'Finally having kids' (Mark Makela/Getty Images)
The last time I travelled on the London Underground, I had our Labrador, Saffy, with me. Britain is a nation of dog lovers, but I was still surprised by how many strangers cooed over her. It was startling, in fact, compared to my recollections of travelling on the Tube with a baby in a pushchair a few years back. No contest: Saffy got more love.
So the ad I spotted in that Tube carriage, for the dating app Tinder, seemed particularly fitting. It depicted a smiling young couple in psychedelic clothing, with the caption: “Finally Having Kids”. They each rest one hand on a pushchair. In the pushchair is a dog.
If, given my recent experience, Londoners seem more partial to dogs than kids, this may not be the only way in which “fur babies” are on the up. According to last year’s ONS data, half of British women now reach 30 without having kids. And Pets At Home CEO Lyssa McGowen thinks some of these have redirected their caring urges toward pets. “They are taking all that time and energy and attention and putting it into fur babies, especially in urban areas,” she said.
McGowen speculates that this is happening because the classic milestones of adult life — such as getting your own place — seem increasingly out of reach to many, thanks to scarce housing, rising costs and stagnant wages. This feels plausible: in the US, studies show the stated desire for family size has remained consistent even as the birth rate has fallen. And one recent UK-based Rolling Stone investigation quoted many young couples for whom money is indeed the sticking point.
But is that all there is to it? Prospects for Gen Z are not as optimistic as for their Boomer grandparents, but in absolute terms human societies have lived through greater turbulence and gone on having kids. Birth rates remain buoyant, for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which consistently makes the top 10 in the Fragile States Index of most unstable countries. So what else is in the mix?
Liberal feminist Jill Filipovic argues that if more women are opting to have fewer or no kids, it isn’t so much about the financial pinch. Certainly, among dog-walking acquaintances locally, I can think of several childless, younger millennial heterosexual couples who seem, on the face of it, pretty sorted: good jobs, comfortably off, often homeowners, sometimes even working flexibly from home. Ideally situated, in other words, for starting a family. And yet, they have no kids. For some in this situation, the dog is an object of minute, loving observation and care, and plays the central role in conversation that children usually do for young parents. Watching this, my sense is that although for some economics is a factor in choosing between human babies and the fur variety, at least some of the time it’s not just about money. It goes, rather, to the heart of what we think the purpose of life is — and thus what we are.
When I took our Tube-travelling dog for a check-up recently, the vet asked if we were planning to have her spayed. In discussing the pros and cons, the vet suggested one benefit would be that, once neutered, “she can just get on with being a dog”. It stuck in my mind: after all, isn’t the reproductive cycle part of being a dog? In what sense would neutering Saffy make her freer to be a dog? What kind of dogness is actively obstructed by the organismic urge to make more dogs?
If, as McGowen suggests, a great many young adults today are directing their parental instincts toward pets, I suspect a central reason is that we’ve embraced an equivalent understanding of humanness. That is, we’ve come to believe that the preconditions for realising yourself fully — especially in the field of sex and relationships — now actively foreclose becoming a parent, or at least radically reduce parenthood to one not especially appealing option among many. Given the pervasiveness of this message, the surprise shouldn’t be that many young men and women are pouring that caregiving urge into “fur babies”, but that anyone is bucking the trend and still making the human sort.
Fertility really started plummeting with the onset of the sexual revolution. While modernity consistently drives down birth rates, in the UK (with the exception of a wartime blip) the average number of children per woman remained above the replacement rate until the 20th century. It was only in the Sixties, concurrent with legalisation of the Pill, that rates began falling off a cliff, dipping below replacement levels in 1975, the year after contraceptives were made available to everyone free of charge. Britain’s total fertility rate has remained below replacement ever since.
People are not without agency, of course. My birth, toward the end of the Seventies, attests to the fact that women didn’t abruptly stop having kids just because they could suddenly control fertility. But if contraception acted directly on fertility, it also did so culturally, by making it possible for the first time to treat sex and reproduction as two separate things. This was a seismic technological and cultural change; and one consequence was, as the Catholic feminist Abigail Favale puts it, that it became increasingly normal to see sex not as a “procreational” activity but a “recreational” one. And I suspect it’s this shift, more than anything else, that’s done most to undermine the once-robust cultural association between parenthood and being a fully realised adult human.
Cultural changes take a while to percolate through, but half a century on from the original revolution, this worldview is so normalised that it’s hard to imagine things any other way. For example, in Let’s Talk About It, a 2021 educational book about sex and relationships aimed at teenagers, the procreational function of sex is acknowledged in passing but the overall emphasis is on sex as — in the book’s terms — a “fun physical activity”.
A great many things follow from viewing sex in this way. Firstly, if sex is primarily recreational it genuinely doesn’t matter what sex your partner is, provided they want to have sex with you. “Reproduction aside”, the authors of Let’s Talk About It assert, “your genitals exist to let you feel pleasure with yourself or others (no matter which genitals they may have).”
Secondly, if the principal aim is recreation, then relationship type doesn’t matter. Studies have long shown that where children are concerned, growing up with two married parents is associated with better outcomes. As long as there is a general cultural consensus that sex is associated with children, then, this is likely to be accompanied by a consensus that sexual desire should be generally pointed at marriage or at least long-term relationships. But if sex is mainly recreational, babies are emphatically not viewed as part of the story. Rather, as in Let’s Talk About It, they are discussed as a “risk” attendant on sexual activity: a negative event of the same order as catching a sexually transmitted disease.
It follows, too, that if sex is just a fun leisure activity, then you can have any kind of relationship you like. Accordingly, the book gives equal weighting to monogamy, polyamory, hook-ups, and abstinence, saying only that “Sexual intimacy is a powerful way to feel good and bond with another person, whether it’s for a night or a lifetime”. Taken together, this worldview presents embodiment, sexuality, desire and intimacy as coruscating, infinitely varied expressive options in which what anyone does should be limited only by individual preference and mutual consent. And if this is what being a fully realised person looks like, then by comparison, reproductive sex — the boring old heteronormative kind — is constricting in the extreme.
Imagine you’ve grown up with this set of messages, or at least something like it. Now, imagine you detect in yourself a buried hankering to be a mother or father. In order even to reach the starting blocks for doing anything about this longing, you’d need to unlearn most of your culture’s ambient assumptions about the field of sex and relationships, beginning with the received view that babies are not a source of joy but threat. Then you’d have to question the taboo on connecting sexual desire with its reproductive end, which is to say accept that, if you’re trying to make a baby, it really does matter what genitals your partner has.
In the face of all this, it’s no wonder many who have absorbed some variant of this message simply embrace it, and set out to enjoy the panoply of expressive sexual and emotional options now presented, without judgement, for selection. And this means sidelining parenthood: for within that paradigm, the organismic urge to reproduce, with all the limits it opposes on those expressive options, presents itself not as an aspect of becoming fully human, but an obstacle to the infinite ways in which we might do so. Self-neutering is now, as the vet suggested of spaying Saffy, self-actualisation. And should some glimmer of the ancient drive to care for dependents nonetheless fight its way to the surface, Tinder’s latest ad campaign has the answer.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy bother with any of it?
The problem with youth has always been the same. We think we know it all, but life has this tricky way of kicking us where it hurts. I have a completely asymptomatic cancer diagnosis that was only picked up because I hadn’t had a blood test in ages. I even had a multitude of scans which came back negative but the blood test which was repeated three times was abnormal. In the end a biopsy confirmed cancer. My wife and daughter have been not just my rock, but also my purpose. You cannot put value on a genuine family; and you cannot have a genuine family if you live a hedonistic lifestyle.
I get the attraction of hedonism. I still see attractive young women and have all the desires. But if I way one up against the other. My family wins hands down. I am also acutely aware that I would not have been able to appreciate this in my 20’s.
Families take time to nurture and develop. Yet our modern lifestyle since the sexual revolution has put it way down the pecking order. It is no surprise that we are more miserable than ever. There is no shame in recognising that the last 60-70 years has been the wrong path. Why are we doubling down and going harder than ever in the wrong direction?
If it took 3 scans to confirm cancer, you probably don’t have it. Seriously.
Only the biopsy picked it up. Nice and early.
To put it in layman’s terms. A scan is looking at food and saying it is yummy. A biopsy is actually eating food and saying it is yummy.
Anyone who tells you different is selling you down the river
Good to know, but depressing!
Good to know, but depressing!
What do you mean?
It means he didn’t read the comment properly.
It means he didn’t read the comment properly.
What is the point of your post aside from being offensive?
My apologies. I was offensive. My mother had multiple scans on a lump in her breast. The end conclusion was InSitu, which isn’t cancer but is tissue that can become cancer. They ended up doing a completely uneccessary mastectomy, followed by chemo and radiation. She died from complications of the un-needed treatment. So I’m touchy on repeatedly scanning for something as doctors often just pretend to find what they are looking for. This probably isn’t the case here and I got triggered and my comment was just nasty. Again, I apologize.
Sorry for the loss of your mum.
All good J Hop. I am sorry for the loss of your mother. That is a pain that I am yet to bare. I lost my grandmother to a pointless procedure and a niece due to a simple test not been undertaken in this country.
The medical fraternity are doing their best but they are only human. This doesn’t make the pain go away though.
Sorry for the loss of your mum.
All good J Hop. I am sorry for the loss of your mother. That is a pain that I am yet to bare. I lost my grandmother to a pointless procedure and a niece due to a simple test not been undertaken in this country.
The medical fraternity are doing their best but they are only human. This doesn’t make the pain go away though.
My apologies. I was offensive. My mother had multiple scans on a lump in her breast. The end conclusion was InSitu, which isn’t cancer but is tissue that can become cancer. They ended up doing a completely uneccessary mastectomy, followed by chemo and radiation. She died from complications of the un-needed treatment. So I’m touchy on repeatedly scanning for something as doctors often just pretend to find what they are looking for. This probably isn’t the case here and I got triggered and my comment was just nasty. Again, I apologize.
Good lord.
Only the biopsy picked it up. Nice and early.
To put it in layman’s terms. A scan is looking at food and saying it is yummy. A biopsy is actually eating food and saying it is yummy.
Anyone who tells you different is selling you down the river
What do you mean?
What is the point of your post aside from being offensive?
Good lord.
Good luck with everything Peter.
You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term. That is what society is for – to guide kids down the correct paths. Over the course of the last 50 years we have come to forget this. It is time we relearned it.
“You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term.”
Some perhaps but I know many 20 somethings who know exactly what’s important. However, running in working class circles as I do, they are bitter about the fact that coming up with the tens of thousands of dollars needed to raise a kid is beyond them, and they worry about what the post-civilization (woke/’diverse’) world will look like. With standards of living steadily declining and white people now becoming strangers in their own countries but liable for reparations for things that happened 200 years ago … why would you subject a kid to that future?
The “needing tens of thousands of dollars” argument for not wanting children (even if that’s what it costs to raise them) didn’t apply until the last one or maybe two generations, against the hundreds of generations preceding them where such a consideration was negligible, if a “thing” at all. How do you account for that?
The very idea of “subjecting a kid to that future” – whilst it may be something cited by young adults, is imo simply a smokescreen for their indolence and desire to live an individualistic lifestyle which will come back to bite them on the arse (ass in the US).
Agree with your points. People have been raising kids forever, and yet it’s only recently that I hear the “kids are too expensive” argument. Which may apply if you’re thinking that your kids need to go to elite expensive schools, dress in expensive clothes, and have all manner of expensive stuff and “experiences.”
Millenials and Zoomers seem to be very much into travel, dining out, and “life experiences” in my admittedly tail end Boomer view. The money that goes into all that stuff could just as easily go into the best life experience one will ever have: raising a family. Hard work? Oh yeah. Worth it? Absolutely. You will get infinitely more self-actualization, maturity, and learn about it not being all about you.
Agree with your points. People have been raising kids forever, and yet it’s only recently that I hear the “kids are too expensive” argument. Which may apply if you’re thinking that your kids need to go to elite expensive schools, dress in expensive clothes, and have all manner of expensive stuff and “experiences.”
Millenials and Zoomers seem to be very much into travel, dining out, and “life experiences” in my admittedly tail end Boomer view. The money that goes into all that stuff could just as easily go into the best life experience one will ever have: raising a family. Hard work? Oh yeah. Worth it? Absolutely. You will get infinitely more self-actualization, maturity, and learn about it not being all about you.
Perhaps.
On the other hand, natural selection and evolution continues on unabated and as ruthless as ever, regardless of current fashions or fads.
The folks who truly believe that the reproduction of their species is not ‘worth it’ are weeded out of the gene pool with devastating efficiency…within the very same generation.
Whereas those who will sacrifice almost everything (whether they live in devastating poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo or live in London and have to cut back on their must-have daily coffee run and favorite restaurants) to afford a child will be the future and continuation of our species. Evolution and natural selection doesn’t really care if we drive a BMW or walk in well-worn sandals for our daily commute to work.
Folks who choose to not sacrifice ‘whatever the cost’ to have kids may not like this answer, but “them’s the facts.” They are self-selecting their genes out of the gene pool. Using their firmly-affixed confirmation bias (which is something that none of us can avoid), they will lament that the world will be devastatingly worse off without their genes carrying on within the cycle of life…but evolution and natural selection will have the last laugh at their demise by moving on regardless. And it will the next generation, selected by nature, who will inevitably write our own histories within the broader context of the history of our species.
No matter our internal navel-gazing and belief that we are evolved to the point that we’re far more intelligent, sophisticated and beyond the mechanisms of old-fashioned nature, evolution and natural selection will always prove us wrong on this and will carry on with the long-dead genes of those individuals without progeny left upon the ash heap of our evolutionary history.
It is what it is.
The “needing tens of thousands of dollars” argument for not wanting children (even if that’s what it costs to raise them) didn’t apply until the last one or maybe two generations, against the hundreds of generations preceding them where such a consideration was negligible, if a “thing” at all. How do you account for that?
The very idea of “subjecting a kid to that future” – whilst it may be something cited by young adults, is imo simply a smokescreen for their indolence and desire to live an individualistic lifestyle which will come back to bite them on the arse (ass in the US).
Perhaps.
On the other hand, natural selection and evolution continues on unabated and as ruthless as ever, regardless of current fashions or fads.
The folks who truly believe that the reproduction of their species is not ‘worth it’ are weeded out of the gene pool with devastating efficiency…within the very same generation.
Whereas those who will sacrifice almost everything (whether they live in devastating poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo or live in London and have to cut back on their must-have daily coffee run and favorite restaurants) to afford a child will be the future and continuation of our species. Evolution and natural selection doesn’t really care if we drive a BMW or walk in well-worn sandals for our daily commute to work.
Folks who choose to not sacrifice ‘whatever the cost’ to have kids may not like this answer, but “them’s the facts.” They are self-selecting their genes out of the gene pool. Using their firmly-affixed confirmation bias (which is something that none of us can avoid), they will lament that the world will be devastatingly worse off without their genes carrying on within the cycle of life…but evolution and natural selection will have the last laugh at their demise by moving on regardless. And it will the next generation, selected by nature, who will inevitably write our own histories within the broader context of the history of our species.
No matter our internal navel-gazing and belief that we are evolved to the point that we’re far more intelligent, sophisticated and beyond the mechanisms of old-fashioned nature, evolution and natural selection will always prove us wrong on this and will carry on with the long-dead genes of those individuals without progeny left upon the ash heap of our evolutionary history.
It is what it is.
Thanks Matt, I have trust in the medical fraternity. Most doctors and nurses have their hearts in the right spot. I’ve looked the surgeon in the eye and he gives me confidence. His practice nurse is great and she is very competent. So I am happy to trust that the team involved will do a great job.
Maybe some mentoring is in order once I recover.
“You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term.”
Some perhaps but I know many 20 somethings who know exactly what’s important. However, running in working class circles as I do, they are bitter about the fact that coming up with the tens of thousands of dollars needed to raise a kid is beyond them, and they worry about what the post-civilization (woke/’diverse’) world will look like. With standards of living steadily declining and white people now becoming strangers in their own countries but liable for reparations for things that happened 200 years ago … why would you subject a kid to that future?
Thanks Matt, I have trust in the medical fraternity. Most doctors and nurses have their hearts in the right spot. I’ve looked the surgeon in the eye and he gives me confidence. His practice nurse is great and she is very competent. So I am happy to trust that the team involved will do a great job.
Maybe some mentoring is in order once I recover.
I do think that the lack of housing and decent jobs has a lot to do with this. I didn’t want kids until my 30’s. Thank goodness I did – I wish had started earlier and had more. But part of my wife and I deciding we wanted kids was that we were ready, we both had good jobs, a house, etc. If you move back a generation before mine all those things – marriage, a job that supported a house, a house – were achieved by most people in their 20’s. I honestly think one societal change we need to consider is abolishing the university degree as an essential component to any decent job. You don’t need one for most jobs and all it is doing is deferring adulthood and saddling young people with debt.
Hegel said that all relations between one person and another are “battles for pure prestige.” The winner is a master; the loser a slave. This explains our love of dogs. All but the smallest of them could kill most humans in 30 seconds. But they don’t do that. They instead roll over in submission. They do exactly what they’re told, and never talk back. We love them because they afford us the prestige for which we long and which the vast majority of us would otherwise never enjoy.
‘Do exactly what they’re told , and never talk back’
You clearly never owned a dachshund .Seriously though while dogs obviously can’t speak they do have ways of showing annoyance and telling their owner what they require , making requests and demands even . They respond to love with love is at least as valid a way of describing human /dog relationship .
Perhaps you are making too much of the fact wolves and therefore dogs are supposed to have a ‘pack leader’ .
That is so not true.
How about this: “Consider the cattle, grazing as they pass you by: they do not know what is meant by yesterday or today, they leap about, eat, rest, digest, leap about again, and so from morn till night and from day to day, fettered to the moment and its pleasure or displeasure, and thus neither melancholy nor bored. This is a hard site for man to see; for, though he thinks himself better than the animals because he is human, he cannot help envying their happiness — what they have, a life neither bored nor painful, is precisely what he wants, yet he cannot have it, because he refuses to be like an animal.”
edit
How about this: “Consider the cattle, grazing as they pass you by: they do not know what is meant by yesterday or today, they leap about, eat, rest, digest, leap about again, and so from morn till night and from day to day, fettered to the moment and its pleasure or displeasure, and thus neither melancholy nor bored. This is a hard site for man to see; for, though he thinks himself better than the animals because he is human, he cannot help envying their happiness — what they have, a life neither bored nor painful, is precisely what he wants, yet he cannot have it, because he refuses to be like an animal.”
edit
‘Do exactly what they’re told , and never talk back’
You clearly never owned a dachshund .Seriously though while dogs obviously can’t speak they do have ways of showing annoyance and telling their owner what they require , making requests and demands even . They respond to love with love is at least as valid a way of describing human /dog relationship .
Perhaps you are making too much of the fact wolves and therefore dogs are supposed to have a ‘pack leader’ .
That is so not true.
I heartily agree. I only had one and I regret that but we started too late and did not realise until too late what is really important.
Housing is certainly a big problem, but so is the “equity” brigade. While this narcissistic form of bigotry is aimed at white males in 2023, but eventually this will change. What these nasty people don’t seem to get is that humanity’s ying and yang is certainly man and woman. Together now, as always, they are greater than the sum of their parts. (I’m also sure that same sex attracted people are smart enough to grasp this concept and somehow work it to fit their taste rather than getting their knickers in a knot because I said man and woman.) Everyone will lose if equity because the measuring stick of society.
Men, especially white men, are dropping out in larger numbers. They are escaping into gaming and porn. Their whims are sated as quick as they manifest and no one gives them grief. There are no hurdles and no guilt. Why go into a world that hates you?
