Posted on 07/22/2006 6:03:00 PM PDT by NYer
PISCATAWAY, New Jersey, JULY 22, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Life without children is a growing social reality for an increasing number of American adults.
This is the conclusion of the 2006 edition of "The State of Our Unions" report on marriage, released last week by the National Marriage Project. The project is based at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Up until recently, for most people, the greater part of adult life was spent with young children forming part of the household. A combination of marrying later, less children and longer life expectancy means, however, that a significantly greater part of adult life is spent without kids being in the house.
The report, titled "Life Without Children," was authored by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe. They start by noting how many recent publications complain of the difficulties in raising children. Many surveys also show that parents report lower levels of happiness compared to non-parents. In fact, an increasing number of married couples now see children as an obstacle to their marital happiness.
This isn't to say that children are rejected by the majority of couples. Nevertheless, there is a growing feeling of trepidation about taking on the responsibilities of parenthood. Of course, bringing up kids has never been easy, but there are good reasons why a growing number of parents are feeling increased pressures, the report explains.
A weakening of marriage bonds contributes to the difficulties of having children. Cohabiting women, the report explains, may postpone childbearing until they have a better sense of the long-term future of the relationship. If they wait too long, however, this places them at risk for never having children. Being in an unhappy marriage is another source of uncertainty. Couples who are worried about getting divorced are the most likely to remain childless.
Changing families
Citing Census Bureau reports, Whitehead and Popenoe lay out just how much family structures have changed.
-- In 1970 the median age of first marriage for women was just under 21years-old. The age of first marriage has now risen to just short of 26. Women who have a four-year college degree marry at an even later age.
-- In 1970, 73.6% of women, ages 25-29, had already entered their child-rearing years and were living with at least one minor child of their own. By 2000, this share dropped to 48.7%. For men in the same age bracket in 1970, 57.3% lived with their own children in the household. In 2000 this had plummeted to 28.8%.
-- In 1960, 71% of married women had their first child within the first 3 years of marriage. By 1990, this almost halved, to 37%. So after getting married, couples now experience a greater number of child-free years.
-- In 1970, 27.4% of women and 39.5% of men, ages 50-54, had at least one minor child of their own in the household. By 2000, the shares had fallen to 15.4% and 24.7%, respectively.
-- In addition, a growing number of women are not having any children. In 2004, almost one out of five women in their early forties was childless. In 1976, it was only one out of ten.
-- The proportion of households with children has declined from half of all households in 1960 to less than one-third today -- the lowest in America's history.
In general, then, a few decades ago life before children was brief, with little time between the end of schooling and the beginning of marriage and family life. Life after children was also reduced, with few years left before the end of work and the beginning of old age.
Less fun
Contemporary culture has quickly reflected the changes in family life, the report observes. It is increasingly common to find the years spent raising children portrayed as being less satisfying compared to the years before and after.
Adult life without children is depicted as having positive meaning and purpose, and as being full of fun and freedom. Life with children, by contrast, is seen as full of pressures and responsibilities.
In general, life without children is characterized by a focus on the self. "Indeed, the cultural injunction for the childless young and the child-free old is to 'take care of yourself,'" the report comments.
The years spent bringing up children is just the opposite. Being a parent means focusing on those who are dependent and subordinating adult needs to the requirements of the children.
By way of compensation traditional culture normally celebrated the work and sacrifice of parents, but this has now changed. Increasingly, the popular image of parents is a negative one. The new stereotypes range from the hyper-competitive sports parents who scream at their own kids, to those who ignore the problems their undisciplined children cause for others in public places.
The latest variant are the so-called "helicopter parents," who get their name from the way they supposedly hover over their children and swoop down to rescue them from any negative consequences of their behavior.
Television programs have long made fun of fathers, notes the report. More recently mothers are also being shown as unfit, unable to carry out their responsibilities without the help of a nanny, or as being over-indulgent and negligent.
By contrast a number of the most popular television shows in America in recent years, such as "Friends" and "Sex and the City," celebrated the glamorous life of young urban singles.
Bias against children
What does this portend for the future, the report asks. For a start, less political support for families. In the last presidential election, parents made up slightly less than 40% of the electorate. Less votes translates into less support for funding of schools and youth activities. Already a number of communities across the nation are trying to hold down property taxes by restricting the construction of affordable single family housing.
In cultural terms the bias against children is likely to grow. Entertainment and pastimes for adults -- gambling, pornography and sex -- is one of the fastest growing and most lucrative, and exciting, sectors of the economy.
By contrast, being a devoted parent is increasingly subject to a ruthless debunking, the report notes. In fact, the task of being a mother is now seen by a growing number as being unworthy of an educated women's time and talents. So the more staid values supportive of raising children -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- will receive less attention.
"It is hard enough to rear children in a society that is organized to support that essential social task," the report observes. "Consider how much more difficult it becomes when a society is indifferent at best, and hostile, at worst, to those who are caring for the next generation," it concludes.
The family, "founded on indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman," is where men and women "are enabled to be born with dignity, and to grow and develop in an integral manner," explained the Pope in his homily concluding the World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain, on July 9.
"The joyful love with which our parents welcomed us and accompanied our first steps in this world is like a sacramental sign and prolongation of the benevolent love of God from which we have come," he noted.
This experience of being welcomed and loved by God and by our parents, explained Benedict XVI, "is always the firm foundation for authentic human growth and authentic development, helping us to mature on the way towards truth and love, and to move beyond ourselves in order to enter into communion with others and with God." A foundation that is increasingly being undermined in today's society.
When I get married, which may be soon, we have both decided to wait a few years before kids.
Frankly, there are three reasons for this.
