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.
Based on that pic, ain't nothing "pretty" about it!
As a father of eight, I can say that I know you've missed a lot! A lot of dirty diapers, sleepless nights, broken and lost property, bickering, smart mouth, frustrated wife ...and the list goes on and on... to include the kind of love, fun and joy that you can only get from your own kids. I'm sure my wife and I have missed a lot of quiet mornings, interesting hobbies, peaceful nights, exiting trips etc. It's nice to know that you're truly content...
...and that we'd never trade places, and that we both can feel good about that.
well, actually no. they hung around long enough to get a piece of her assets, then left her to herself. She had macular and osteoarthritis....
She also had alzheimers setting in, and was headed for a wheel chair.
Bunk. Just because my wife and I do not have children does not mean we are not a family. My wife is family in every way, shape, and form.
She also had alzheimers setting in, and was headed for a wheel chair
So she won't even know the stuff was taken then. I think we are being too hard on the families who chose not to have children. I love my children, but come on it is a choice why should we get upset with others for making the choice. God might not have wanted them to have children or maybe has has another job for them to do like maybe they will be the one to take care of their parents in their elder years...who knows.
I grew up at the same time you did, with a different experience. My mother stayed home until I was in kindergarten, then went back to work. We had a live-in housekeeper, so there was always someone home when I got home, her or my mother. "Day care" as we know it now didn't exist.
Divorce very nearly didn't, either. I remember one girl out of all the boomer kids in my neighborhood, whose mother was divorced - and you always said that word in a whisper!
I completely agree with your statement. I on the other hand have two wonderful sons. I keep trying to get some way to gauge my perception - since they seem like the best, well mannered, fun loving, easiest kids to ever be with. But then again, I knew for myself, since about age 17 that this was my heart's desire (although thankfully they did not come around until age 35) ...to be a dad and to raise some children with true love. And as for those who don't want kids - I don't think "oh what they're missing" - nor do I envy them. It really has nothing to do with kids or no kids, but rather understanding yourself and your place on this earth during your lifetime...
How much money do you make a year?
Wow -- you lurk here?
Tell me: do you get ticked off at names like "Billzebubba", or do you just laugh it off? Are you still bitter over the impeachment thing? Have you talked to Hillary about plans for 2008? Inquiring minds want to know!
Sorry to jump in late, and I'm not questioning your and your wife's decision not to have children, but I wanted to give my answer to your "genetic make-up" question.
I wrestled with the same issue as I have allergies and two chronic illnesses. Did I want to pass along (if the illnesses are inherited) these diseases? But then I realized that even though there are times that I am miserable, and I may end up on the left side of the life-expentency curve, I am very happy to be alive!
So we took the plunge and I have a wonderful (although challenging!) two year-old son, and he's the best thing that has ever happened to me.
She isn't your child. She isn't a continuation of your legacy into the future. She and you are components of a family, but not all the components; a single generation does not a family make.
It doesn't mean that what you and your wife have isn't a valuable and precious thing. A good marriage makes each other a complete person. But it is, nevertheless, a different thing. It is a different social construct, to fill a different, but connected, social need.
A marriage is a social tool to deal with the immediate problems of the here and now, preferably for the duration of a lifetime. A family is a social tool to deal with the future and connect with the past. A family can go on long after the married couple have passed on.
Well, you almost made it! That was a snide and backhanded insult at those of us without children. Good try.
STill disagree. Do some reading on trends in demographics these days and I think you'll find that, at least in Western civilization and Japan, the failure to reproduce at the replacement rate presents HUGE problems for the future.
Plus it's just a sign of deep-seated pessimism.
I maintain that my wife is family. Baby makes three. This needless hair-splitting leads to the absurd situation in which parents that tragically lose their only child get demoted to "childless couple." They're no longer a family? Bunk, I say.
Maintain what you want. You'll still be wrong. Just as the homosexuals who get some official to declare that what they have is a marriage are wrong.
It's like the old riddle: "If we call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Answer: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."
This needless hair-splitting leads to the absurd situation in which parents that tragically lose their only child get demoted to "childless couple." They're no longer a family?
They tragically become a couple who lost their child, but still have their marriage. Depending on your faith system, the family is either lost, or continues in another realm. Mine teaches that families are forever. Here's one back to you: if a childless married couple get divorced, do they still have a "family"? How about if they had children? If sibling children lose their parents, are they still a family? Can you divorce a brother or sister, a father or a mother? What do these answers tell you about the vital component of a family?
You're so intent on definitions, what about the parents who divorce after creating x number of children, ensuring constant handoffs and "visitations"? Are they more of a "family" than say, some of us childless couples who have been together happily for more than twenty years? :)
Maybe (Probably?) they are looking in the wrong places and behaving the wrong way. Married my wife when she was 35.
It is a matter of convincing the guy that you offer something that no other woman does - companionship of the heart. We went out to a movie and arrived at the theatre early - she wanted to go to a nearby bookstore until the movie started. From that minute onwards I was determined to marry her.
Again, I must state that expected longevity was only one of my criteria, and not the most important one at that.
I did want to retire, though, so I factored it in.
I like your attitude, really. You can see both sides of the issue and not be upset. I wish I were that flexible. Unfortunately, I am not. Noise, unrest, and all that sort of thing would have sent me to an early grave, so fortunately for me, I could see my limitations and acted accordingly.
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.