Hegel said that all relations between one person and another are “battles for pure prestige.” The winner is a master; the loser a slave. This explains our love of dogs. All but the smallest of them could kill most humans in 30 seconds. But they don’t do that. They instead roll over in submission. They do exactly what they’re told, and never talk back. We love them because they afford us the prestige for which we long and which the vast majority of us would otherwise never enjoy.
I heartily agree. I only had one and I regret that but we started too late and did not realise until too late what is really important.
Housing is certainly a big problem, but so is the “equity” brigade. While this narcissistic form of bigotry is aimed at white males in 2023, but eventually this will change. What these nasty people don’t seem to get is that humanity’s ying and yang is certainly man and woman. Together now, as always, they are greater than the sum of their parts. (I’m also sure that same sex attracted people are smart enough to grasp this concept and somehow work it to fit their taste rather than getting their knickers in a knot because I said man and woman.) Everyone will lose if equity because the measuring stick of society.
Men, especially white men, are dropping out in larger numbers. They are escaping into gaming and porn. Their whims are sated as quick as they manifest and no one gives them grief. There are no hurdles and no guilt. Why go into a world that hates you?
Assuming that all families are functional and loving and all children are completely healhy, then yes, sounds like a plan. Particularly when life on earth is so jolly good and getting so much better.
Peter
I will not comment on your health ordeal, if only to wish you a swift recovery.
Your view comes from your own harmonious family experience, but look at the facts…..the rate of divorce is astronomical and let’s not forget those who would love to leave but who can’t. And then, if you’re a man, we’ll tough luck, you are good for alimony alley, not seeing your kids any more, either because they hate you, or your former spouse decided to move to the other side of the world ( 50 % of cases ) and if a woman, basically doomed….aka f….d Cuz a single mothers, like it or not, is not seen a hot marriage material. I know for sure, My mother was one of them. Many lovers, no husband. Seen from Germaine Greer chair a win win but a Lose loose for the common mortal.
You are right, it takes time and commitment to build a relationship, but tell me…….where is the limit ? So many marriages are just so sad to watch…..kind of Basil and Sybille…….or the reverse….the latter often ending with violence.
As to kids, raising them today with social media lurking into their rooms behind your back, all sorts of totally unnecessary needs and wants on top of the usual costs…..frankly, not so endearing. A friend of mine described his experience as a father as totally frustrating having to deal with his 2 son’s utter selfishness. Same for his second wife with children of her own.
Being a parent when I was a kid was much easier. No children would be tolerated inside the house……go out and play…..croquet if I trust an 8 mm family movie, while adults were enjoying their tea. 3 tv channels, total control over what entered our twisted little minds……..jobs right out of university…..well, close to it and off we went.
I am not condemning people who chose not to have children but…….a dog has to remain what it is……a pet and certainly not a surrogate’s child.
Dogs touch me immensely for what they are and their ability to live in the moment, because that is all they know and in that respect, we have a lot to learn from them.
I don’t think children should be using social media or have smartphones. It astonishes me how many parents have just given way on this subject over the last 10 years or so. “Because everyone else is doing it” isn’t a valid argument in my opinion.
I don’t think children should be using social media or have smartphones. It astonishes me how many parents have just given way on this subject over the last 10 years or so. “Because everyone else is doing it” isn’t a valid argument in my opinion.
Yes why?? Our culture seems to be coming apart and it seems clear that the disintegration of the family is at the heart of it. It is also no coincidence that religion has become sidelined.
If it took 3 scans to confirm cancer, you probably don’t have it. Seriously.
Good luck with everything Peter.
You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term. That is what society is for – to guide kids down the correct paths. Over the course of the last 50 years we have come to forget this. It is time we relearned it.
I do think that the lack of housing and decent jobs has a lot to do with this. I didn’t want kids until my 30’s. Thank goodness I did – I wish had started earlier and had more. But part of my wife and I deciding we wanted kids was that we were ready, we both had good jobs, a house, etc. If you move back a generation before mine all those things – marriage, a job that supported a house, a house – were achieved by most people in their 20’s. I honestly think one societal change we need to consider is abolishing the university degree as an essential component to any decent job. You don’t need one for most jobs and all it is doing is deferring adulthood and saddling young people with debt.
Assuming that all families are functional and loving and all children are completely healhy, then yes, sounds like a plan. Particularly when life on earth is so jolly good and getting so much better.
Peter
I will not comment on your health ordeal, if only to wish you a swift recovery.
Your view comes from your own harmonious family experience, but look at the facts…..the rate of divorce is astronomical and let’s not forget those who would love to leave but who can’t. And then, if you’re a man, we’ll tough luck, you are good for alimony alley, not seeing your kids any more, either because they hate you, or your former spouse decided to move to the other side of the world ( 50 % of cases ) and if a woman, basically doomed….aka f….d Cuz a single mothers, like it or not, is not seen a hot marriage material. I know for sure, My mother was one of them. Many lovers, no husband. Seen from Germaine Greer chair a win win but a Lose loose for the common mortal.
You are right, it takes time and commitment to build a relationship, but tell me…….where is the limit ? So many marriages are just so sad to watch…..kind of Basil and Sybille…….or the reverse….the latter often ending with violence.
As to kids, raising them today with social media lurking into their rooms behind your back, all sorts of totally unnecessary needs and wants on top of the usual costs…..frankly, not so endearing. A friend of mine described his experience as a father as totally frustrating having to deal with his 2 son’s utter selfishness. Same for his second wife with children of her own.
Being a parent when I was a kid was much easier. No children would be tolerated inside the house……go out and play…..croquet if I trust an 8 mm family movie, while adults were enjoying their tea. 3 tv channels, total control over what entered our twisted little minds……..jobs right out of university…..well, close to it and off we went.
I am not condemning people who chose not to have children but…….a dog has to remain what it is……a pet and certainly not a surrogate’s child.
Dogs touch me immensely for what they are and their ability to live in the moment, because that is all they know and in that respect, we have a lot to learn from them.
Yes why?? Our culture seems to be coming apart and it seems clear that the disintegration of the family is at the heart of it. It is also no coincidence that religion has become sidelined.
Why bother with any of it?
The problem with youth has always been the same. We think we know it all, but life has this tricky way of kicking us where it hurts. I have a completely asymptomatic cancer diagnosis that was only picked up because I hadn’t had a blood test in ages. I even had a multitude of scans which came back negative but the blood test which was repeated three times was abnormal. In the end a biopsy confirmed cancer. My wife and daughter have been not just my rock, but also my purpose. You cannot put value on a genuine family; and you cannot have a genuine family if you live a hedonistic lifestyle.
I get the attraction of hedonism. I still see attractive young women and have all the desires. But if I way one up against the other. My family wins hands down. I am also acutely aware that I would not have been able to appreciate this in my 20’s.
Families take time to nurture and develop. Yet our modern lifestyle since the sexual revolution has put it way down the pecking order. It is no surprise that we are more miserable than ever. There is no shame in recognising that the last 60-70 years has been the wrong path. Why are we doubling down and going harder than ever in the wrong direction?
Dogs live in the here and now. They are very physical creatures. They are naturually mindful when out on walks and take note of all sorts of things close to the ground and I don’t mean just pee, I mean basic reality and it’s why I enjoy following my dog’s attention; he encourages me to look, not just at the daisies but also up at the sky and trees. He enjoy ordinary pleasures, a run, a roll on the grass, greeting human and dog friends, that sort of thing. What he doesn’t do is self-psychologise, or catastrophise or spend hours at a time lost in digitial worlds. My dog is a wise counsellor, truly he keeps me sane, also he really makes me laugh!
I suspect that establishing a life of “living in the moment” would require serious forethought and planning ….
Ha ha! Could be, could be!
Being present “be here now” is something few people have mastered.
Ha ha! Could be, could be!
Being present “be here now” is something few people have mastered.
Wait until you find a great human partner.. 10 times more fulfilling.. or maybe you have one nut find the dog a better option??
One can live one’s whole and not find the great human partner. In the meantime…………
What I was getting at is that a lot of people find dogs keep them grounded. Maybe some people treat their dogs like babies but I think most enjoy them for their simple doginess. Of course if you raise a puppy you do enter into a kind of parenting role because a lot of the time you are trying to keep the animal safe and to socialise it. I’m just not sure that childless people who do that do it because ‘parenting’ a dog is easier that parenting a human child. There are plenty of unselfish reasons why women choose not have children – though it’s true that their reasoning might be faulty and they might come to regret it. I have my own theory about why some people can relax more when they have a dog around. It is based on some thoughts I had after listening to talks by neuroscientist Sir Iain McGilchrist. He believes that since the Enlightenment we in the West have come put too much emphasis on a certain type of problem solving intelligence that associated with the left hemisphere of the brain and that our having done this is to our detriment as a society. He sees the right hemispheric way of seeing the world as much more holistic and truer to how the world actually is. Being too ‘stuck’ in our left hemispheres he says can lead us to see the world through a distorted lens and is associated with anxiety and depression. If I recall correctly he says that a healthy way of being is to be mainly in the right hemisphere and to use the left for specific problem solving tasks only and that a healthy state is to be able flow easily between the two hemispheres using which ever best suits the requirements of circumstance. My theory is that some poeple who suffer from this tendency to get stuck in left hemisphere are able to get free of it by being around dogs because the latter naturually express this much more embodied way being in the world. It’s actually a healing relationship. We as a society are after all said to be living through a time of unprecidented levels of mental illness. McGilchrist also says poetry, music and being in nature can help us get unstuck.
I once read in Die Welt that 40 % of people preferred their dog to their spouse.
Thomas Man wrote a wonderful book about man and his dog : Man und Herr
I once read in Die Welt that 40 % of people preferred their dog to their spouse.
Thomas Man wrote a wonderful book about man and his dog : Man und Herr
One can live one’s whole and not find the great human partner. In the meantime…………
What I was getting at is that a lot of people find dogs keep them grounded. Maybe some people treat their dogs like babies but I think most enjoy them for their simple doginess. Of course if you raise a puppy you do enter into a kind of parenting role because a lot of the time you are trying to keep the animal safe and to socialise it. I’m just not sure that childless people who do that do it because ‘parenting’ a dog is easier that parenting a human child. There are plenty of unselfish reasons why women choose not have children – though it’s true that their reasoning might be faulty and they might come to regret it. I have my own theory about why some people can relax more when they have a dog around. It is based on some thoughts I had after listening to talks by neuroscientist Sir Iain McGilchrist. He believes that since the Enlightenment we in the West have come put too much emphasis on a certain type of problem solving intelligence that associated with the left hemisphere of the brain and that our having done this is to our detriment as a society. He sees the right hemispheric way of seeing the world as much more holistic and truer to how the world actually is. Being too ‘stuck’ in our left hemispheres he says can lead us to see the world through a distorted lens and is associated with anxiety and depression. If I recall correctly he says that a healthy way of being is to be mainly in the right hemisphere and to use the left for specific problem solving tasks only and that a healthy state is to be able flow easily between the two hemispheres using which ever best suits the requirements of circumstance. My theory is that some poeple who suffer from this tendency to get stuck in left hemisphere are able to get free of it by being around dogs because the latter naturually express this much more embodied way being in the world. It’s actually a healing relationship. We as a society are after all said to be living through a time of unprecidented levels of mental illness. McGilchrist also says poetry, music and being in nature can help us get unstuck.
Exactly, not to mention unconditional love.
I suspect that establishing a life of “living in the moment” would require serious forethought and planning ….
Wait until you find a great human partner.. 10 times more fulfilling.. or maybe you have one nut find the dog a better option??
Exactly, not to mention unconditional love.
Dogs live in the here and now. They are very physical creatures. They are naturually mindful when out on walks and take note of all sorts of things close to the ground and I don’t mean just pee, I mean basic reality and it’s why I enjoy following my dog’s attention; he encourages me to look, not just at the daisies but also up at the sky and trees. He enjoy ordinary pleasures, a run, a roll on the grass, greeting human and dog friends, that sort of thing. What he doesn’t do is self-psychologise, or catastrophise or spend hours at a time lost in digitial worlds. My dog is a wise counsellor, truly he keeps me sane, also he really makes me laugh!
We often talk about the infiltration of cultural Marxism into the institutions of the West but it’s far from clear if cultural Marxism infiltrated the capitalist west or if the capitalist west infiltrated Marxism.
To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption, the prioritisation of the individual over the community and ultimately, that even procreation is just another job which can be outsourced to the third world who will do it more cheaply for us so we can enjoy sex without the inconvenience of having children; is smashing the system – has to be admired as an act of manipulative genius, whoever is manipulating who.
Of course, as Mary has pointed out many times, it is ultimately technology which drives these changes and in the end neither of the philosophies of Marxism or Liberalism have been able to cope with rate of technological change of the post-modern world.Neither is really in control. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger observed. We don’t need don’t need a philosophy which limps after science, (which cannot help but bring to mind the contemporary slogan “follow the science”) but one which would run ahead of it.
To this date, no such philosophy exists and we continue to blindly follow where technology leads, even if the precipice lies ahead.
Marxism and Capitalism are both the same thing—materialism. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s all one world view.
I like that.
Then why do Marxist countries end up as totalitarian. For example: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Some are dictatorial. Yes, some them are also capitalist like China, but I’m certainly not willing to be spied on and surrender my private life.
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve heard. Both things are economic systems that don’t have any god. Because they are both not religions, does not make them the same. Being in the same category does not make them the same. How stupid. False equivalence, but you don’t seem to think things through.
No – both systems elevate materialism. They merely differ in how the cake should be carved up. If you’re poor and happy, a Marxist is confounded. You should be “joining the struggle” etc. Equally, if you’re poor and happy, a Capitalist sees you as a threat, as you “lack ambition”.
Not much to do with procreation.
No – both systems elevate materialism. They merely differ in how the cake should be carved up. If you’re poor and happy, a Marxist is confounded. You should be “joining the struggle” etc. Equally, if you’re poor and happy, a Capitalist sees you as a threat, as you “lack ambition”.
Not much to do with procreation.
Yes – same coin
The differences are stark. Capitalism is related to individualism, free and open commerce, and property rights — all associated with classical Liberalism. Marxism doesn’t recognize any of those things.
Interesting comment
I like that.
Then why do Marxist countries end up as totalitarian. For example: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Some are dictatorial. Yes, some them are also capitalist like China, but I’m certainly not willing to be spied on and surrender my private life.
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve heard. Both things are economic systems that don’t have any god. Because they are both not religions, does not make them the same. Being in the same category does not make them the same. How stupid. False equivalence, but you don’t seem to think things through.
Yes – same coin
The differences are stark. Capitalism is related to individualism, free and open commerce, and property rights — all associated with classical Liberalism. Marxism doesn’t recognize any of those things.
Interesting comment
“To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption…”
In my experience, that’s what married people with 2.5 kids do, not single people. My married friends think they need 2000 square foot suburban houses, Vera Wang wedding dresses, phones for every kid over 4, etc. My single friends travel, live on a shoestring, house sit, leave unsatisfying jobs to pursue self employment, and buy simple foods instead of an SUV-full of groceries from Costco.
Marxism and Capitalism are both the same thing—materialism. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s all one world view.
“To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption…”
In my experience, that’s what married people with 2.5 kids do, not single people. My married friends think they need 2000 square foot suburban houses, Vera Wang wedding dresses, phones for every kid over 4, etc. My single friends travel, live on a shoestring, house sit, leave unsatisfying jobs to pursue self employment, and buy simple foods instead of an SUV-full of groceries from Costco.
We often talk about the infiltration of cultural Marxism into the institutions of the West but it’s far from clear if cultural Marxism infiltrated the capitalist west or if the capitalist west infiltrated Marxism.
To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption, the prioritisation of the individual over the community and ultimately, that even procreation is just another job which can be outsourced to the third world who will do it more cheaply for us so we can enjoy sex without the inconvenience of having children; is smashing the system – has to be admired as an act of manipulative genius, whoever is manipulating who.
Of course, as Mary has pointed out many times, it is ultimately technology which drives these changes and in the end neither of the philosophies of Marxism or Liberalism have been able to cope with rate of technological change of the post-modern world.Neither is really in control. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger observed. We don’t need don’t need a philosophy which limps after science, (which cannot help but bring to mind the contemporary slogan “follow the science”) but one which would run ahead of it.
To this date, no such philosophy exists and we continue to blindly follow where technology leads, even if the precipice lies ahead.
Great article as always. The only thing I think it misses is the possibility that families are not always better than the alternative. I have very little time for all but one of my family, due to a number of family dramas, but also because we just have almost nothing in common. I’m not saying all families are terrible, but if you’re not close to your family of origin it can seem a leap of faith to think the one you form will be any better, in the knowledge that you carry the scars of your background with you, which are liable to manifest in your present. Is a car crash of a family better than it never having existed? I’m not altogether convinced it isn’t a perfectly logical thing not to have a family for many people such as myself.
I understand the comment regarding purpose, particularly when things get difficult. My purpose for many years now has been surfing, gardening, music and DIY, but I now have an increasingly bad back and some other injuries that are making all of them between difficult and impossible and I’m certainly floundering for alternatives. But I’m afraid I look at it the other way; without the responsibiloity that brings purpose I can leave this mortal coil without guilt or worry so can avoid living in pain as long as my body will manage. If having a family means I will be required to suffer more in later life, but be somewhat happy in that suffering, I’ll chose no suffering and no family thanks. I really hate pain, and ignorance is bliss as far as not having a family is concerned.
Life with a well functioning body is a pleasure I feel I used to it’s fullest extent, and indeed it felt it had a purpose just in and of itself. Surely we “are” many things, not just sexual or reproductive, but creative, motive, dextrous, inquisitive etc etc. I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I don’t think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.
I’d tend to agree with your broad argument. Those who say “family is best” are well-meaning but being either too simplistic or lack experience of when family can be a stiflingly negative influence.
Wow.. I sincerely hope you are not speaking from personal experience!
Do i appear to have been negatively stifled??
🙂
🙂
Why not? Who among us has not been damaged by our families?
Do i appear to have been negatively stifled??
Why not? Who among us has not been damaged by our families?
Family consists of more than a few people though. I come from a very dysfunctional home and the family I grew up with are all either dead or estranged. I am close with cousins and aunts and uncles, however, and I am happily married with healthy children and enjoy a good relationship with my husband’s family as well. In fact, having a healthy family myself was a major goal of mine entering adulthood and an impetuous to heal my own wounds so I could achieve that.
And that’s fair enough. My comment(s) shouldn’t be interpreted as being anti-family.
And that’s fair enough. My comment(s) shouldn’t be interpreted as being anti-family.
Wow.. I sincerely hope you are not speaking from personal experience!
Family consists of more than a few people though. I come from a very dysfunctional home and the family I grew up with are all either dead or estranged. I am close with cousins and aunts and uncles, however, and I am happily married with healthy children and enjoy a good relationship with my husband’s family as well. In fact, having a healthy family myself was a major goal of mine entering adulthood and an impetuous to heal my own wounds so I could achieve that.
my husband and I both come from deeply dysfunctional backgrounds of family drama and even trauma. We decided at 19 that we wanted to create our own family, replacing our family of origin. It was the kind of crazy thing only very young people do, with no money, no back up in case of failure. We had three children by 25, adopted two more later. It’s been great, except for watching adult children struggle in todays dystopic world.
I should add that he was in IT in the early 80’s which meant a salary expanding to meet the needs of our growing family. Money isn’t irrelevant to family creation but it also isn’t the only or main factor as Mary said.
The message needs to get out there that even if your family of origin was horrible you can still have a fulfilling family life.