I want to grow closer to my likely spouse and have the first few years just be "us" time.
We absolutely need a few years to save up money....once we have a kid, a big chunk of change will go toward him or her.
I want to wait a few years until I am established in my career and not moving around as much.
Frankly, I could wait until I was 35 (10 years) even.
But, not longer than that.
Love your screenname and your tagline!
Well, it seems to me that the state, the courts and living in the US is predisposed against having children.
I don't see what is wrong about waiting to have kids until you can afford them and actually give them a decent life and yet have enough started saving for retirement.
If you have kids immediately after marriage, you WILL screw them with an awful life and any future hopes of retirement.
I hope you bright some asbestos clothing to this party :)
Your entire post is interesting but it's the first sentence that attracts most of my attention. I think au contraire that one can know what he's missed and not regret missing it. To use an extreme example, you can see real footage of men in war and not regret being there in the thick of battle.
But to use a more appropriate example: I have seen people (mostly my four siblings) who had children and saw up close and personal what they underwent by the presence of children: the noise, food messes, pleas for money, fights between siblings, but more importantly, the emotional stress and fights between the husband and wife caused by discipline problems and financial problems.
This simply reinforced my teenage decision to avoid having children.
It also likely saved my life. You see, I am a person who is under stress almost all the time. Built-in defect. An example: when I was in my 20's I was a radio announcer and DJ with some talent. But after just four years this inherent stress I have caused me to literally lose my voice: I developed a form of stuttering, unable to get out the words. End of radio career.
Now if this could happen can you imagine what the stress of having the years-long responsibility of taking care of children, combined with an inherited heart defect (see earlier post), would have done. My wife would have been a widow years ago.
To return to my "thesis", I could also have been a lawyer (qualified for law school and all) but once I made a full investigation and found out what law school really required, I declined. Again, I likely avoided an early death.
It's just an assertion but I think that one can just think about what may have been and not do it, he can feel sure that he has not missed "anything" in the sense that what he missed was not worth it. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
I don't mean to cast any judgments, but be careful, if your wife waits until she is 35, it may be too late for her.
My wife and married when she was 30 and I was 29. After a few years of trying, she decided to get checked out. The doctors determined that she was premenopausal. In other words, it was already too late for her.
I don't mean to scare you, just don't assume that you can wait until a predetermined age to have kids.
Now I'm almost ashamed I ever said that, even in jest. I want my boys to always, always know, without a shadow of a doubt, that their mother and father love them, choose them, enjoy them, and thank God for them.
OTOH, some people should *NOT* be parents. Not every couple with a set of intact reproductive organs should be reproducing.
A good wife always knows her place.
My wife knows her place...she runs everything including me!
My wife knows her place; inside the 10 ring at 25 yards at least 9 out of 10 shots:-)
LOL! I've only said that to my husband. My kids also know that we love them dearly and will protect them to our last breath. I know that they are not perfect but, neither are we.:)
LOL! Ya got a point there!
I have a comprehensive report on my great-great grandfather and his descendents, from where I got a lot of my information. The rest I got from other sources.
I don't expect to live forever and medical sciene has improved but not that much.
You are correct, none of us knows when our time is up BUT I'm 65 1/2 and I had a heart attack two years ago, followed by by-pass surgery. My cardiologist is not particularly optimistic about the tests I've been taking. Now how would you like to living in those circumstances. Wouldn't you suspect your time will be up pretty darn soon? I don't worry too much about it though since death does not scare me.
Oh yeah, I started out that even though your post was somewhat offensive to me I hope my reply isn't received likewise because it's not intended that way. That said...
From experience I can tell you that 80 hours a week at the job will eventually take it's toll on you. Your business though.
I have tried to be extremely careful about people's choices here. People should have the right to not have kids, without explaining themselves. However, you shouldn't put us down that do and say things like I didn't miss out on anything when you don't know if you did or not. A simple, "I chose not to have children and I'm happy with my choice" ought to suffice, wouldn't you think?
Lastly, and this may make you angry but... You are not responsible for our children. We send them to you to learn. If their raising isn't completed yet, we will deal with it or life will set them straight but that is not what we are paying you for. If they can't behave by college they should not even be in your classes which are designed for adults IMO.
I is, "No. These cannot be my real parents. I must have been switched at the hospital"
Ive been married for 16 years and havent any children. Its a decision that I regret. I feel that if I had children I would have regretted it more however so I didnt have any. Its hard work and selfless sacrifice to raise children, at least when my mother raised eight of us thats how I saw it. There are many rewards for having kids, to look into their eyes when they say I love you either explicitly or implicitly has got to be incredibly wonderful. The pride a parent must feel when their child grows and overcomes obstacles must also be very satisfying. My wish is that other Christians would quit ostracizing me for not being fruitful and multiplying when they only start the equation and then stop it after one or two offspring. I applaud and support those who wish to raise children. I just think the human race did a pretty good job of following the command to be fruitful for now although we will probably end up in the hundreds of billions before its all over. The world doesnt really need me to have any more does it?
Well here's a point where we agree. As a lawyer myself, I used to work at a firm owned by a local politician where I was one out of two associates. The other associate and I managed 500 files between the two of us. At any given time, we each had 70 cases in litigation. We spent all out time just putting out fires, only working on the cases that were emergencies.
It got to the point where I started looking at the obituaries in the state bar association newsletter. There, I found two different kinds of obits: the ones from lawyers who had long distinguished careers and who died at the age of 92, and the ones who were in big downtown firms, working long hours, who died at the age of 43.
It was soon after then that I went on my own.
...or I could die like my grandfather, peacefully in his sleep -- and not screaming in terror like the family in the minivan he hit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.