say it. If only they could understand the unique joy that children bring into your life.

For most of them, they won't understand it until they're 75--and alone.

[steve-b]

some quotes I like from TR

Any of those pulled from his publicity for Madison Grant's The Passing Of The Great Race?

Just curious.

[steve-b]

Did you ever stop and think why we have an illegal immigration 'problem'?

Because some employers prefer to break the law than pay the cost of law-abiding labor.

What do I win?

[frgoff]

It's a philosophical statement. You are basically requiring other people to produce the next generation that will care for you in your old age when you can no longer care for yourself, to run the banks that will pay out your investments, to run the businesses that will use and grow your investments, to continue the civilization, culture, society that makes all your investments and planning more than just printed pieces of paper, and the nation you live in what it is. Thus the statement that you demand the future pay for your present, future referencing the future generation, which will be the producers and creators when you no longer are, but will nonetheless care for you.

You may ease your conscience by claiming your taxes are your payment to the future, but the money itself is nothing but printed paper without people.

Since you think our childlessness has negative repercussions on the future, how would you suggest society force couples like us to reproduce?

Childlessness used to be a thing of shame. Bringing that attitude back would be a good start. But, it won't happen, because reproducing is, for the most part, an act of selflessness, and selfishness is the mark of most of our society today.

[frgoff]

See post 211

[Mr. K]

I'm with you- if I could afford it I would have a dozen more.

[Antoninus]

Good luck with banning birth control or higher education for women. I like a lot of things about TR too, but the world has changed quite a bit since his lifetime. Do you also share his enthusiasm for eugenics?

No, I'm not part of the Margaret Sanger/Planned Barrenhood crowd.

In 20 years plus, you'll thank folks like me for having lots of kids. They'll be the teenagers who cut your lawn. They'll be the young men who defend your country. They'll be the neighbors who shovel your walk. They'll be the taxpayers who keep your pension plan afloat. They'll be the clinicians who care for you in the nursing home and the social worker who spends time with you when no one comes to visit. They'll be the priests who give you the last rights.

If physical reasons prevent you from having children--adopt.

[gogeo]

It's a bogus argument. I'm not impressed.

We also need policemen and soldiers and firemen and roto rooter men. As long as we have enough of them, no one need feel shame that they aren't. Make a case that we need more native born children, and I'll ponder it.

I have an ex-wife who puts the lie to your assertion that parenthood is a selfless activity. Perhaps you meant to say that parenthood doen well is a selfless activity, which is a different argument and does not support yours.

[Antoninus]

Because some employers prefer to break the law than pay the cost of law-abiding labor.

What happens to the economy in a nation with a shrinking population base? Japan is currently conducting such an experiment, so we can watch together.

What do I win?

A Darwin Award, I reckon.

[Antoninus]

Reproducing is, for the most part, an act of selflessness, and selfishness is the mark of most of our society today.

[linda_22003]

"If only they could understand the unique joy that children bring into your life.
For most of them, they won't understand it until they're 75--and alone."

As I said earlier, some parents are alone in old age, anyway, because they were awful parents. My mother-in-law is one example. I guess it all comes down to the quote (no, I don't remember who said it), "Families with children and families without children are sorry for each other." :)

[Antoninus]

I have an ex-wife who puts the lie to your assertion that parenthood is a selfless activity. Perhaps you meant to say that parenthood doen well is a selfless activity, which is a different argument and does not support yours.

What he meant was that parenthood (and marriage, for that matter) is done best when there is the least self-love involved. Individuals who are willing to sacrifice their own desires, needs, interests, hobbies, etc. for the the betterment of their offspring make the best parents.

And I say this as a flawed parent myself.

[linda_22003]

"Childlessness used to be a thing of shame. Bringing that attitude back would be a good start."

How do you propose to start a "shame" campaign? :) The involuntarily barren will be thrilled to be caught up in that net, I'm sure. Those who don't want children won't be shamed by childlessness (I can't imagine being shamed about it!), and those who dearly want children will be very much hurt by it. Good luck with that marketing effort. :]