I have news for you: ALL families of origin are dysfunctional.. only some are more so than others.. I could paint a picture of my own which would read like a Dickens novel but on balance, as EVERY experience is useful, and there were really good aspects as well, I look back, positively overall grateful for it..
I’m sure all families are dysfunctional, and I’m sure everyone learns from their experiences, but that’s ALL experiences, not just the family. The point I was getting at is that there are many other experiences that in my experience were at least as valuable as that of my family. Having a family adds such a burden onto life – which has incredibly positive aspects no doubt – that it’s very likely to some degree limit your ability to experience other aspects of life. Even if that’s just solitude. And I’m sure I had some psychological dysfunction that inhibited my ability to bond with a suitable woman, probably better if you don’t, but given that reality you can either get depressed and curse the world, as I did for many years, or get on with getting everything positive you can from the time you hav, which I did in the end and am also extremely gratefully for.
My children would certainly agree with you, but they haven’t had to deal with alcoholism, adultery, poverty, physical and verbal abuse, and not knowing who your real father was until you were 21.
Some dysfunctions are worse than others.
My childhood doesn’t check all those boxes, but it does most and I still wanted to have a family. In fact, when you are jipped out of a healthy family as a child, the drive can be very strong to get yourself sorted so you can experience what you missed with your own family. I need to stress the “get yourself sorted” of course, or you run the risk of recreating the dysfunction in your new family, but separating and healing and going on to form my own healthy relationships was incredibly reparative. Being able to give my children what I didn’t get is profoundly satisfying as well, again, providing you’ve healed from the fact that you didn’t get it.
You are right about this. We didn’t really realize how badly I was damaged by a criminally narcissistic mother and the ongoing effects of not moving far away from her. It is our biggest regret.
There is still an awful lot to be said for starting a family while young, despite the wisdom gap.
It’s a huge generalization to say that starting a family young is a wise thing.
It is, but dragging adolescence and sexual experimentation out until your energy and fertility expire has costs too. The current model of middle aged prosperous men with 20 something wives is a little icky.
It is, but dragging adolescence and sexual experimentation out until your energy and fertility expire has costs too. The current model of middle aged prosperous men with 20 something wives is a little icky.
It’s a huge generalization to say that starting a family young is a wise thing.
You are right about this. We didn’t really realize how badly I was damaged by a criminally narcissistic mother and the ongoing effects of not moving far away from her. It is our biggest regret.
There is still an awful lot to be said for starting a family while young, despite the wisdom gap.
My childhood doesn’t check all those boxes, but it does most and I still wanted to have a family. In fact, when you are jipped out of a healthy family as a child, the drive can be very strong to get yourself sorted so you can experience what you missed with your own family. I need to stress the “get yourself sorted” of course, or you run the risk of recreating the dysfunction in your new family, but separating and healing and going on to form my own healthy relationships was incredibly reparative. Being able to give my children what I didn’t get is profoundly satisfying as well, again, providing you’ve healed from the fact that you didn’t get it.
Is that news? Where do you think we’ve been living?
I’m sure all families are dysfunctional, and I’m sure everyone learns from their experiences, but that’s ALL experiences, not just the family. The point I was getting at is that there are many other experiences that in my experience were at least as valuable as that of my family. Having a family adds such a burden onto life – which has incredibly positive aspects no doubt – that it’s very likely to some degree limit your ability to experience other aspects of life. Even if that’s just solitude. And I’m sure I had some psychological dysfunction that inhibited my ability to bond with a suitable woman, probably better if you don’t, but given that reality you can either get depressed and curse the world, as I did for many years, or get on with getting everything positive you can from the time you hav, which I did in the end and am also extremely gratefully for.
My children would certainly agree with you, but they haven’t had to deal with alcoholism, adultery, poverty, physical and verbal abuse, and not knowing who your real father was until you were 21.
Some dysfunctions are worse than others.
Is that news? Where do you think we’ve been living?
Some can and some can’t, and choosing not to take the risk of history repeating itself by not procreating isn’t selfish, quite the opposite. Perhaps procreating to be fulfilled is selfish.
I have news for you: ALL families of origin are dysfunctional.. only some are more so than others.. I could paint a picture of my own which would read like a Dickens novel but on balance, as EVERY experience is useful, and there were really good aspects as well, I look back, positively overall grateful for it..
Some can and some can’t, and choosing not to take the risk of history repeating itself by not procreating isn’t selfish, quite the opposite. Perhaps procreating to be fulfilled is selfish.
I struggle to do anything but feel sorry for you, genuinely. Having your own family is an opportunity to right the wrongs of your childhood. Surfing, gardening, music, and DIY can never replace the joy and fulfillment of raising children who will inherit this world and can make it a better place. In the end, Darwin’s principle rules. Those who rise to challenge and overcome will procreate. Those who remain broken victims will not.
I’m not sure you need to feel sorry for him at all, well maybe about the bad back. Equally the wrongs of childhood usually spill over into the next round of parenthood. And I assure you, the childfree do not consider themselves broken victims. Quite the reverse.
Exactly.
Exactly.
In which case the wrong sort of people has been having kids, if today’s youngesters are the the best they could come up with. Or, more likely, people have misunderstood what Darwin meant and prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Yikes! what a sanctimonious and ignorant comment.
I’m not sure you need to feel sorry for him at all, well maybe about the bad back. Equally the wrongs of childhood usually spill over into the next round of parenthood. And I assure you, the childfree do not consider themselves broken victims. Quite the reverse.
In which case the wrong sort of people has been having kids, if today’s youngesters are the the best they could come up with. Or, more likely, people have misunderstood what Darwin meant and prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Yikes! what a sanctimonious and ignorant comment.
Exactly. And we can see the results of dysfuntional families in child abuse, crimes, addiction, jails etc.
“I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I don’t think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.”
Perhaps you’re not taking into account the ways in which our changing social norms affected how families have functioned in the past few decades. For some malfunctioning families, the problems could perhaps have been avoided under different social regimes.
But even if there are exceptions to the general rule that old-fashioned families are right for most people, should the exceptions determine public policy and social norms? Not everyone who does heroin has a bad outcome. So maybe we should tell kids to give it a try, they might be one of the lucky ones?
Well said Jake.
I’d tend to agree with your broad argument. Those who say “family is best” are well-meaning but being either too simplistic or lack experience of when family can be a stiflingly negative influence.
my husband and I both come from deeply dysfunctional backgrounds of family drama and even trauma. We decided at 19 that we wanted to create our own family, replacing our family of origin. It was the kind of crazy thing only very young people do, with no money, no back up in case of failure. We had three children by 25, adopted two more later. It’s been great, except for watching adult children struggle in todays dystopic world.
I should add that he was in IT in the early 80’s which meant a salary expanding to meet the needs of our growing family. Money isn’t irrelevant to family creation but it also isn’t the only or main factor as Mary said.
The message needs to get out there that even if your family of origin was horrible you can still have a fulfilling family life.
I struggle to do anything but feel sorry for you, genuinely. Having your own family is an opportunity to right the wrongs of your childhood. Surfing, gardening, music, and DIY can never replace the joy and fulfillment of raising children who will inherit this world and can make it a better place. In the end, Darwin’s principle rules. Those who rise to challenge and overcome will procreate. Those who remain broken victims will not.
Exactly. And we can see the results of dysfuntional families in child abuse, crimes, addiction, jails etc.
“I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I don’t think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.”
Perhaps you’re not taking into account the ways in which our changing social norms affected how families have functioned in the past few decades. For some malfunctioning families, the problems could perhaps have been avoided under different social regimes.
But even if there are exceptions to the general rule that old-fashioned families are right for most people, should the exceptions determine public policy and social norms? Not everyone who does heroin has a bad outcome. So maybe we should tell kids to give it a try, they might be one of the lucky ones?
Well said Jake.
Great article as always. The only thing I think it misses is the possibility that families are not always better than the alternative. I have very little time for all but one of my family, due to a number of family dramas, but also because we just have almost nothing in common. I’m not saying all families are terrible, but if you’re not close to your family of origin it can seem a leap of faith to think the one you form will be any better, in the knowledge that you carry the scars of your background with you, which are liable to manifest in your present. Is a car crash of a family better than it never having existed? I’m not altogether convinced it isn’t a perfectly logical thing not to have a family for many people such as myself.
I understand the comment regarding purpose, particularly when things get difficult. My purpose for many years now has been surfing, gardening, music and DIY, but I now have an increasingly bad back and some other injuries that are making all of them between difficult and impossible and I’m certainly floundering for alternatives. But I’m afraid I look at it the other way; without the responsibiloity that brings purpose I can leave this mortal coil without guilt or worry so can avoid living in pain as long as my body will manage. If having a family means I will be required to suffer more in later life, but be somewhat happy in that suffering, I’ll chose no suffering and no family thanks. I really hate pain, and ignorance is bliss as far as not having a family is concerned.
Life with a well functioning body is a pleasure I feel I used to it’s fullest extent, and indeed it felt it had a purpose just in and of itself. Surely we “are” many things, not just sexual or reproductive, but creative, motive, dextrous, inquisitive etc etc. I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I don’t think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.
Dogs are easier than children and tend to die a lot sooner and therefore are not a long term responsibility on the same level as children. They also don’t talk back and call you out on your failings. You can leave them at home while you go out to work and the pub. Young people today struggle with adulting and adulting requires taking responsibility for your actions and words. To be honest, as someone who works with looked after children, I don’t weep for the those who chose not to bring children into this world, there are too many parents who should’ve made the same decision.
But perfect children are boooring.. mine, mow aged 42, 48 and 50 are brats.. but sure I still love them!
Exactly this and what I came to say. People are forgoing children purely out of selfishness and indulgence, not because they can’t afford it. Everyone tries to make the excuse of finances or “the world is in a state” as, just as I described, an excuse. Most young adults are a bunch of whiny, entitled, and incompetent dolts who can’t fathom having to sacrifice anything for the greater good; I say this as a woman in her late twenties and approaching 30!
None of them care about bloodlines, about ancestry, about history, or about their future when they are old and feeble and having to be cared for by an immigrant on low wages. They claim immigration is needed because we don’t have enough people, and because of the ‘economy’, yet seemingly avoiding having children of their own to bolster our numbers because of the supposed damage to the environment and bringing in people who have more than 3 children per wife! It’s madness. It’s a life lived entirely in the now instead of the future.
This is the thrust of the responsibility and benefit of having a family, but I just don’t buy any of it. Ancestry and bloodline is too nebulous a concept for many people to grasp, and hasn’t exactly always been a concept that’s benefitted the world when you think how rape has been used as a method of war to ensure the proliferation of certain bloodlines down the ages. There are plenty of other ways of delaying gratification other than having a family – building a business, learning an instrument, tending a garden, building a house.
So have children so that when you’re too old to enjoy life the suckers can join you in your misery. No thanks, I despise being looked after and I hate being in pain, when I can’t look after myself and I’m wracked with pain that will be it thanks very much. If I were to have children it would be so they could enjoy living not so they can look after me. And what could be more selfish than the mentality of having children to look after you when you’re old and sick? I looked after my mother when she lost her mind and there was nothing much noble or dignified about it. I found out recently she wanted to die when she got her diagnosis, but I’m sure the thought of hurting her children was utmost in the decision to carry on.
It’s not that easy to exit this world on one’s own timetable. It’s tough enough being born without choosing to do so, to perhaps not functional parents, but then it’s also not easy to get out.
I will add that my mother had had enough of ill health and wanted out of her body. I was able to help her do that so she had an easy, peaceful exit. I hope someone will do the same for me.
I will add that my mother had had enough of ill health and wanted out of her body. I was able to help her do that so she had an easy, peaceful exit. I hope someone will do the same for me.
People all throughout the ages understood the concept of bloodlines and ancestry because it was an important part of culture; the fact that people can’t seem to grasp it nowadays is due to the cultural shift away from family and community and onto the self only further proving my point.
People have become selfish, in their own bubbles, acting like they are a single unit instead of part of a community. It’s not healthy to think this way, many people do it purely out of dysfunction, laziness, and fear, not because they actually believe in it. The degradation of our communities isn’t a coincidence, it’s part of a much wider problem.
You might be right, although it’s hard to say what people understood about that down the ages. There were certainly also pressures to have children to help the arduous graft of living off the land and just the difficulty of preventing the expression of the sexual urge resulting in offspring.
But perhaps you’re right. I can kind of see if my parents had stayed together and there was a lineage which looked attractive to join it might have both spurred me to want to continue that lineage and have been something attractive for a woman to join. But if that’s not you’re reality and you have no place in a community or wider family, how are you supposed to relate to that? I think the other thing that’s missing from this discussion is religion. There is of course the commandment to go forth and multiply, or the equivalent, but I have little doubt that all relationships are extremely difficult and for many throughout the ages only the true religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage kept many relationships together. I also have little doubt that this was developed by wise people over years as they could see the social destruction of very temporary relationships, even though in many individual circumstances it would mean years of personal suffering.
Now, in the society in which I live almost nobody has that conviction, so if they find themselves suffering in a relationship they will understandably want to leave and might very well be individually better off for doing so. The result for the children, however, might very well be the destruction of the connection with your lineage and the disolution of your position within a community which leaves you wandering what structures you would be bringing children into or could use as a crutch to help through the difficult times. In the secular west we think it’s kind of inevitable that as people are more educated the world will become less and less religious, but it actually looks precisely the reverse as the religious are massively out-breeding the atheist and the world will very likely evolve back to a religiously dominated order. In that respect I think religion kind of proves itself right in some vital way and perhaps if you dont have faith it’s better to leave the future to those that do. It’s not just individuals being selfish, it’s the society in which those individuals live promoting selfishness – for perfectly understandable reasons. Sorry for a rambling response.
You might be right, although it’s hard to say what people understood about that down the ages. There were certainly also pressures to have children to help the arduous graft of living off the land and just the difficulty of preventing the expression of the sexual urge resulting in offspring.
But perhaps you’re right. I can kind of see if my parents had stayed together and there was a lineage which looked attractive to join it might have both spurred me to want to continue that lineage and have been something attractive for a woman to join. But if that’s not you’re reality and you have no place in a community or wider family, how are you supposed to relate to that? I think the other thing that’s missing from this discussion is religion. There is of course the commandment to go forth and multiply, or the equivalent, but I have little doubt that all relationships are extremely difficult and for many throughout the ages only the true religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage kept many relationships together. I also have little doubt that this was developed by wise people over years as they could see the social destruction of very temporary relationships, even though in many individual circumstances it would mean years of personal suffering.
Now, in the society in which I live almost nobody has that conviction, so if they find themselves suffering in a relationship they will understandably want to leave and might very well be individually better off for doing so. The result for the children, however, might very well be the destruction of the connection with your lineage and the disolution of your position within a community which leaves you wandering what structures you would be bringing children into or could use as a crutch to help through the difficult times. In the secular west we think it’s kind of inevitable that as people are more educated the world will become less and less religious, but it actually looks precisely the reverse as the religious are massively out-breeding the atheist and the world will very likely evolve back to a religiously dominated order. In that respect I think religion kind of proves itself right in some vital way and perhaps if you dont have faith it’s better to leave the future to those that do. It’s not just individuals being selfish, it’s the society in which those individuals live promoting selfishness – for perfectly understandable reasons. Sorry for a rambling response.
It’s not that easy to exit this world on one’s own timetable. It’s tough enough being born without choosing to do so, to perhaps not functional parents, but then it’s also not easy to get out.
People all throughout the ages understood the concept of bloodlines and ancestry because it was an important part of culture; the fact that people can’t seem to grasp it nowadays is due to the cultural shift away from family and community and onto the self only further proving my point.
People have become selfish, in their own bubbles, acting like they are a single unit instead of part of a community. It’s not healthy to think this way, many people do it purely out of dysfunction, laziness, and fear, not because they actually believe in it. The degradation of our communities isn’t a coincidence, it’s part of a much wider problem.
Absolutely it is, but what’s the problem? My wife and I are totally happy and content without the burden of a stinky shouty thing controlling our lives and making it a misery. We have total freedom and greater wealth to enjoy what we want to do and when. Why would anyone want it any other way?
How long have you got 🙂 I feel sorry for you
And yet, I feel sorry for you. Round and round we go.
And yet, I feel sorry for you. Round and round we go.
Total freedom and wealth aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. You might get to a stage where you’re jaded, eyes glazed over after years of self indulgence, and find yourself wondering what’s the point of it all. Having kids is one of the few things about life that makes any sense. That’s what it’s been like for me anyway
You can have both of course.
Only if you’re exceedingly lucky.
Only if you’re exceedingly lucky.
For you, perhaps yes, but not for everyone. And why the judgemental tone towards those who don’t want children?
Yes, that’s why I included the caveat “That’s what it’s been like for me anyway”. I don’t agree that I used a judgemental tone
Yes, that’s why I included the caveat “That’s what it’s been like for me anyway”. I don’t agree that I used a judgemental tone
Then you wouldn’t know what freedom and wealth is like, would you? Dream on.
You can have both of course.
For you, perhaps yes, but not for everyone. And why the judgemental tone towards those who don’t want children?
Then you wouldn’t know what freedom and wealth is like, would you? Dream on.
Exactly, and you don’t know what you’re going to get. At least you can choose a dog. Having a disabled, mentally ill child looks like hell on earth.
“The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?”
― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Exactly.
So because children could be seen as a minor inconvenience that is seen as a burden and misery inducing? You are clearly very materialistic which is why you value things over people; this is the problem at its root.
How long have you got 🙂 I feel sorry for you
Total freedom and wealth aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. You might get to a stage where you’re jaded, eyes glazed over after years of self indulgence, and find yourself wondering what’s the point of it all. Having kids is one of the few things about life that makes any sense. That’s what it’s been like for me anyway
Exactly, and you don’t know what you’re going to get. At least you can choose a dog. Having a disabled, mentally ill child looks like hell on earth.
“The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?”
― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Exactly.
So because children could be seen as a minor inconvenience that is seen as a burden and misery inducing? You are clearly very materialistic which is why you value things over people; this is the problem at its root.
I think it’s not surprising that the generation raised with social media would prefer dogs to children (and cats, frankly). Dogs’ inbuilt adoration for their human appeals perfectly to the narcissistic tendencies of that generation. Imagine, it’s akin to getting HUNDREDS of “likes” a day, right in your own home! All the benefits with none of the drawbacks, as Lindsay S pointed out!
And this is “bad” because………?
And this is “bad” because………?
Oh, the old argument of the free nurse… I haven’t met many childless people in care homes, and yet there they are…
As there are those with children.
As there are those with children.
OMG not having children is “selfish”. You sound like the pope. And if every woman had the litters you and the pope think women should have you’d never get a seat on the bus.
This particular pope has made a derisive comment about Catholic women breeding like rabbits. He is an evil man, considering the Church’s teaching, which you are free to disagree with of course, but which it is his job to uphold, not make fun of those who struggle to live it.
Yes, not having children is selfish. You are a culmination of thousands of years of ancestors, ancestors who put their blood, sweat and tears into building the very place you have the privilege to call home, and you deny the right of your offspring to experience the wonders of life because of your own selfishness. You act like you “didn’t have a choice” in being born, no one does! It’s all luck and you were lucky to be born.
This particular pope has made a derisive comment about Catholic women breeding like rabbits. He is an evil man, considering the Church’s teaching, which you are free to disagree with of course, but which it is his job to uphold, not make fun of those who struggle to live it.
Yes, not having children is selfish. You are a culmination of thousands of years of ancestors, ancestors who put their blood, sweat and tears into building the very place you have the privilege to call home, and you deny the right of your offspring to experience the wonders of life because of your own selfishness. You act like you “didn’t have a choice” in being born, no one does! It’s all luck and you were lucky to be born.
This is the thrust of the responsibility and benefit of having a family, but I just don’t buy any of it. Ancestry and bloodline is too nebulous a concept for many people to grasp, and hasn’t exactly always been a concept that’s benefitted the world when you think how rape has been used as a method of war to ensure the proliferation of certain bloodlines down the ages. There are plenty of other ways of delaying gratification other than having a family – building a business, learning an instrument, tending a garden, building a house.
So have children so that when you’re too old to enjoy life the suckers can join you in your misery. No thanks, I despise being looked after and I hate being in pain, when I can’t look after myself and I’m wracked with pain that will be it thanks very much. If I were to have children it would be so they could enjoy living not so they can look after me. And what could be more selfish than the mentality of having children to look after you when you’re old and sick? I looked after my mother when she lost her mind and there was nothing much noble or dignified about it. I found out recently she wanted to die when she got her diagnosis, but I’m sure the thought of hurting her children was utmost in the decision to carry on.
Absolutely it is, but what’s the problem? My wife and I are totally happy and content without the burden of a stinky shouty thing controlling our lives and making it a misery. We have total freedom and greater wealth to enjoy what we want to do and when. Why would anyone want it any other way?
I think it’s not surprising that the generation raised with social media would prefer dogs to children (and cats, frankly). Dogs’ inbuilt adoration for their human appeals perfectly to the narcissistic tendencies of that generation. Imagine, it’s akin to getting HUNDREDS of “likes” a day, right in your own home! All the benefits with none of the drawbacks, as Lindsay S pointed out!
Oh, the old argument of the free nurse… I haven’t met many childless people in care homes, and yet there they are…
OMG not having children is “selfish”. You sound like the pope. And if every woman had the litters you and the pope think women should have you’d never get a seat on the bus.
Exactly!! Procreating and parenting are two very different things.Also, One sees so many people having kids because they don’t know what to do with their lives, need a sense of purpose and think a baby will give them all the love they never had.
That’s a very pessimistic view of people. Most people have children because they want children; the idea of raising the next generation excites them. Some people will have children because they have empty lives but it’s also true that most people fill their time with working because they have no other identity; most of the people I have ever worked with have no hobbies and this is most prevalent within women.
I come from a broken and abusive family, I want a family to be able to give the love and expectations that I never had, I want to produce my next generation and make them see the value that life truly has because I was denied that growing up; I was a tool to be used and abused and was discarded when I no longer had value. I would never do that to my own children.
That’s a very pessimistic view of people. Most people have children because they want children; the idea of raising the next generation excites them. Some people will have children because they have empty lives but it’s also true that most people fill their time with working because they have no other identity; most of the people I have ever worked with have no hobbies and this is most prevalent within women.
I come from a broken and abusive family, I want a family to be able to give the love and expectations that I never had, I want to produce my next generation and make them see the value that life truly has because I was denied that growing up; I was a tool to be used and abused and was discarded when I no longer had value. I would never do that to my own children.
But perfect children are boooring.. mine, mow aged 42, 48 and 50 are brats.. but sure I still love them!
Exactly this and what I came to say. People are forgoing children purely out of selfishness and indulgence, not because they can’t afford it. Everyone tries to make the excuse of finances or “the world is in a state” as, just as I described, an excuse. Most young adults are a bunch of whiny, entitled, and incompetent dolts who can’t fathom having to sacrifice anything for the greater good; I say this as a woman in her late twenties and approaching 30!
None of them care about bloodlines, about ancestry, about history, or about their future when they are old and feeble and having to be cared for by an immigrant on low wages. They claim immigration is needed because we don’t have enough people, and because of the ‘economy’, yet seemingly avoiding having children of their own to bolster our numbers because of the supposed damage to the environment and bringing in people who have more than 3 children per wife! It’s madness. It’s a life lived entirely in the now instead of the future.
Exactly!! Procreating and parenting are two very different things.Also, One sees so many people having kids because they don’t know what to do with their lives, need a sense of purpose and think a baby will give them all the love they never had.
Dogs are easier than children and tend to die a lot sooner and therefore are not a long term responsibility on the same level as children. They also don’t talk back and call you out on your failings. You can leave them at home while you go out to work and the pub. Young people today struggle with adulting and adulting requires taking responsibility for your actions and words. To be honest, as someone who works with looked after children, I don’t weep for the those who chose not to bring children into this world, there are too many parents who should’ve made the same decision.
“Britain’s total fertility rate has remained below replacement ever since.”
Don’t worry! You might not have ever been asked about it, but the Government has been implementing a cunning plan to sort this…
“Britain’s total fertility rate has remained below replacement ever since.”
Don’t worry! You might not have ever been asked about it, but the Government has been implementing a cunning plan to sort this…
Trouble is that when women get into their late thirties they realise they always wanted to have a family and have missed the boat. I watched a documentary the other day that found 90% of childless women past childbearing age regretted not having had children. Many bitterly. Many talked about their lives being meaningless. Many blamed their partners who never fully committed.
If those women in their 30’s with the baby-rabies stopped to think for one minute it would be obvious to them why, as they say, they can’t get a man to commit. Men in their 30’s have probably finally made something of themselves. They are established at work and financially sound. Their SMV has reached its peak. By contrast, desperate women in their 30’s are on a steep downward path relative to SMV and younger, more fertile women in their 20’s are replacing them in the sexual marketplace. Given a choice the man will favour the younger woman, especially if he wants a family. In the competition between a women in her 20’s who can easily become pregnant and a late 30’s woman who will likely have trouble conceiving and might need expensive IVF support the younger woman is the obvious choice.
Agreed, and it’s crazy because society, at least the upper middle class liberal society, pushes young girls into this quandry. The focus is all on career and sort the family out later, when it should be the other way around. I have a career and encourage my teenage daughters to as well, but urge them to focus on family in their 20’s as that is when the most amount of eligble men will be interested. They seem to have taken this to heart and both are dating commitment orientated men and choosing careers with flexibility as well, so they can lean out when they have kids to stay home for awhile. We are in a red state though, so the culture is more famiy orientated as well.
I follow a You Tuber who’s in her mid-30’s. She has a crafts and cleaning channel and she sometimes featured her fiance in her videos. Well, he hadn’t made an appearance in awhile and she announced that she broke up with him because her channel was doing really well so she was financially independant and she didn’t want to settle down yet and that she had “plenty of time.” The comments section was FULL of women agreeing with her and urging her to hold out until “she was ready”. I was thinking, “You’re 35. What, are you going to wait until 40 to consider starting a family? And do you think a bunch of handsome, financially secure, eligible men are going to be lining up to marry a 40 year old?!” It’s crazy.
So, it seems like her relationship with her “fiance” was really about financial security and nothing more. Men are just ATM’s to some women and she seems like the materialistic type who kept him around for money. Pregnancies after 32 are considered “high risk.” Good luck getting pregnant when she’s over 40, never mind finding anyone she would want.
So, it seems like her relationship with her “fiance” was really about financial security and nothing more. Men are just ATM’s to some women and she seems like the materialistic type who kept him around for money. Pregnancies after 32 are considered “high risk.” Good luck getting pregnant when she’s over 40, never mind finding anyone she would want.
Eew yuk! That’s nasty. “Desperate women in their thirties” you wish!
Agreed, and it’s crazy because society, at least the upper middle class liberal society, pushes young girls into this quandry. The focus is all on career and sort the family out later, when it should be the other way around. I have a career and encourage my teenage daughters to as well, but urge them to focus on family in their 20’s as that is when the most amount of eligble men will be interested. They seem to have taken this to heart and both are dating commitment orientated men and choosing careers with flexibility as well, so they can lean out when they have kids to stay home for awhile. We are in a red state though, so the culture is more famiy orientated as well.
I follow a You Tuber who’s in her mid-30’s. She has a crafts and cleaning channel and she sometimes featured her fiance in her videos. Well, he hadn’t made an appearance in awhile and she announced that she broke up with him because her channel was doing really well so she was financially independant and she didn’t want to settle down yet and that she had “plenty of time.” The comments section was FULL of women agreeing with her and urging her to hold out until “she was ready”. I was thinking, “You’re 35. What, are you going to wait until 40 to consider starting a family? And do you think a bunch of handsome, financially secure, eligible men are going to be lining up to marry a 40 year old?!” It’s crazy.
Eew yuk! That’s nasty. “Desperate women in their thirties” you wish!
As one of those women. I would say it wasn’t just an uncommitted partner ( who I think might have been a bit like me, trying to make everyone else around happy), it was society in general – other people. When I was young I was told to get an education, get a career, you must “Do” something – get a good job, savings, a home, a career. This came from all sides – family, friends, government ( after all why give free contraception if your sub text isnt , dont have children? No one ever mentioned children or families to either myself or my husband until it was too late – and then it was more an accusing question of why didnt you have children?. We, being Mr and Mrs Agreeable did what were were told to do, were asked to do, were expected to do – by family and society.. So why didnt anyone mention having children? Why was it always about career and jobs? I would have liked children but having them came at a time when I was expected to be getting on career wise because of course, no one wants older employees either do they? Its not just when you are young that you are most fertile, its also when you are most in demand in terms of employment even though like as not you are not as good at the job as someone older. As a woman that was especially important. I grew up being pushed out to work rather than seeing work as something you did until you got married and had a family ( unlike my mothers generation). I regret bitterly missing out on a family. I know my husband does too. We both realised too late. It is as much a society problem – maybe more so – as it is an individual one. I dont have a dog by the way.
It’s corporate propaganda to push women into “careers.” Most people have jobs, not careers. It’s the people with money in corporations and universities who sell expensive and sometime useless degrees that want to use these stupid youngsters as milch cows.
Who said society is correct? The Zeitgeist is always wrong, and that’s in any age. Humans are stupid and will do what they are told.
It sounds like you did what you were expected to do rather than what you wanted to do. That’s sad. “To thine own self be true”. Is it trite to ask what about adopting? The pleasures you feel you missed out on may still be available to you.
It’s corporate propaganda to push women into “careers.” Most people have jobs, not careers. It’s the people with money in corporations and universities who sell expensive and sometime useless degrees that want to use these stupid youngsters as milch cows.
Who said society is correct? The Zeitgeist is always wrong, and that’s in any age. Humans are stupid and will do what they are told.
It sounds like you did what you were expected to do rather than what you wanted to do. That’s sad. “To thine own self be true”. Is it trite to ask what about adopting? The pleasures you feel you missed out on may still be available to you.
Do you remember the name of the documentary?
Observe “in the wild” in the desirable neighborhoods consisting of new apartments in any gentrifying American city. Get a dating app and try out different gender and age parameters for a sense of how the market functions. Contrast with a religious community to complete the picture.
Observe “in the wild” in the desirable neighborhoods consisting of new apartments in any gentrifying American city. Get a dating app and try out different gender and age parameters for a sense of how the market functions. Contrast with a religious community to complete the picture.
Women in their late thirties shouldn’t despair, there’s still time. My wife turned 43 in December and our third child was born in January
Rubbish! “When women get into their late thirties…they have missed the boat” What boat is that? A typical male comment and so not true of most women. You may like to think that’s how we feel without you.
We are talking about fertility here…
We are talking about fertility here…
If those women in their 30’s with the baby-rabies stopped to think for one minute it would be obvious to them why, as they say, they can’t get a man to commit. Men in their 30’s have probably finally made something of themselves. They are established at work and financially sound. Their SMV has reached its peak. By contrast, desperate women in their 30’s are on a steep downward path relative to SMV and younger, more fertile women in their 20’s are replacing them in the sexual marketplace. Given a choice the man will favour the younger woman, especially if he wants a family. In the competition between a women in her 20’s who can easily become pregnant and a late 30’s woman who will likely have trouble conceiving and might need expensive IVF support the younger woman is the obvious choice.
As one of those women. I would say it wasn’t just an uncommitted partner ( who I think might have been a bit like me, trying to make everyone else around happy), it was society in general – other people. When I was young I was told to get an education, get a career, you must “Do” something – get a good job, savings, a home, a career. This came from all sides – family, friends, government ( after all why give free contraception if your sub text isnt , dont have children? No one ever mentioned children or families to either myself or my husband until it was too late – and then it was more an accusing question of why didnt you have children?. We, being Mr and Mrs Agreeable did what were were told to do, were asked to do, were expected to do – by family and society.. So why didnt anyone mention having children? Why was it always about career and jobs? I would have liked children but having them came at a time when I was expected to be getting on career wise because of course, no one wants older employees either do they? Its not just when you are young that you are most fertile, its also when you are most in demand in terms of employment even though like as not you are not as good at the job as someone older. As a woman that was especially important. I grew up being pushed out to work rather than seeing work as something you did until you got married and had a family ( unlike my mothers generation). I regret bitterly missing out on a family. I know my husband does too. We both realised too late. It is as much a society problem – maybe more so – as it is an individual one. I dont have a dog by the way.
Do you remember the name of the documentary?
Women in their late thirties shouldn’t despair, there’s still time. My wife turned 43 in December and our third child was born in January
Rubbish! “When women get into their late thirties…they have missed the boat” What boat is that? A typical male comment and so not true of most women. You may like to think that’s how we feel without you.
Trouble is that when women get into their late thirties they realise they always wanted to have a family and have missed the boat. I watched a documentary the other day that found 90% of childless women past childbearing age regretted not having had children. Many bitterly. Many talked about their lives being meaningless. Many blamed their partners who never fully committed.
Reading this piece I naturally contrast it with my own experience in the 1970s before MH was born…
At 22 I had a poorly paid job but I married and moving into my own, fully furnished 3b semi detached home (cost £3,400; salary £1,100)!
I drove a car and we went on a Continental holiday annually.
Two years later I had two kids, my wife stopped working.. and yet we still went to France or Greece each year, kids and all. And no, my (sole) income hadn’t increase much.
Apart from my mortgage I had zero debts. We wanted for nothing on one, very modest salary.
And look at what we’ve ‘progressed’ to!
Were you living in the UK or the Kerrygold Republic may I ask?
What has that got to do with it. And give the “Kerrygold republic” stuff a rest would you?
Mahoney has referred to the early 70’s probably 1972 in fact.
During that time the UK was involved in a nasty little war with a bunch of ‘Council House Killers’ sometimes known as the IRA.
Thus it would be interesting to know if Mahoney was living in the Kerrygold Republic, the UK, or even Northern Ireland, would it not Ryan old chap?
No it wouldn’t.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Well Charles, I’m not sure what relevance the political context has to O’Mahony’s comment, which is from a personal / family perspective. As regards Ireland, I’d be the first to admit that there are many things about it that need improvement. Calling it a “Kerrygold Republic” is belittling though and a bit much in my view. You are of course entitled to your views.
Even for such a young* chap aren’t you being a little bit over sensitive?
What has happened to that fabled Irish sense of humour and willingness to engage in harmless banter may I ask?
(* Born as recently as circa 1980?)
Fair enough! Everyone has gotten very serious, maybe we all need to lighten up a bit. I blame the bloody internet
Or even not enough Pubs.
Or even not enough Pubs.
Fair enough! Everyone has gotten very serious, maybe we all need to lighten up a bit. I blame the bloody internet
Even for such a young* chap aren’t you being a little bit over sensitive?
What has happened to that fabled Irish sense of humour and willingness to engage in harmless banter may I ask?
(* Born as recently as circa 1980?)
No it wouldn’t.
Well Charles, I’m not sure what relevance the political context has to O’Mahony’s comment, which is from a personal / family perspective. As regards Ireland, I’d be the first to admit that there are many things about it that need improvement. Calling it a “Kerrygold Republic” is belittling though and a bit much in my view. You are of course entitled to your views.
Mahoney has referred to the early 70’s probably 1972 in fact.
During that time the UK was involved in a nasty little war with a bunch of ‘Council House Killers’ sometimes known as the IRA.
Thus it would be interesting to know if Mahoney was living in the Kerrygold Republic, the UK, or even Northern Ireland, would it not Ryan old chap?
What has that got to do with it. And give the “Kerrygold republic” stuff a rest would you?
Were you living in the UK or the Kerrygold Republic may I ask?
Reading this piece I naturally contrast it with my own experience in the 1970s before MH was born…
At 22 I had a poorly paid job but I married and moving into my own, fully furnished 3b semi detached home (cost £3,400; salary £1,100)!
I drove a car and we went on a Continental holiday annually.
Two years later I had two kids, my wife stopped working.. and yet we still went to France or Greece each year, kids and all. And no, my (sole) income hadn’t increase much.
Apart from my mortgage I had zero debts. We wanted for nothing on one, very modest salary.
And look at what we’ve ‘progressed’ to!
So when women gained control over their own reproduction, they chose to limit the number of children they had, rather than live a life of abstinence or (a la the Democratic Republic of Congo) of serial pregnancies. How completely unexpected, and how shocking!
Contraception has led to a massive increase in abortions post “sexual revolution”, so “a life of serial pregnancies” is obviously still a “choice” for so many women.
The article says that women are having fewer children than they actually desire. That is not quite the same as “choosing to limit” the number of children simply because they have “gained control over their own reproduction”.
Have you noticed that elite women tend to have large families? Yet contraception and all the other fruits of the “sexual revolution” are available to them, too.
What is the definition of an “elite woman”.
What is the definition of an “elite woman”.
Did we read the same article? Because the one I read wasn’t disparaging women for not having a dozen children, but was noting that women don’t seem to be having them at all.
Yes–take the words “Gen X” and “couples” and “people” out of this article and replace them with “women,” and you see what’s really going on. Because of pregnancy and breastfeeding, women are chained to their offspring in a way men aren’t. Men don’t have to choose between children and other things (career, hobbies, travel, intellectual pursuits)–they can have both. Now women can do the same, and guess what? Women like other things, too.
Nothing stops you, as a mother, from having hobbies, travelling and having intellectual pursuits. Men don’t necessarily have those things, mind you, because they are chained to work having to provide for their family; most aren’t out pursuing hobbies after work either. You look at men and imagine that they are living their best lives while working without actually looking at the bigger picture.
Nothing stops you, as a mother, from having hobbies, travelling and having intellectual pursuits. Men don’t necessarily have those things, mind you, because they are chained to work having to provide for their family; most aren’t out pursuing hobbies after work either. You look at men and imagine that they are living their best lives while working without actually looking at the bigger picture.
Contraception has led to a massive increase in abortions post “sexual revolution”, so “a life of serial pregnancies” is obviously still a “choice” for so many women.
The article says that women are having fewer children than they actually desire. That is not quite the same as “choosing to limit” the number of children simply because they have “gained control over their own reproduction”.
Have you noticed that elite women tend to have large families? Yet contraception and all the other fruits of the “sexual revolution” are available to them, too.
Did we read the same article? Because the one I read wasn’t disparaging women for not having a dozen children, but was noting that women don’t seem to be having them at all.
Yes–take the words “Gen X” and “couples” and “people” out of this article and replace them with “women,” and you see what’s really going on. Because of pregnancy and breastfeeding, women are chained to their offspring in a way men aren’t. Men don’t have to choose between children and other things (career, hobbies, travel, intellectual pursuits)–they can have both. Now women can do the same, and guess what? Women like other things, too.
So when women gained control over their own reproduction, they chose to limit the number of children they had, rather than live a life of abstinence or (a la the Democratic Republic of Congo) of serial pregnancies. How completely unexpected, and how shocking!
We write and read articles like this to try to understand where we are now, and where we are going. The widespread availability of non-barrier contraception is undoubtedly the single biggest influence for the reasons explained above the line.
Culture is given less emphasis but there are huge variations in birth rates between different peoples with the same access to contraception that can only be explained by culture. When the demographic collapse bites, the collapse will be overwhelmingly focused in those cultures and peoples that embraced individualism, and so first and foremost the collapse will be concentrated in the West. This will have a major impact on global politics.
Today it is Western governments and NGOs that place birth control and female rights high on the international agenda. Through Western funded programmes, reproductive control is spread across the globe. This stems from a very Western cultural obsession. But Western cultural ascendency is heading the same way as its demographics. And that’s before considering demographic replacement in the West by peoples precisely from those cultures most resistant to individualism. What will the West’s values be 2 generations from now when Sunny Islam is the largest religion in many Western nations?
Of course, there are outliers like Iran that are not Western but have embraced women’s reproductive rights. But would the embrace be so strong without the cultural pull of the West’s individualistic consumer society? I doubt it. The West is both the Great Satan and definition of modernity in the eyes of many Iranians.
Another consideration is how industrial society will sustain itself with a collapsing population. How do the economics of manufacturing work with a rapidly shrinking consumption? Many industries, already highly concentrated, simply can’t remain economic in their current scale in a world of fewer people. Complex supply chain links built over decades can fail by the failure of just one link. Needless to say, the global manufacturing and distribution of contraception would be difficult to sustain in such a world.
So the future projections of continuous population decline are probably far off the mark. Cultural practices that encourage no children will surely become as extinct as the genes of those same people. And those cultures that more vigorously promote families, or simply don’t concern themselves with female reproductive rights, will climb into the ascendency simply by having children.
In the grand scheme of things then, the narcissistic tendency and our modern industrial civilisation might be just a blip. And when the latter falls, the former resolves itself.
Yes, cultural suicide.
Let it collapse! Bring it on. This culture deserves to die, like most cultures do.
Let it collapse! Bring it on. This culture deserves to die, like most cultures do.
The economics of manufacturing are fine with less consumption. It will just scale back as easily as it built up. Labour and resources are freed up for the new desire people have.
Supply chains are already disrupted constantly by ground moving underneath them with the value of money changing due to money printing.
Sheer numbers doesn’t give you control of politics as we aren’t a direct democracy the system is layered with . I imagine just like now where internationalist and multicultural policies rule against the will of the public, it will still rule when Islam becomes the majority, until there’s a revolution.
Yes, cultural suicide.
The economics of manufacturing are fine with less consumption. It will just scale back as easily as it built up. Labour and resources are freed up for the new desire people have.
Supply chains are already disrupted constantly by ground moving underneath them with the value of money changing due to money printing.
Sheer numbers doesn’t give you control of politics as we aren’t a direct democracy the system is layered with . I imagine just like now where internationalist and multicultural policies rule against the will of the public, it will still rule when Islam becomes the majority, until there’s a revolution.
We write and read articles like this to try to understand where we are now, and where we are going. The widespread availability of non-barrier contraception is undoubtedly the single biggest influence for the reasons explained above the line.
Culture is given less emphasis but there are huge variations in birth rates between different peoples with the same access to contraception that can only be explained by culture. When the demographic collapse bites, the collapse will be overwhelmingly focused in those cultures and peoples that embraced individualism, and so first and foremost the collapse will be concentrated in the West. This will have a major impact on global politics.
Today it is Western governments and NGOs that place birth control and female rights high on the international agenda. Through Western funded programmes, reproductive control is spread across the globe. This stems from a very Western cultural obsession. But Western cultural ascendency is heading the same way as its demographics. And that’s before considering demographic replacement in the West by peoples precisely from those cultures most resistant to individualism. What will the West’s values be 2 generations from now when Sunny Islam is the largest religion in many Western nations?
Of course, there are outliers like Iran that are not Western but have embraced women’s reproductive rights. But would the embrace be so strong without the cultural pull of the West’s individualistic consumer society? I doubt it. The West is both the Great Satan and definition of modernity in the eyes of many Iranians.
Another consideration is how industrial society will sustain itself with a collapsing population. How do the economics of manufacturing work with a rapidly shrinking consumption? Many industries, already highly concentrated, simply can’t remain economic in their current scale in a world of fewer people. Complex supply chain links built over decades can fail by the failure of just one link. Needless to say, the global manufacturing and distribution of contraception would be difficult to sustain in such a world.
So the future projections of continuous population decline are probably far off the mark. Cultural practices that encourage no children will surely become as extinct as the genes of those same people. And those cultures that more vigorously promote families, or simply don’t concern themselves with female reproductive rights, will climb into the ascendency simply by having children.
In the grand scheme of things then, the narcissistic tendency and our modern industrial civilisation might be just a blip. And when the latter falls, the former resolves itself.
Somehow, the Boomer generation is viewed today as privileged and better off. In reality, we struggled financially but never viewed that as impediment to having and raising a family. Our parents did the same, even worse during the Great Depression. Young folks today feel entitled to lives of leisure and self fulfillment. Mary’s article is superb, albeit loaded with “what’s in it for me?” That thought never crossed our mind. We were “privileged” in that our parents would have dope-slapped us into reality (yes, that was when parents could lay hands on a spoiled child). Our true failure was raising a generation awarded with participation trophies.
Somehow, the Boomer generation is viewed today as privileged and better off. In reality, we struggled financially but never viewed that as impediment to having and raising a family. Our parents did the same, even worse during the Great Depression. Young folks today feel entitled to lives of leisure and self fulfillment. Mary’s article is superb, albeit loaded with “what’s in it for me?” That thought never crossed our mind. We were “privileged” in that our parents would have dope-slapped us into reality (yes, that was when parents could lay hands on a spoiled child). Our true failure was raising a generation awarded with participation trophies.
Well, it’s late stage capitalism, of course. Trained from infancy to choose, from an ever-expanding smorgasbord, we don’t want to commit to just one permanent relationship: what if someone better comes along? ( Also, could it be that we suspect that, because we’re not perfect, as we obviously should be, just look around at the images, we aren’t sure that we will be able to ‘keep’ a partner?).
Then look at employment – your employer wants you on contract, you are always looking for a better position … does loyalty, permanence play much part in anyone’s working life anymore? Where do we put our retirement investments? Should we change our energy supplier? What should I be streaming? Constant choices for individuals to make. The idea of merging your life, your future, with another person, I mean, how do you even do that? It’s a weird idea.
Very well described. The problem is, the concept of marriage evolved when people’s lives were shorter, resources much more scarce (especially for women) and divorce often meant ruin. It’s the concept that’s outlived it’s usefulness, hence the burgeoning of non-marrieds starting a family, in many cases just as successfully as marrieds – perhaps more so, at least in terms of the happiness of all concerned.
Mating rituals revolve around two key traits – the expression of genes through choosing an attractive partner, which often has unconscious aspects such as ‘smell’ which may confer protection of offspring against disease; and the potential of a mate for being faithful long enough to help raise the children to the point they’re able to fend for themselves. Making a “binding commitment” – often at great expense in terms of wedding ceremonies – which isn’t actually binding at all, needs to evolve with the social and cultural pressures now being exerted. I suppose it is evolving with “civil partnerships” but it’s that old initial phase of “being in love” (i’ve been there), a biochemical bonding process that often causes the problems when the initial flush wears off with everyday concerns, leading to disillusionment. We’re all simply human, and those who wring their hands and moralise have a view of humanity that’s far too simplistic.
It is simply not the case that the families of “non-marrieds” are happier than those of married couples who did no cohabitate before marriage. Quite the opposite.
Facts don’t matter when you are ideologically predisposed to trashing society.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-getting-married-really-make-you-happier#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20married%20people%20are%20happier,and%2015%25%20for%20people%20who
Facts don’t matter when you are ideologically predisposed to trashing society.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-getting-married-really-make-you-happier#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20married%20people%20are%20happier,and%2015%25%20for%20people%20who
Happiness is over-rated. When the individual dies, happiness is over and leaves no legacy.
Happy people tend to leave a happy legacy (the ripple effect) unhappy people an unhappy legacy. It’s not just children we leave behind.
Happy people tend to leave a happy legacy (the ripple effect) unhappy people an unhappy legacy. It’s not just children we leave behind.
Nailed it there.
It is simply not the case that the families of “non-marrieds” are happier than those of married couples who did no cohabitate before marriage. Quite the opposite.
Happiness is over-rated. When the individual dies, happiness is over and leaves no legacy.
Nailed it there.
Very well described. The problem is, the concept of marriage evolved when people’s lives were shorter, resources much more scarce (especially for women) and divorce often meant ruin. It’s the concept that’s outlived it’s usefulness, hence the burgeoning of non-marrieds starting a family, in many cases just as successfully as marrieds – perhaps more so, at least in terms of the happiness of all concerned.
Mating rituals revolve around two key traits – the expression of genes through choosing an attractive partner, which often has unconscious aspects such as ‘smell’ which may confer protection of offspring against disease; and the potential of a mate for being faithful long enough to help raise the children to the point they’re able to fend for themselves. Making a “binding commitment” – often at great expense in terms of wedding ceremonies – which isn’t actually binding at all, needs to evolve with the social and cultural pressures now being exerted. I suppose it is evolving with “civil partnerships” but it’s that old initial phase of “being in love” (i’ve been there), a biochemical bonding process that often causes the problems when the initial flush wears off with everyday concerns, leading to disillusionment. We’re all simply human, and those who wring their hands and moralise have a view of humanity that’s far too simplistic.
Well, it’s late stage capitalism, of course. Trained from infancy to choose, from an ever-expanding smorgasbord, we don’t want to commit to just one permanent relationship: what if someone better comes along? ( Also, could it be that we suspect that, because we’re not perfect, as we obviously should be, just look around at the images, we aren’t sure that we will be able to ‘keep’ a partner?).
Then look at employment – your employer wants you on contract, you are always looking for a better position … does loyalty, permanence play much part in anyone’s working life anymore? Where do we put our retirement investments? Should we change our energy supplier? What should I be streaming? Constant choices for individuals to make. The idea of merging your life, your future, with another person, I mean, how do you even do that? It’s a weird idea.
“… compared to my recollections of travelling on the Tube with a baby in a pushchair a few years back. No contest: Saffy [a dog] got more love.”
Even if “a few years ago” was not during an outbreak of serious respiratory infections, I would suggest that most people view a stranger’s getting in the face of their baby differently from a stranger’s petting their dog.
Exactly.
Exactly.
“… compared to my recollections of travelling on the Tube with a baby in a pushchair a few years back. No contest: Saffy [a dog] got more love.”
Even if “a few years ago” was not during an outbreak of serious respiratory infections, I would suggest that most people view a stranger’s getting in the face of their baby differently from a stranger’s petting their dog.
“your genitals exist to let you feel pleasure with yourself or others “. No. Your genitals evolved to feel this pleasure so that we would be encouraged to have sex and, thus, procreate. Now we have the fun without the creation and so it all just becomes a bit meaningless which is why so many people feel there must be more to it than just the sex. There is but it is not the weird stuff that, supposedly, so many get up to with choking, oranges, etc
You’re speaking of men with the oranges and the choking. I’m sorry to hear the pleasure without the procreation has become meaningless for you.
You’re speaking of men with the oranges and the choking. I’m sorry to hear the pleasure without the procreation has become meaningless for you.
“your genitals exist to let you feel pleasure with yourself or others “. No. Your genitals evolved to feel this pleasure so that we would be encouraged to have sex and, thus, procreate. Now we have the fun without the creation and so it all just becomes a bit meaningless which is why so many people feel there must be more to it than just the sex. There is but it is not the weird stuff that, supposedly, so many get up to with choking, oranges, etc
In England we seem to have gone beyond Peak Dog into a state where they are everywhere. I adore a good dog on an individual basis but going for a walk in anywhere vaguely countryside seems to entail a swarm of pooches erupting from somewhere at some time.
Also, I’m concerned about the effect on wildlife, particularly rabbits and other small mammals, which will be ceding space once theirs as the invasion of mutts takes hold.
We recently walked in the grounds of a private, but open to the public, estate. The brave owners had placed a clear sign at the entrance, ‘No dogs beyond this point’. We were enthralled by the evident wildlife we saw, particularly the birdsong.
Conversely, a walk through a wood near to our home, where dogs are walked in abundance and often unleashed, is a disappointing and deathly silent affair – no birdsong, no wildlife.
The predominance of dogs, and the commercial imperative to welcome them everywhere is astonishing! And so many owners, no doubt determined to ensure the propagation of the canine species, seem determined to keep 2.4 or more…..
The same could be said of children, they’re everywhere, and they make more noise.
Well, they WERE everywhere…. I’m quite sure I meet many more dogs than children on my daily walks, though admittedly it’s not the school holidays yet.
Children make more noise? Every time I go out into my garden, I am yelped at by one or the other of my nearest neighbours’ dogs. Not a child in sight in this street. No, I would much prefer a blight of pesky children.
Invest in a child and you might just shape a useful citizen who’ll make a worthwhile contribution. Invest in a pet? Sure, you’ll have a companion for a few years, but I don’t see that they’ll take a significant role in shaping the future.
When much of the debate around the future welfare of our communities is framed around the notion of ‘useless eaters’, even as populations everywhere plummet, the dramatic rise in dog ownership over against raising children, seems particularly perverse. Imo.
Well, they WERE everywhere…. I’m quite sure I meet many more dogs than children on my daily walks, though admittedly it’s not the school holidays yet.
Children make more noise? Every time I go out into my garden, I am yelped at by one or the other of my nearest neighbours’ dogs. Not a child in sight in this street. No, I would much prefer a blight of pesky children.
Invest in a child and you might just shape a useful citizen who’ll make a worthwhile contribution. Invest in a pet? Sure, you’ll have a companion for a few years, but I don’t see that they’ll take a significant role in shaping the future.
When much of the debate around the future welfare of our communities is framed around the notion of ‘useless eaters’, even as populations everywhere plummet, the dramatic rise in dog ownership over against raising children, seems particularly perverse. Imo.
The same could be said of children, they’re everywhere, and they make more noise.
We recently walked in the grounds of a private, but open to the public, estate. The brave owners had placed a clear sign at the entrance, ‘No dogs beyond this point’. We were enthralled by the evident wildlife we saw, particularly the birdsong.
Conversely, a walk through a wood near to our home, where dogs are walked in abundance and often unleashed, is a disappointing and deathly silent affair – no birdsong, no wildlife.
The predominance of dogs, and the commercial imperative to welcome them everywhere is astonishing! And so many owners, no doubt determined to ensure the propagation of the canine species, seem determined to keep 2.4 or more…..
In England we seem to have gone beyond Peak Dog into a state where they are everywhere. I adore a good dog on an individual basis but going for a walk in anywhere vaguely countryside seems to entail a swarm of pooches erupting from somewhere at some time.
Also, I’m concerned about the effect on wildlife, particularly rabbits and other small mammals, which will be ceding space once theirs as the invasion of mutts takes hold.
I prefer to consider it as child-free as opposed to child-less. Only those with children would call it childless as they convince themselves that is the only path to become fully human apparently.
What’s more, you’re doing your bit for Net Zero. Not for you, that irresponsible creation of a cascading genealogy of CO2 producers. The child-free should be issued with a Gold Card for air travel and the like as a reward for bringing at least one line of their carbon criminal family to a saintly end.
The “child-free” should be kicked out of the government’s old age pension scheme because they did not bring two new tax payers into the system.
We don’t actually need to increase the population any further. Besides, childfree people use far less resources and really ought to get some kind of rebate.
Exactly.
Exactly.
We don’t actually need to increase the population any further. Besides, childfree people use far less resources and really ought to get some kind of rebate.
Exactly.
The “child-free” should be kicked out of the government’s old age pension scheme because they did not bring two new tax payers into the system.
Exactly.
A path, not the only one.. but a really good option. Some of the other options are illusions and even dangerous or ultimately empty .. I believe that is the thrust of her case..
But for sure, celibate monks have found huge fulfilment in their lives being a case in point. By contrast, hedonism seems not to be so good, at least in the long run.
The monks were not celibate. They were b****r**g each other. You don’t know much about human nature and probably believe everything you read.
He said the celibate ones. Probably a handful in the course of history.
So they were, in truth, hedonists.
He said the celibate ones. Probably a handful in the course of history.
So they were, in truth, hedonists.
How would you know that?
Do we know for a fact that most celebate monks have found fulfillment and that most hedonists haven’t? And why is being child-free “hedonistic?”
The monks were not celibate. They were b****r**g each other. You don’t know much about human nature and probably believe everything you read.
How would you know that?
Do we know for a fact that most celebate monks have found fulfillment and that most hedonists haven’t? And why is being child-free “hedonistic?”
Mind you, I know NO woman who would describe pregnancy, birth and rearing a child as anything other than momentous, providing so many more opportunities for self-development and discovery than most other experiences available to us pampered first world folks. It is indeed unfortunate that the erosion of traditional moral codes have produced a generation of men who want the sex without the possible reproductive responsibilities, and women who seem content to deny their children the right to know where half of their DNA comes from.
Many of my female friends have admitted they regret having children but maintain a front of the wonders of parenting as you describe. Equally however many have said this was the only thing in life they ever wanted. Ultimately it should be celebrated that people have the choice without the kind of embittered judgements you are making.
Exactly. There is such a tone of righteousness and judgement coming from those with families towards those who are child-free.
Exactly. There is such a tone of righteousness and judgement coming from those with families towards those who are child-free.
That only means you know very few women – or they are not used to being frank about their feelings.
Then you don’t know that many women. And of the ones who go the procreation route and all the sacrifices that entails, I doubt not many would admit it wasn’t worth it.
Many of my female friends have admitted they regret having children but maintain a front of the wonders of parenting as you describe. Equally however many have said this was the only thing in life they ever wanted. Ultimately it should be celebrated that people have the choice without the kind of embittered judgements you are making.
That only means you know very few women – or they are not used to being frank about their feelings.
Then you don’t know that many women. And of the ones who go the procreation route and all the sacrifices that entails, I doubt not many would admit it wasn’t worth it.
Well said.
What’s more, you’re doing your bit for Net Zero. Not for you, that irresponsible creation of a cascading genealogy of CO2 producers. The child-free should be issued with a Gold Card for air travel and the like as a reward for bringing at least one line of their carbon criminal family to a saintly end.
A path, not the only one.. but a really good option. Some of the other options are illusions and even dangerous or ultimately empty .. I believe that is the thrust of her case..
But for sure, celibate monks have found huge fulfilment in their lives being a case in point. By contrast, hedonism seems not to be so good, at least in the long run.
Mind you, I know NO woman who would describe pregnancy, birth and rearing a child as anything other than momentous, providing so many more opportunities for self-development and discovery than most other experiences available to us pampered first world folks. It is indeed unfortunate that the erosion of traditional moral codes have produced a generation of men who want the sex without the possible reproductive responsibilities, and women who seem content to deny their children the right to know where half of their DNA comes from.
Well said.
I prefer to consider it as child-free as opposed to child-less. Only those with children would call it childless as they convince themselves that is the only path to become fully human apparently.
This is the result of rejecting that humans have a telos or, more precisely, locating the telos in man himself rather than in God. Producing more humans who fulfill their humanity in relationship with God has been replaced with an attempt to find fulfillment through hedonism. Sex is, in it’s nature, a human’s ultimate act of production. But divorcing it from it’s God-oriented telos has turned nature on it’s head by turning sex into an ultimate act of consumption, and anything that interferes with the efficiency and totality of that consumption (babies) must be removed.
Oh for goodness sake…
All creatures have a reproductive facility. No doubt you’ll be able to expound upon the telos of the slow worm?
Oh for goodness sake…
All creatures have a reproductive facility. No doubt you’ll be able to expound upon the telos of the slow worm?
This is the result of rejecting that humans have a telos or, more precisely, locating the telos in man himself rather than in God. Producing more humans who fulfill their humanity in relationship with God has been replaced with an attempt to find fulfillment through hedonism. Sex is, in it’s nature, a human’s ultimate act of production. But divorcing it from it’s God-oriented telos has turned nature on it’s head by turning sex into an ultimate act of consumption, and anything that interferes with the efficiency and totality of that consumption (babies) must be removed.
We live in a society that values youth above experience and age. When you have a child your youth and the freedoms that go with it make way for responsibility (or it should). You have started the process of aging and decline, and with this, irrelevance.
This is especially pronounced for women, who somehow over the last few decades have been reduced to sex objects, they exist to be stared at and lusted over. Once a woman has a child, her body is no longer solely to be geared towards the male gaze, but has a nurturing purpose. The bearing of children ages her body and renders her ‘unattractive’ and ‘undesirable’. Now the woman is no longer relevant in today’s society, she has no value* and should be neither seen nor heard. Should she pipe up, she is a Karen. The older woman is seen as vindictive and jealous of the younger childless woman. An object of ridicule and scorn.
A fur-baby allows the young adults to cosplay at being nurturing, safe in the knowledge that they need not wither the female body in actual procreation, nor engage in the more difficult aspects of child rearing which engenders a deeper sense of responsibility and necessitates rootedness.
*The exception here would be if she is a MILF or a GILF and works to try and retain or regain the appearance and lifestyle of someone who has had no children. Botox, surgery, sexualized dressing and make up.
I’m fascinated by this contemporary description of “irrelevant” middle-aged women as if being youthful, attractive and desirable is the only measure of success. It’s not.
Mothers are the backbone of the family unit, nurturing children and a husband/partner alike. There’s nothing more “relevant” than a mother who commands her family unit no matter how youthful her physical appearance, job or career outside the home.
And, yes, real men find her attractive as a prospective mother of their children. Their primal instincts view sex as procreation, not recreation.
If you don’t recognize this and acknowledge these values then you should look in the mirror and consider if you, in fact, are part of the problem.
What problem? What is a “real” man?
What problem? What is a “real” man?
I’m fascinated by this contemporary description of “irrelevant” middle-aged women as if being youthful, attractive and desirable is the only measure of success. It’s not.
Mothers are the backbone of the family unit, nurturing children and a husband/partner alike. There’s nothing more “relevant” than a mother who commands her family unit no matter how youthful her physical appearance, job or career outside the home.
And, yes, real men find her attractive as a prospective mother of their children. Their primal instincts view sex as procreation, not recreation.
If you don’t recognize this and acknowledge these values then you should look in the mirror and consider if you, in fact, are part of the problem.
We live in a society that values youth above experience and age. When you have a child your youth and the freedoms that go with it make way for responsibility (or it should). You have started the process of aging and decline, and with this, irrelevance.
This is especially pronounced for women, who somehow over the last few decades have been reduced to sex objects, they exist to be stared at and lusted over. Once a woman has a child, her body is no longer solely to be geared towards the male gaze, but has a nurturing purpose. The bearing of children ages her body and renders her ‘unattractive’ and ‘undesirable’. Now the woman is no longer relevant in today’s society, she has no value* and should be neither seen nor heard. Should she pipe up, she is a Karen. The older woman is seen as vindictive and jealous of the younger childless woman. An object of ridicule and scorn.
A fur-baby allows the young adults to cosplay at being nurturing, safe in the knowledge that they need not wither the female body in actual procreation, nor engage in the more difficult aspects of child rearing which engenders a deeper sense of responsibility and necessitates rootedness.
*The exception here would be if she is a MILF or a GILF and works to try and retain or regain the appearance and lifestyle of someone who has had no children. Botox, surgery, sexualized dressing and make up.
Mary covers some very interesting ground.
There are contributors to Unherd who go on and on about feminism but in an anti-patriarchial way.
The reality is many young women simply make choices because of financial empowerment, they have options their grandmothers did not.
My youngest daughter is in a happy stable relationship with a loving man and their priority is to focus on each other and have a stimulating and interesting life without the ties of parenthood and despite the social pressure. They have a wonderful rescue dog who they adore and I am sure that channels certain inherent parental instincts they have.
But this goes further I have had a family and I live alone and have an amazing life. I am increasingly told by the properties I stay at and holiday in that more and more successful businesswomen who are independently wealthy are choosing to live alone. Again it’s the financial dynamic.
Women never had these options, but now they do,
Many women do not have the confidence to go out to dinner, to the theatre, climb a mountain or scuba dive alone (with a professional buddy) they should try it.
Many young Chinese women who live in Singapore are opting to live alone. They are ambitious, fun-loving and do not want to tie themselves down to some dour husband who expects them to look after them.
Indeed when you look around the city-states there are huge numbers of single women getting on with life on their own and the post-industrial world suits them.
it is not rocket science, the financial dynamic changes everything and the fact they can and are prepared to live anywhere in the world that suits them adds extra layers of possibility.
Great comment, and my experience of women in later life (i’m in my 60s) supports what you write 100%
My partner and i have our own spaces, meet and attend cultural events (including stayovers) when we choose, and it’s an ideal situation.
We’ve both worked very hard to be in this place; we’re both grandparents. In short, financial independence for women is a height of civilised existence and must be protected with every breath we breathe.
“In short, financial independence for women is a height of civilised existence…”
Something Roman women had from at least the first century BC, but was NOT possible until 1870 in the UK.
“In short, financial independence for women is a height of civilised existence…”
Something Roman women had from at least the first century BC, but was NOT possible until 1870 in the UK.
(bit too off-topic and needlessly self-referential, even for me)
Off topic or a bit threatening?
I went on a bit of a freestyle rant, one that I was even less proud of than usual. Didn’t mean to be threatening.
That’s ok AJ nothing to apologise for. But thanks.
That’s ok AJ nothing to apologise for. But thanks.
I went on a bit of a freestyle rant, one that I was even less proud of than usual. Didn’t mean to be threatening.
Off topic or a bit threatening?
Great comment, and my experience of women in later life (i’m in my 60s) supports what you write 100%
My partner and i have our own spaces, meet and attend cultural events (including stayovers) when we choose, and it’s an ideal situation.
We’ve both worked very hard to be in this place; we’re both grandparents. In short, financial independence for women is a height of civilised existence and must be protected with every breath we breathe.
(bit too off-topic and needlessly self-referential, even for me)
Mary covers some very interesting ground.
There are contributors to Unherd who go on and on about feminism but in an anti-patriarchial way.
The reality is many young women simply make choices because of financial empowerment, they have options their grandmothers did not.
My youngest daughter is in a happy stable relationship with a loving man and their priority is to focus on each other and have a stimulating and interesting life without the ties of parenthood and despite the social pressure. They have a wonderful rescue dog who they adore and I am sure that channels certain inherent parental instincts they have.
But this goes further I have had a family and I live alone and have an amazing life. I am increasingly told by the properties I stay at and holiday in that more and more successful businesswomen who are independently wealthy are choosing to live alone. Again it’s the financial dynamic.
Women never had these options, but now they do,
Many women do not have the confidence to go out to dinner, to the theatre, climb a mountain or scuba dive alone (with a professional buddy) they should try it.
Many young Chinese women who live in Singapore are opting to live alone. They are ambitious, fun-loving and do not want to tie themselves down to some dour husband who expects them to look after them.
Indeed when you look around the city-states there are huge numbers of single women getting on with life on their own and the post-industrial world suits them.
it is not rocket science, the financial dynamic changes everything and the fact they can and are prepared to live anywhere in the world that suits them adds extra layers of possibility.
Men are happy to delay because their reproductive prospects are often enhanced by age. Women’s prospects are invariably diminished by delay and then extinguished altogether. The new system (unlike the old) favours men to a mind bending extent.
Men are happy to delay because their reproductive prospects are often enhanced by age. Women’s prospects are invariably diminished by delay and then extinguished altogether. The new system (unlike the old) favours men to a mind bending extent.
Anybody who calls a dog a “fur baby” should not be owning a dog.
Very judgemental.
But Clare, isn’t it equally very judgmental to label another’s comment as very judgmental?
Besides, is not the purpose of a comment forum to offer all of us a chance to express judgments, opinions, perspectives, endorsements and disagreements? To object to that is kinda like going to a Comedy Club and complaining that ‘everyone here thinks everything is so funny!’…isn’t it?
I’m equally free to say how I feel about comments.
Sure you are; we all are. Seems kind of a waste of time, though, to spend the effort to tell us judgmentally that a comment was judgmental, doesn’t it?
Not to be judgmental, of course!
I don’t find it a waste of time to say that I find a comment telling someone that they “shouldn’t” own a dog, judgemental.
Your call entirely. Seems as much a waste of time as me reminding you that telling other’s they’re being judgmental is being judgmental. Of course I’m being judgmental when I say that. I could be wrong!
Your call entirely. Seems as much a waste of time as me reminding you that telling other’s they’re being judgmental is being judgmental. Of course I’m being judgmental when I say that. I could be wrong!
I don’t find it a waste of time to say that I find a comment telling someone that they “shouldn’t” own a dog, judgemental.
Sure you are; we all are. Seems kind of a waste of time, though, to spend the effort to tell us judgmentally that a comment was judgmental, doesn’t it?
Not to be judgmental, of course!
I’m equally free to say how I feel about comments.
It’s impossible to be a sentient human being without being judgemental. Even being “non-judgemental” is itself a judgement.
But Clare, isn’t it equally very judgmental to label another’s comment as very judgmental?
Besides, is not the purpose of a comment forum to offer all of us a chance to express judgments, opinions, perspectives, endorsements and disagreements? To object to that is kinda like going to a Comedy Club and complaining that ‘everyone here thinks everything is so funny!’…isn’t it?
It’s impossible to be a sentient human being without being judgemental. Even being “non-judgemental” is itself a judgement.
Very judgemental.
Anybody who calls a dog a “fur baby” should not be owning a dog.
In my mother’s generation you got married after school and that was it. If you weren’t married by 21 there was something “wrong with you”. Everyone had kids and most had a dog or cats as well. People today have all manner of choice, a literal infinite number of choices. (PS cooing at a baby on the tube is not one of those choices lest you be pinged as a weirdo. Dog OK, baby not.)
There’s some evidence that too much choice isn’t good for people, in the same way that no choice is. A certain amount of choice seems to be best for most people. (A good example is that when British TV only had 4 or 5 channels, many people seem to believe the quality of the programmes was better compared to today when there are hundreds or thousands of channels available).
There’s some evidence that too much choice isn’t good for people, in the same way that no choice is. A certain amount of choice seems to be best for most people. (A good example is that when British TV only had 4 or 5 channels, many people seem to believe the quality of the programmes was better compared to today when there are hundreds or thousands of channels available).
In my mother’s generation you got married after school and that was it. If you weren’t married by 21 there was something “wrong with you”. Everyone had kids and most had a dog or cats as well. People today have all manner of choice, a literal infinite number of choices. (PS cooing at a baby on the tube is not one of those choices lest you be pinged as a weirdo. Dog OK, baby not.)
Growing up is hard, but remaining a child is harder in the end.
And you would know?
Yes, and from hard experience I’m afraid.
Yes, and from hard experience I’m afraid.
And you would know?
Growing up is hard, but remaining a child is harder in the end.
One thing is forgotten here. While contraception delivered women from unwanted pregnancies, dating from just the same period we find a new view of motherhood and parenting that – on the face of its – seems very positive. Prior to that, parenthood was just something that was expected to happen to most people and so that had, in some way, just to be taken in stride as a natural fate. In the upper and even middle middle classes, after the birth the actual hard work of motherhood was often wholly or partly delegated to servants – and then boarding schools; poor women, especially when they had many children, just had to cope as they could, often with some paid work as well as the then much more taxing household work, though relatives would help – not much “quality time” with every child!
But then – bang – in came not only much more efficient contraception but “child-centred parenting” (especially in the US and the UK), feeding on demand, Spock, followed by a mass of other published and other media advisors urging mothers, particularly, to make children the entire focus of their lives – frankly that was only possible with small number of children, and was often illustrated only in the case of one. The popularisation of psychoanalysis post-war, later Bowlby and attachment theory, and a wave of psychologists popularising the notion that any mistakes you might make at mothering (and these were mostly sins of inattention or ‘selfishness’) were likely to screw your child up for life. Then, with consumer society, there was am explosion of toys, learning aids, services for children – and not unnaturally people started to spend a much greater proportion of their income on such amusements and child status symbols.
So it hasn’t been just a matter of women (and men?) seeing parenthood as less important, and something that can be avoided – it was also that parenthood (even by its enthusiastic promoters) was presented as an ever greater emotional and financial challenge if it were to be done properly.
One thing is forgotten here. While contraception delivered women from unwanted pregnancies, dating from just the same period we find a new view of motherhood and parenting that – on the face of its – seems very positive. Prior to that, parenthood was just something that was expected to happen to most people and so that had, in some way, just to be taken in stride as a natural fate. In the upper and even middle middle classes, after the birth the actual hard work of motherhood was often wholly or partly delegated to servants – and then boarding schools; poor women, especially when they had many children, just had to cope as they could, often with some paid work as well as the then much more taxing household work, though relatives would help – not much “quality time” with every child!
But then – bang – in came not only much more efficient contraception but “child-centred parenting” (especially in the US and the UK), feeding on demand, Spock, followed by a mass of other published and other media advisors urging mothers, particularly, to make children the entire focus of their lives – frankly that was only possible with small number of children, and was often illustrated only in the case of one. The popularisation of psychoanalysis post-war, later Bowlby and attachment theory, and a wave of psychologists popularising the notion that any mistakes you might make at mothering (and these were mostly sins of inattention or ‘selfishness’) were likely to screw your child up for life. Then, with consumer society, there was am explosion of toys, learning aids, services for children – and not unnaturally people started to spend a much greater proportion of their income on such amusements and child status symbols.
So it hasn’t been just a matter of women (and men?) seeing parenthood as less important, and something that can be avoided – it was also that parenthood (even by its enthusiastic promoters) was presented as an ever greater emotional and financial challenge if it were to be done properly.
Ultimately the problem will correct itself by straightforward natural selection. The ethnic makeup of the West (and not just the West) will change dramatically but there will still be people.
I agree. I’m just astonished by the narcissism of many of the comments under this article, by people who think their personal happiness is somehow going to be important in the scheme of human existence. I’m not saying personal happiness isn’t important, but it’s not that important in terms of humanity. But of course there are some people who honestly believe it would be better for the human race to be extinct if that was the only way to eliminate all human unhappiness.
I agree. I’m just astonished by the narcissism of many of the comments under this article, by people who think their personal happiness is somehow going to be important in the scheme of human existence. I’m not saying personal happiness isn’t important, but it’s not that important in terms of humanity. But of course there are some people who honestly believe it would be better for the human race to be extinct if that was the only way to eliminate all human unhappiness.
Ultimately the problem will correct itself by straightforward natural selection. The ethnic makeup of the West (and not just the West) will change dramatically but there will still be people.
One of my own Gen Z offspring has elected to not have children. He and his wife are concerned about bringing a child into a world that is dying by climate change and income disparities. They are vegan and use public transportation to reduce their carbon footprint. They are responsible, caring, and open hearted. My other son is blind and despite all the calls for inclusion, disability such as his is shunned as much as ever. Women still seem to want a man who is successful and masculine, even though my son is a great person and would be a wonderful companion. My oldest son and his wife were in their late 30’s when my two grandchildren were born. They too thought long and hard about the state of the world before they conceived. There is a good portion of thoughtful Gen Zers who care about the world and not all are hedonistic and selfish.
The world is not dying due to climate change. They are part of a dealth cult, although I am glad they are not having children. Forcing veganism on children is child abuse.
I am sorry to hear about your blind son’s difficulties. I work with a married blind man, so it certainly is possible for women to want a man with such a disability. Is he employed? This seems to be the driving factor. The man I work with is a programmer and makes a high salary. His wife stays home with the kids.
Thank you. He is employed but it takes a special person to take on a blind companion.
Very true. Just like it takes a special person to care for any of 1.6B people who are estimated to be disabled. Luckily for us…luckily for the world…there are a lot of very special people out there. My best to you and your son!
Very true. Just like it takes a special person to care for any of 1.6B people who are estimated to be disabled. Luckily for us…luckily for the world…there are a lot of very special people out there. My best to you and your son!
Thank you. He is employed but it takes a special person to take on a blind companion.
I would quibble with responsible. They assume someone else will look after and pay for them if, heaven forfend, something bad happens to one of them or (even worse) make it into old age.
Exactly.
Ah….the aged plaint: ‘How can we bring children into a world so harsh & cruel and heartless…so dark and dying?” I suspect there’s never been a teenager who’s not expressed similar existential angst. James Dean, in ‘Rebel Without a Cause’: “I don’t know what to do anymore. Except maybe die.”
Most of us grow out of it.
The world is not dying. Not in any real sense…not in any timebound sense that has any meaning for us mortal human beings. Tomorrow is another day (and it will be pretty much like today)…and who knows what the tide will bring! Hope, they say, springs eternal. And yes, the sun will indeed run out of fuel in about 5B years. So yes, at that point, it all will be over (unless, by then, we can build and power our own sun). But in the meantime, in-between time, ain’t we got fun? (And 5B years is a heck of a lot of great-great grandchildren!)
I’m sure your son & daughter-in-law are indeed, responsible, caring, and open-hearted people. But what a shame that such good people are not willing to share all that with their own children, flesh of their flesh, blood of their blood. What a shame that a hope-filled endorsement of faith in the power of love, and life seems to be beyond them. Maybe things will change.
I doubt that your rather heartless opinion was in any way helpful to Tami.
You may be right that it wasn’t particularly helpful…but it was far from heartless. In any case, the objective here is not necessarily to help people feel better by reinforcing delusional thinking….it is to push towards a better understanding of Truth. And the truth is that the whine, ‘the world is so darned cold and cruel’ is stereotypically adolescent, indicating the shock typically experienced in our teenaged years when we realize, as they say, that life is hard.
Equally true, the world is not dying (not at least for another 5B years).
So if you have young adults making extraordinarily short-sighted decisions using bad information, it should be tremendously helpful to hear exactly that. Whether it actually was helpful… that’s entirely up to her.
You may be right that it wasn’t particularly helpful…but it was far from heartless. In any case, the objective here is not necessarily to help people feel better by reinforcing delusional thinking….it is to push towards a better understanding of Truth. And the truth is that the whine, ‘the world is so darned cold and cruel’ is stereotypically adolescent, indicating the shock typically experienced in our teenaged years when we realize, as they say, that life is hard.
Equally true, the world is not dying (not at least for another 5B years).
So if you have young adults making extraordinarily short-sighted decisions using bad information, it should be tremendously helpful to hear exactly that. Whether it actually was helpful… that’s entirely up to her.
I doubt that your rather heartless opinion was in any way helpful to Tami.
The world is not dying due to climate change. They are part of a dealth cult, although I am glad they are not having children. Forcing veganism on children is child abuse.
I am sorry to hear about your blind son’s difficulties. I work with a married blind man, so it certainly is possible for women to want a man with such a disability. Is he employed? This seems to be the driving factor. The man I work with is a programmer and makes a high salary. His wife stays home with the kids.
I would quibble with responsible. They assume someone else will look after and pay for them if, heaven forfend, something bad happens to one of them or (even worse) make it into old age.
Exactly.
Ah….the aged plaint: ‘How can we bring children into a world so harsh & cruel and heartless…so dark and dying?” I suspect there’s never been a teenager who’s not expressed similar existential angst. James Dean, in ‘Rebel Without a Cause’: “I don’t know what to do anymore. Except maybe die.”
Most of us grow out of it.
The world is not dying. Not in any real sense…not in any timebound sense that has any meaning for us mortal human beings. Tomorrow is another day (and it will be pretty much like today)…and who knows what the tide will bring! Hope, they say, springs eternal. And yes, the sun will indeed run out of fuel in about 5B years. So yes, at that point, it all will be over (unless, by then, we can build and power our own sun). But in the meantime, in-between time, ain’t we got fun? (And 5B years is a heck of a lot of great-great grandchildren!)
I’m sure your son & daughter-in-law are indeed, responsible, caring, and open-hearted people. But what a shame that such good people are not willing to share all that with their own children, flesh of their flesh, blood of their blood. What a shame that a hope-filled endorsement of faith in the power of love, and life seems to be beyond them. Maybe things will change.
One of my own Gen Z offspring has elected to not have children. He and his wife are concerned about bringing a child into a world that is dying by climate change and income disparities. They are vegan and use public transportation to reduce their carbon footprint. They are responsible, caring, and open hearted. My other son is blind and despite all the calls for inclusion, disability such as his is shunned as much as ever. Women still seem to want a man who is successful and masculine, even though my son is a great person and would be a wonderful companion. My oldest son and his wife were in their late 30’s when my two grandchildren were born. They too thought long and hard about the state of the world before they conceived. There is a good portion of thoughtful Gen Zers who care about the world and not all are hedonistic and selfish.
The Author states early in the article that ‘..classic milestones of adult life — such as getting your own place — seem increasingly out of reach to many, … stated desire for family size has remained consistent …many young couples for whom money is indeed the sticking point’.
However she then goes on to devote 14 paragraphs on how increased sexual freedom is the primary driver in lower birth rates with the added contention that parenthood is less valued.
One surmises that a Nat C can’t really focus too much on the ‘economics’ or how we have made it so much more difficult for potential parents to find a home and survive on less than two f/t incomes. Nice and comfortable deflection therefore.
Not entirely sure what alternative policies the Author thus suggests. Some form of Gilead perhaps?.
Of note – the birth rate in Japan is even lower so would the Author apply her explanations to that culture and different society too?
There is an important debate here but not sure this adds much practical levity.
MH’s articles remind me of the hundreds of sermons I listened to as a child – apparently about a current hot topic, an interesting general take on contemporary life, the talk would invariably reveal itself to be mere and more evidence in clumsy support of The Word. In MH’s takes, traditional Catholic doctrine and it’s discontents – the sexual revolution, abortion, declining birth rate (like the current government, increasing the population/immigration is the easy, preferred route to power, economic expansion) divorce and the crumbling traditional family structure. With repeated shoehorning, a few pinches of salt and squinting from a certain angle, one could see the ‘logic’.
Exactly, and same about the family-value-upholder Russia. Clearly there are other factors at play and economy is a big one.
MH’s articles remind me of the hundreds of sermons I listened to as a child – apparently about a current hot topic, an interesting general take on contemporary life, the talk would invariably reveal itself to be mere and more evidence in clumsy support of The Word. In MH’s takes, traditional Catholic doctrine and it’s discontents – the sexual revolution, abortion, declining birth rate (like the current government, increasing the population/immigration is the easy, preferred route to power, economic expansion) divorce and the crumbling traditional family structure. With repeated shoehorning, a few pinches of salt and squinting from a certain angle, one could see the ‘logic’.
Exactly, and same about the family-value-upholder Russia. Clearly there are other factors at play and economy is a big one.
The Author states early in the article that ‘..classic milestones of adult life — such as getting your own place — seem increasingly out of reach to many, … stated desire for family size has remained consistent …many young couples for whom money is indeed the sticking point’.
However she then goes on to devote 14 paragraphs on how increased sexual freedom is the primary driver in lower birth rates with the added contention that parenthood is less valued.
One surmises that a Nat C can’t really focus too much on the ‘economics’ or how we have made it so much more difficult for potential parents to find a home and survive on less than two f/t incomes. Nice and comfortable deflection therefore.
Not entirely sure what alternative policies the Author thus suggests. Some form of Gilead perhaps?.
Of note – the birth rate in Japan is even lower so would the Author apply her explanations to that culture and different society too?
There is an important debate here but not sure this adds much practical levity.
This article presents a pretty vague diagnosis that seems partly accurate to me: Removing sex from a purpose-beyond-pleasure or a sense of responsibility serves to discourage or at least delay many from having children.
But won’t the procreative urge result in enough actual procreation for the foreseeable future? (Maybe not, and rapidly declining birth rates can create a problem like Japan has where there aren’t enough young people to keep things running at the accustomed speed). And should tindering, instagramming, childish adults be pressured into producing kids?
As others have noted, a lack of purpose and hope also drives (or doesn’t drive) some of the parentally disinclined. So does economic hardship and global instability. Now in a more cohesive and traditional society, these doubts and individual hedonistic tendencies would meet more opposition and be overcome in the name of belonging or conforming and all that. They often still are. Plus, unplanned children still “happen”, with or without abortion access.
My own vague cultural-moment diagnosis or selected emphasis is a heightened, widespread lack of purpose and hope, in a cultural atmosphere of deep negativity and anger coming from multiple directions. In an world where so many struggle to find even the prospect of real meaning: Why would they look away from their phones and ambient fears and hurry to settle into family life? Sure, having kids would make some of the lost and broken snap partway out of it, but maybe not most of them, or not with a crisp snap. If the number of young people with a sense of real hope and purpose increases, so will the numbers of their increase.
Any suggestions for how to increase the World Hope Index or Sense of Purpose Metric for all of us, whether that leads to more young’uns or not?
Well, if smartphones and social media are making people feel unhappy, the solution is very simple: stop using smartphones and social media. (Refusing to do these things is a bit like someone who keeps saying they want to give up alcohol but wants to keep drinking their favourite beer or wine at the same time).
That’s a good suggestion that more people should adopt, at least in the “timeout” way of a weekend off, moderate use, etc. Many people can’t totally disconnect in their current jobs or education but they’d benefit from cutting back a lot. For some, it’s very similar to a true addiction or psychological compulsion, like a full-blown alcoholic or degenerate gambler.
That’s a good suggestion that more people should adopt, at least in the “timeout” way of a weekend off, moderate use, etc. Many people can’t totally disconnect in their current jobs or education but they’d benefit from cutting back a lot. For some, it’s very similar to a true addiction or psychological compulsion, like a full-blown alcoholic or degenerate gambler.
Well, if smartphones and social media are making people feel unhappy, the solution is very simple: stop using smartphones and social media. (Refusing to do these things is a bit like someone who keeps saying they want to give up alcohol but wants to keep drinking their favourite beer or wine at the same time).
This article presents a pretty vague diagnosis that seems partly accurate to me: Removing sex from a purpose-beyond-pleasure or a sense of responsibility serves to discourage or at least delay many from having children.
But won’t the procreative urge result in enough actual procreation for the foreseeable future? (Maybe not, and rapidly declining birth rates can create a problem like Japan has where there aren’t enough young people to keep things running at the accustomed speed). And should tindering, instagramming, childish adults be pressured into producing kids?
As others have noted, a lack of purpose and hope also drives (or doesn’t drive) some of the parentally disinclined. So does economic hardship and global instability. Now in a more cohesive and traditional society, these doubts and individual hedonistic tendencies would meet more opposition and be overcome in the name of belonging or conforming and all that. They often still are. Plus, unplanned children still “happen”, with or without abortion access.
My own vague cultural-moment diagnosis or selected emphasis is a heightened, widespread lack of purpose and hope, in a cultural atmosphere of deep negativity and anger coming from multiple directions. In an world where so many struggle to find even the prospect of real meaning: Why would they look away from their phones and ambient fears and hurry to settle into family life? Sure, having kids would make some of the lost and broken snap partway out of it, but maybe not most of them, or not with a crisp snap. If the number of young people with a sense of real hope and purpose increases, so will the numbers of their increase.
Any suggestions for how to increase the World Hope Index or Sense of Purpose Metric for all of us, whether that leads to more young’uns or not?
Perhaps another reason for childlessness could be that along with the sexual revolution came the ever increasing rate of divorce. The financial toll usually fell on women. Raising children as a single parent is daunting. As a first wave boomer I witnessed too many of my friend left alone with one or two children to raise because their husbands decided marriage was too difficult for them . Even today the workforce is not so kind to women unless they are well off and well educated;
I would suggest you read the room…
I would suggest you read the room…
Perhaps another reason for childlessness could be that along with the sexual revolution came the ever increasing rate of divorce. The financial toll usually fell on women. Raising children as a single parent is daunting. As a first wave boomer I witnessed too many of my friend left alone with one or two children to raise because their husbands decided marriage was too difficult for them . Even today the workforce is not so kind to women unless they are well off and well educated;
“Forget them, Wendy. Forget them all. Come with me where you’ll never, never have to worry about grown up things again.”
And so an entire generation takes flight.
And what do they leave behind as they leap joyously into Never Never? Well parenthood quite definitely…both their own Mother & Father with all their nagging and niggling questions about homework and chores and responsibilities and such…and just as much they abandon the very thought of Mom & Dad, marriage, home, family, children, grandparents…forget tragedies and loss, the bittersweet of growing old and holding hands. All gone, forgotten.
“I don’t want to go to school and learn solemn things!”
Girls, they say, just wanna have fun. And so they do, as nudged by TikTok Influencers and CoolTube Videos and FaceTaGram images of ‘the glamorous life’ complete with full-bore careers, and suitcases in hotel rooms, promotions to nicer office furniture, uptown apartments within walking distance of bistros and gluten-free fresh-baked something or other: the gel-sculpted boyfriend, whose hair was perfect.
Given the stainless steel appliances, the natural stone countertops, and 5000 viewing choices, what’s left? Why Dog, of course. What else? An unconditional, non-demanding devotion regardless of how often he’s parked in doggy-daycare. We give him totally organic, fresh chopped, nutrient laden meals that would feed a family in Guatemala: groomed weekly.
And best of all, 12 years on, sadly, we say goodbye and get another. Moving on down the road…dogs are great!
“So it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.”
Why Dogs? They’re cheap and easy and ask for nothing, requiring nothing and are grateful for the scraps. They give me the freedom to consume whatever, whenever, with whomever: appetite and the next satisfying is all there is. They’re simulacrum children for my simulacrum life; I love ’em!
“Forget them, Wendy. Forget them all. Come with me where you’ll never, never have to worry about grown up things again.”
And so an entire generation takes flight.
And what do they leave behind as they leap joyously into Never Never? Well parenthood quite definitely…both their own Mother & Father with all their nagging and niggling questions about homework and chores and responsibilities and such…and just as much they abandon the very thought of Mom & Dad, marriage, home, family, children, grandparents…forget tragedies and loss, the bittersweet of growing old and holding hands. All gone, forgotten.
“I don’t want to go to school and learn solemn things!”
Girls, they say, just wanna have fun. And so they do, as nudged by TikTok Influencers and CoolTube Videos and FaceTaGram images of ‘the glamorous life’ complete with full-bore careers, and suitcases in hotel rooms, promotions to nicer office furniture, uptown apartments within walking distance of bistros and gluten-free fresh-baked something or other: the gel-sculpted boyfriend, whose hair was perfect.
Given the stainless steel appliances, the natural stone countertops, and 5000 viewing choices, what’s left? Why Dog, of course. What else? An unconditional, non-demanding devotion regardless of how often he’s parked in doggy-daycare. We give him totally organic, fresh chopped, nutrient laden meals that would feed a family in Guatemala: groomed weekly.
And best of all, 12 years on, sadly, we say goodbye and get another. Moving on down the road…dogs are great!
“So it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.”
Why Dogs? They’re cheap and easy and ask for nothing, requiring nothing and are grateful for the scraps. They give me the freedom to consume whatever, whenever, with whomever: appetite and the next satisfying is all there is. They’re simulacrum children for my simulacrum life; I love ’em!
I’ve noticed that, as Bob Dylan once said about money, it doesn’t talk, it screams, also applies to hormones. I’ve known a number of women for whom careers, if not “fur babies” had pride of place. And then they reach 30 or 32 or even 35 and all changes. Hence we have the new norm of older mothers and fathers. It’s obviously too late for that to solve the replacement rate issue but it shows nature will often win out.
Um, don’t quite get that. Most of us are hormone driven and it’s a relief when it eventually subsides.
Um, don’t quite get that. Most of us are hormone driven and it’s a relief when it eventually subsides.
I’ve noticed that, as Bob Dylan once said about money, it doesn’t talk, it screams, also applies to hormones. I’ve known a number of women for whom careers, if not “fur babies” had pride of place. And then they reach 30 or 32 or even 35 and all changes. Hence we have the new norm of older mothers and fathers. It’s obviously too late for that to solve the replacement rate issue but it shows nature will often win out.
Young people are at a great disadvantage when deciding whether to have children because it’s impossible for them to fully appreciate the best reason of all: grandchildren. That’s something one needs to experience firsthand. A big part of me feels underserving of the extreme joy I derive from my 2 grandsons.
It also gets at an early mistake about evolutionary mechanisms. First it was “survival of the fittest”. Then, ” survival long enough to reproduce”. Now its further refined to “produce grandchildren” which seems to win the evolutionary prize among humans.
It also gets at an early mistake about evolutionary mechanisms. First it was “survival of the fittest”. Then, ” survival long enough to reproduce”. Now its further refined to “produce grandchildren” which seems to win the evolutionary prize among humans.
Young people are at a great disadvantage when deciding whether to have children because it’s impossible for them to fully appreciate the best reason of all: grandchildren. That’s something one needs to experience firsthand. A big part of me feels underserving of the extreme joy I derive from my 2 grandsons.
Powerful and important essay. The level of anti-procreation propaganda pushed by the eugenicists (through “feminism”, “overpopulation” claims, “climate change” alarmism, etc.) is only really obvious with hindsight. Many childless couples will also result from the countless unnecessary pharmaceuticals foisted upon them, rendering them infertile. So they convince themselves they are better off getting a dog. An ageing population is economically destructive so it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I pity Gen Z, the “digital natives”, raised in an alt-reality pushed at them through their phone screens. They assumed they could change their identity in real life as fast as they can in cyberspace and are now deeply confused, angry and bitter, lashing out at anyone who dares tell them the truth. The worst truth of all, of course, is that they will have a miserable old age living at the mercy of the state because a) they have no offspring to take care of them, and b) they were work shy and lazy about investing for the future. Fortunately, the parents of the current new generation (the under 12s) seem a little more wary about giving them phones (or unnecessary pharmaceuticals) so they will remain a little more grounded in reality, and retain their natural fertility. I have some hope for those kids.
There’s another one assuming being child-free is to be pitied. So patronizing.
That’s an interesting question, actually.
Is it possible to think that the choices another makes are wrong choices…are, in fact, bad choices….choices that will, in the end, prove themselves life-alteringly wrong … without feeling pity? And is it possible to note such ‘bad choices’ without being accused of being patronizing? Is every criticism of a any decision patronizing?
No one is denying that couples who choose, quite consciously, to be childless are perfectly free to make that choice. Their life, their choice. But equally the rest of us are perfectly free to critique a childless choice as a generationally peculiar/wrong-headed decision…rooted, seemingly, in either fear-hype or selfishness.
“A baby is…’ as Carl Sandburg put it, “God’s opinion that the world should go on.” And a family, filled with grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren is the heart of a culture of love & of life which is timeless. To choose against that…deliberately and freely…is to say ‘no’ to life.
Life as you define it. Childless couples are people who cannot have children, childfree couples are people who want a different life from the binds of family and prefer the pleasures of one another’s company without their world revolving around children.
Thanks Robbie.
Life as I define it?
Not in the least. Life, rather, as it is defined. Everything else is appetite.
As for childless vs. childfree…you say tomahto, I say tomato.
If you consciously choose to not have children then you are without children, childfree or childless. If you can’t have children, then you are also childfree or childless, but not as a function of a decision made. The distinction is not in the presence or lack of a child but rather in the fact of the decision made to accept or avoid the possibility of children.
Life revolves around life, my friend. Not around dying (though that too, is a part of life). To embrace the totality of life is to wrap your heart around not just spouse….or parents…or siblings…or children, but around grandparents, great grandparents, grandchildren & great-grandchildren. It is to wrap your heart around a timeless kind of love which began before you began and never ends.
Mark Helprin describes it thusly: “It’s my duty to go on, to maintain the line. I can’t possibly fail in that. It’s as if you and I were throwing a ball back and forth to establish a record, and had been doing so for a millennium. You cannot drop a ball that has remained airborne through good effort for most of a thousand years. You cannot stop an unlikely heart that has been beating for so long.” In this case he’s talking about royal succession, but his description stretches far beyond that.
And here: “To see the beauty of the world is to put your hands on lines that run uninterrupted through life and through death. Touching them is an act of hope, for perhaps someone on the other side, if there is another side, is touching them, too.”
The Church also: “Only the discovery of the inherent value of the human person, of marriage and of the family can encourage people to be receptive to children in view of the world of the future.”
It still remains a choice.
Of course it’s a choice. If it were not a choice and instead an implacable, unavoidable, inevitable reality (like death), then we wouldn’t be spending our time debating the wisdom of the choice (just as we spend zero time debating the wisdom of dying).
Except of course the “pro-lifers” want to make parenthood not a choice.
Except of course the “pro-lifers” want to make parenthood not a choice.
Of course it’s a choice. If it were not a choice and instead an implacable, unavoidable, inevitable reality (like death), then we wouldn’t be spending our time debating the wisdom of the choice (just as we spend zero time debating the wisdom of dying).
It still remains a choice.
Thanks Robbie.
Life as I define it?
Not in the least. Life, rather, as it is defined. Everything else is appetite.
As for childless vs. childfree…you say tomahto, I say tomato.
If you consciously choose to not have children then you are without children, childfree or childless. If you can’t have children, then you are also childfree or childless, but not as a function of a decision made. The distinction is not in the presence or lack of a child but rather in the fact of the decision made to accept or avoid the possibility of children.
Life revolves around life, my friend. Not around dying (though that too, is a part of life). To embrace the totality of life is to wrap your heart around not just spouse….or parents…or siblings…or children, but around grandparents, great grandparents, grandchildren & great-grandchildren. It is to wrap your heart around a timeless kind of love which began before you began and never ends.
Mark Helprin describes it thusly: “It’s my duty to go on, to maintain the line. I can’t possibly fail in that. It’s as if you and I were throwing a ball back and forth to establish a record, and had been doing so for a millennium. You cannot drop a ball that has remained airborne through good effort for most of a thousand years. You cannot stop an unlikely heart that has been beating for so long.” In this case he’s talking about royal succession, but his description stretches far beyond that.
And here: “To see the beauty of the world is to put your hands on lines that run uninterrupted through life and through death. Touching them is an act of hope, for perhaps someone on the other side, if there is another side, is touching them, too.”
The Church also: “Only the discovery of the inherent value of the human person, of marriage and of the family can encourage people to be receptive to children in view of the world of the future.”
And there you go again!
There I go again, where?
Being patronizing.
You’re confusing me with Amy. This is the first time you’ve accused me of being patronizing. Why do you think everyone is patronizing you? And how do you think I have?
You’re confusing me with Amy. This is the first time you’ve accused me of being patronizing. Why do you think everyone is patronizing you? And how do you think I have?
Being patronizing.
There I go again, where?
Why does child free have to be “a peculiar/wrong-headed decision, rooted in fear-hype or selfishness” if that isn’t patronizing I don’t know what is.
Ah, that explains it. No, my friend, to disagree with another and describe their choice as peculiar and wrong-headed is not to be patronizing. It’s simply to disagree with the choice being made. (Which was my point to begin with, way back when)
If we go to a Specialty BBQ restaurant for lunch, and you only order salad, again, it would not be at all unusual for your companion to say ‘What a peculiar/wrong-headed decision when we’ve made a special point of going to a BBQ restaurant.”
On the other hand, if the Other were being patronizing, he might say, “Now Claire, you do realize that this is a BBQ restaurant, known for BBQ…and not a pasture, don’t you?” (What makes that patronizing is the implicit assumption that you’re not smart enough to realize the difference). To simply say, salad at a BBQ place seems like a silly choice is to pushback on the choice.
Also — a small but important note, what I said was, “equally the rest of us are perfectly free to critique a childless choice as a generationally peculiar/wrong-headed decision…rooted, seemingly, in either fear-hype or selfishness.” I’m not saying that any individual choice is or is not ‘wrong-headed’, I’m saying the GENERATIONAL choice to not have children (which seems to be made very consistently by an entire generation) seems peculiar, wrong-headed.
No, we’re very much back at how you are defining life and your world view, which is very different to mine and I dare say other childfree folk. Whilst you go to the only restaurant in town which happens to be BBQ, I’ll be taking my wife to all of the others offering an intriguing variety of cuisines, accompanied with the finest wines, then dancing the night away at the disco afterwards. The following morning I’ll have fresh coffee and waffles in bed, whilst your changing nappies.
Funny!
Funny!
No, we’re very much back at how you are defining life and your world view, which is very different to mine and I dare say other childfree folk. Whilst you go to the only restaurant in town which happens to be BBQ, I’ll be taking my wife to all of the others offering an intriguing variety of cuisines, accompanied with the finest wines, then dancing the night away at the disco afterwards. The following morning I’ll have fresh coffee and waffles in bed, whilst your changing nappies.
Ah, that explains it. No, my friend, to disagree with another and describe their choice as peculiar and wrong-headed is not to be patronizing. It’s simply to disagree with the choice being made. (Which was my point to begin with, way back when)
If we go to a Specialty BBQ restaurant for lunch, and you only order salad, again, it would not be at all unusual for your companion to say ‘What a peculiar/wrong-headed decision when we’ve made a special point of going to a BBQ restaurant.”
On the other hand, if the Other were being patronizing, he might say, “Now Claire, you do realize that this is a BBQ restaurant, known for BBQ…and not a pasture, don’t you?” (What makes that patronizing is the implicit assumption that you’re not smart enough to realize the difference). To simply say, salad at a BBQ place seems like a silly choice is to pushback on the choice.
Also — a small but important note, what I said was, “equally the rest of us are perfectly free to critique a childless choice as a generationally peculiar/wrong-headed decision…rooted, seemingly, in either fear-hype or selfishness.” I’m not saying that any individual choice is or is not ‘wrong-headed’, I’m saying the GENERATIONAL choice to not have children (which seems to be made very consistently by an entire generation) seems peculiar, wrong-headed.
Life as you define it. Childless couples are people who cannot have children, childfree couples are people who want a different life from the binds of family and prefer the pleasures of one another’s company without their world revolving around children.
And there you go again!
Why does child free have to be “a peculiar/wrong-headed decision, rooted in fear-hype or selfishness” if that isn’t patronizing I don’t know what is.
That’s an interesting question, actually.
Is it possible to think that the choices another makes are wrong choices…are, in fact, bad choices….choices that will, in the end, prove themselves life-alteringly wrong … without feeling pity? And is it possible to note such ‘bad choices’ without being accused of being patronizing? Is every criticism of a any decision patronizing?
No one is denying that couples who choose, quite consciously, to be childless are perfectly free to make that choice. Their life, their choice. But equally the rest of us are perfectly free to critique a childless choice as a generationally peculiar/wrong-headed decision…rooted, seemingly, in either fear-hype or selfishness.
“A baby is…’ as Carl Sandburg put it, “God’s opinion that the world should go on.” And a family, filled with grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren is the heart of a culture of love & of life which is timeless. To choose against that…deliberately and freely…is to say ‘no’ to life.
There’s another one assuming being child-free is to be pitied. So patronizing.
Powerful and important essay. The level of anti-procreation propaganda pushed by the eugenicists (through “feminism”, “overpopulation” claims, “climate change” alarmism, etc.) is only really obvious with hindsight. Many childless couples will also result from the countless unnecessary pharmaceuticals foisted upon them, rendering them infertile. So they convince themselves they are better off getting a dog. An ageing population is economically destructive so it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I pity Gen Z, the “digital natives”, raised in an alt-reality pushed at them through their phone screens. They assumed they could change their identity in real life as fast as they can in cyberspace and are now deeply confused, angry and bitter, lashing out at anyone who dares tell them the truth. The worst truth of all, of course, is that they will have a miserable old age living at the mercy of the state because a) they have no offspring to take care of them, and b) they were work shy and lazy about investing for the future. Fortunately, the parents of the current new generation (the under 12s) seem a little more wary about giving them phones (or unnecessary pharmaceuticals) so they will remain a little more grounded in reality, and retain their natural fertility. I have some hope for those kids.
I left school in 1973. Everyone in my leaving class – except me – has gone on to have children and grandchildren. I chose to remain childless with no regrets.
My four nephews – in their late 30s and early 40s – have 7 children between them.
In my long life I have met hardly any women like me who have never had children. The few I did meet, regretted it.
Motherhood is still the overwhelming norm and I believe it will continue to be. Many women reach their mid 30s and suddenly realise time is running out and have a baby. It is astonishing how often this happens. Men are luckier – they can postpone fatherhood until their 50s or 60s or even later if they want – although sperm deteriorate with age.
I think Mary is worrying about nothing – in the end – biology always trumps culture – and the urge to procreate is much stronger than any fad or fashion. Those dogs are going to be pushed out of the pushchair by a baby as soon as the old biological clock starts seriously ticking.
If Saffy is a pedigree she would do well to breed from her as the puppies will be worth a great deal.
Well, Alice, here’s another woman who has chosen to remain child free and husband free, with no regrets. As a straight, white woman in a world where getting married and having babies is the thing to do, it’s a life choice that’s not for the faint of heart.
Well, Alice, here’s another woman who has chosen to remain child free and husband free, with no regrets. As a straight, white woman in a world where getting married and having babies is the thing to do, it’s a life choice that’s not for the faint of heart.
I left school in 1973. Everyone in my leaving class – except me – has gone on to have children and grandchildren. I chose to remain childless with no regrets.
My four nephews – in their late 30s and early 40s – have 7 children between them.
In my long life I have met hardly any women like me who have never had children. The few I did meet, regretted it.
Motherhood is still the overwhelming norm and I believe it will continue to be. Many women reach their mid 30s and suddenly realise time is running out and have a baby. It is astonishing how often this happens. Men are luckier – they can postpone fatherhood until their 50s or 60s or even later if they want – although sperm deteriorate with age.
I think Mary is worrying about nothing – in the end – biology always trumps culture – and the urge to procreate is much stronger than any fad or fashion. Those dogs are going to be pushed out of the pushchair by a baby as soon as the old biological clock starts seriously ticking.
If Saffy is a pedigree she would do well to breed from her as the puppies will be worth a great deal.
Many and probably most private landlords prohibit their tenants from having pets. Having a dog is therefore probably a sign of having your own property. which is of course easier to finance if you have two full-time incomes and no kids.
Many and probably most private landlords prohibit their tenants from having pets. Having a dog is therefore probably a sign of having your own property. which is of course easier to finance if you have two full-time incomes and no kids.
This is a good story. Dogs are a risk-free route to full-personhood, of sorts.
I’d also say dog worship is related not to any personal attainment but to the growing devaluation of human life.
It’s no longer generally accepted that humans are God’s special creatures. Hence, humans = dogs. Owning a dog is akin to raising a child, and we have the arrival of the nauseating “fur babies,” “dog parents” and “grand dogs.” The dogwear industry. Dogs in strollers. Dogs in hotel rooms.
(Re: devaluing humans, one friend told me that the loss of a gorilla is greater than the loss of a human because there are fewer gorillas. That’s the earthbound weirdness that many people live in.)
As for dogs, I’ll get one when the creator of dogs makes one that doesn’t bark, drool, lick or shed and that does grow up, gain wisdom, and become independent so that I, the owner, can be dog free.
I think we need to get back to regarding humans as superior to all other animals, even though I’m not religious myself. That is one thing religion gets right IMO.
Also, I think that praising animals, like dogs for example, is sometimes an indirect way of showing one’s contempt for other human beings. For instance I’ve sometimes seen people ignore other people in a particular situation, while simultaneously paying attention to animals, which is an incredibly contemptuous attitude to have towards other human beings. “I ignore you, but I pay attention to you – or someone else’s – pet.”
I’m surprised you think humans lack sufficient self-regard or aren’t anthropocentric enough. I know what you mean about: “my fluffy baby is so sweet, unlike my family” or “let me step over this vile homeless person and pet the cute doggie”. But a greater respect for all life, especially sentient beings, in no way directly leads to less respect for our fellow humans, in my view. Less precious self-separation from the natural world maybe.
I’m surprised you think humans lack sufficient self-regard or aren’t anthropocentric enough. I know what you mean about: “my fluffy baby is so sweet, unlike my family” or “let me step over this vile homeless person and pet the cute doggie”. But a greater respect for all life, especially sentient beings, in no way directly leads to less respect for our fellow humans, in my view. Less precious self-separation from the natural world maybe.
I think we need to get back to regarding humans as superior to all other animals, even though I’m not religious myself. That is one thing religion gets right IMO.
Also, I think that praising animals, like dogs for example, is sometimes an indirect way of showing one’s contempt for other human beings. For instance I’ve sometimes seen people ignore other people in a particular situation, while simultaneously paying attention to animals, which is an incredibly contemptuous attitude to have towards other human beings. “I ignore you, but I pay attention to you – or someone else’s – pet.”
This is a good story. Dogs are a risk-free route to full-personhood, of sorts.
I’d also say dog worship is related not to any personal attainment but to the growing devaluation of human life.
It’s no longer generally accepted that humans are God’s special creatures. Hence, humans = dogs. Owning a dog is akin to raising a child, and we have the arrival of the nauseating “fur babies,” “dog parents” and “grand dogs.” The dogwear industry. Dogs in strollers. Dogs in hotel rooms.
(Re: devaluing humans, one friend told me that the loss of a gorilla is greater than the loss of a human because there are fewer gorillas. That’s the earthbound weirdness that many people live in.)
As for dogs, I’ll get one when the creator of dogs makes one that doesn’t bark, drool, lick or shed and that does grow up, gain wisdom, and become independent so that I, the owner, can be dog free.
Dogs ‘grow up’ in a year or two and rarely live beyond the age of a child entering higher education. Putting aside ‘latch key kids’ and credit, 50 years or so ago we called the family 2.3 kids, a dog and a cat with Mum at home until school years started. This article could be written from a different POV by Boomer, Gen X or Millennial. Gen Z apparently choose dogs because they view the future as uncertain and unstable, Putin, pandemics, politics, mortgages, rents, the economy; hardly inspirational especially for the selfish.
What is not considered is the burden of increasingly elderly often ill people needs a vibrant workforce to support it. A young workforce with the comfortable capacity to both work, reproduce and afford ‘the State’ are not exactly the conditions being met lately anywhere in the First World.
Dogs ‘grow up’ in a year or two and rarely live beyond the age of a child entering higher education. Putting aside ‘latch key kids’ and credit, 50 years or so ago we called the family 2.3 kids, a dog and a cat with Mum at home until school years started. This article could be written from a different POV by Boomer, Gen X or Millennial. Gen Z apparently choose dogs because they view the future as uncertain and unstable, Putin, pandemics, politics, mortgages, rents, the economy; hardly inspirational especially for the selfish.
What is not considered is the burden of increasingly elderly often ill people needs a vibrant workforce to support it. A young workforce with the comfortable capacity to both work, reproduce and afford ‘the State’ are not exactly the conditions being met lately anywhere in the First World.
Funny world where what seemed the norm a few moments ago seems quite challenging. I was noticing recently my local coffee shop has a display of pictures of customers’ cute dogs – I expect a collage of cute babies would be smaller and less inclusive. The serious point is what happens when what is a ‘norm’ becomes a ‘choice’ in which case you need to think hard to justify the choice? Can I afford this? Do I need this? Have I got the right co-parent? How will I manage the childcare? Am I doing my bit for the planet? What will the future bring anyway? What about my career? It becomes rather easy to put things off and have a dog instead. Choice at first sight seems liberating and sensible, it also has its downsides which only become apparent later.
Funny world where what seemed the norm a few moments ago seems quite challenging. I was noticing recently my local coffee shop has a display of pictures of customers’ cute dogs – I expect a collage of cute babies would be smaller and less inclusive. The serious point is what happens when what is a ‘norm’ becomes a ‘choice’ in which case you need to think hard to justify the choice? Can I afford this? Do I need this? Have I got the right co-parent? How will I manage the childcare? Am I doing my bit for the planet? What will the future bring anyway? What about my career? It becomes rather easy to put things off and have a dog instead. Choice at first sight seems liberating and sensible, it also has its downsides which only become apparent later.
Oh dear, Mary. So close. Considering the rest of the article i would have expected you not to have fallen into the ‘parent’ trap. The correct phrasing would have been “growing up with a mother and father who are married is associated with better outcomes.” This could have been a genuine error if it was made by some of your other contributors but not this editor.
Oh dear, Mary. So close. Considering the rest of the article i would have expected you not to have fallen into the ‘parent’ trap. The correct phrasing would have been “growing up with a mother and father who are married is associated with better outcomes.” This could have been a genuine error if it was made by some of your other contributors but not this editor.
I’m astonished that in 250+ comments almost no one has talked about love – real love, not sexual love. The unique love that comes from a mother and father coming together to make a child, which brings forth learning parental love and filial love. We are created to love in all those ways.
Many people in the comments are too busy being narcissistic, and talking about how important their personal happiness is, compared to the future of the human race.
Many people in the comments are too busy being narcissistic, and talking about how important their personal happiness is, compared to the future of the human race.
I’m astonished that in 250+ comments almost no one has talked about love – real love, not sexual love. The unique love that comes from a mother and father coming together to make a child, which brings forth learning parental love and filial love. We are created to love in all those ways.
I hope the vet reads your article.
I hope the vet reads your article.
There’s a lot to be said about a lab… 🙂
There’s a lot to be said about a lab… 🙂
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Great essay by Harrington as always. But in the app, the last paragraph (starting ‘in the face of it…’) seems to be repeated…?
I know MH is a ‘good egg’, and be trusted to produce a worthwhile (excellent) article, but surely the publishing editor also has a job ? It seems, an otherwise excellent publisher, is, not without some regularity, let down by a poor overview of the articles published on their site. I appreciate that, if you release articles at midnight, it might require ‘someone’, even a minion, to work late, to actually READ the opinion pieces and essays as they come in, but if that’s your job then that’s your job, so be it. I can’t believe that Unheard is so cash strapped, or poorly resourced, that it can’t afford the time of a couple of interns, or junior staff to read, check and correct, OBVIOUS errors before the articles go to press. It would be a shame if Unheard was brought low by ‘lazy’ oversight and editing.
*Unherd*
Quite so 🙂
Talk about lazy oversight and editing 😉
That’s funny! Tom seems to be projecting his own “lazy editing”.
Quite so 🙂
Talk about lazy oversight and editing 😉
That’s funny! Tom seems to be projecting his own “lazy editing”.
Some of us are less pedantic and focus instead on the message..
I really don’t think it’s being pedantic to think that the publishers should, at the very least, READ the articles before publication. If even dolts like me can spot GLARING errors, like repeated paragraphs, then it can’t be beyond the bounds, even if faaarrrr below the notice of actual editors, then at least it can be delegated to a minion or intern, surely ?
You seem to have still missed the point of you’re own embarressing error!
He doesn’t have an editor. His point is that presumably Mary does. Perhaps nobody does anymore.
Editing is different than spell-checking. I wish there was spell checking here.
Editing is different than spell-checking. I wish there was spell checking here.
He doesn’t have an editor. His point is that presumably Mary does. Perhaps nobody does anymore.
You seem to have still missed the point of you’re own embarressing error!
I really don’t think it’s being pedantic to think that the publishers should, at the very least, READ the articles before publication. If even dolts like me can spot GLARING errors, like repeated paragraphs, then it can’t be beyond the bounds, even if faaarrrr below the notice of actual editors, then at least it can be delegated to a minion or intern, surely ?
Physician heal thyself…
*Unherd*
Some of us are less pedantic and focus instead on the message..
Physician heal thyself…
I know MH is a ‘good egg’, and be trusted to produce a worthwhile (excellent) article, but surely the publishing editor also has a job ? It seems, an otherwise excellent publisher, is, not without some regularity, let down by a poor overview of the articles published on their site. I appreciate that, if you release articles at midnight, it might require ‘someone’, even a minion, to work late, to actually READ the opinion pieces and essays as they come in, but if that’s your job then that’s your job, so be it. I can’t believe that Unheard is so cash strapped, or poorly resourced, that it can’t afford the time of a couple of interns, or junior staff to read, check and correct, OBVIOUS errors before the articles go to press. It would be a shame if Unheard was brought low by ‘lazy’ oversight and editing.
Great essay by Harrington as always. But in the app, the last paragraph (starting ‘in the face of it…’) seems to be repeated…?
Wisdom. Well done Mary. More please.
Wisdom. Well done Mary. More please.
“she can just get on with being a dog”. is a bit of a sad and depressing way to look at it. And bet that the vet did not give you enough information to make a full and informed consent anyway. Info like “Approximately 20 percent of spayed female dogs will develop incontinence within three years of being spayed.” https://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/what-you-need-to-know-about-spay-incontinence-in-female-dogs
So she would have had a good chance of being, like mine, a dog that you have to get on with being incontinent well before she would normally have been.
“she can just get on with being a dog”. is a bit of a sad and depressing way to look at it. And bet that the vet did not give you enough information to make a full and informed consent anyway. Info like “Approximately 20 percent of spayed female dogs will develop incontinence within three years of being spayed.” https://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/what-you-need-to-know-about-spay-incontinence-in-female-dogs
So she would have had a good chance of being, like mine, a dog that you have to get on with being incontinent well before she would normally have been.
There’s way too much worry these days about fertility. As with the Population Bomb worries that this sentiment replaced, we generally het it from self-anointed moralists who think that everyone other than themselves is doing the wrong thing because they are stupid.
In any era, people have as many children as they feel they need as part of the society they live in. Before the Enlightenment and technology, we spawned extra children to replace those which died of disease or starvation before maturity. Prosperous late agricultural societies had – and still have – large families because help is needed on the farm. Any society which industrializes finds that fewer children are now needed, so they adjust their birthrate accordingly. This happened in Japan, and then in China. Remember when it was thought that neither country could ever control its birth rate?
There’s way too much worry these days about fertility. As with the Population Bomb worries that this sentiment replaced, we generally het it from self-anointed moralists who think that everyone other than themselves is doing the wrong thing because they are stupid.
In any era, people have as many children as they feel they need as part of the society they live in. Before the Enlightenment and technology, we spawned extra children to replace those which died of disease or starvation before maturity. Prosperous late agricultural societies had – and still have – large families because help is needed on the farm. Any society which industrializes finds that fewer children are now needed, so they adjust their birthrate accordingly. This happened in Japan, and then in China. Remember when it was thought that neither country could ever control its birth rate?
I generally prefer dogs to most Gen-Z’er. I’m totally ok with Gen-Z not breeding, they’re a problem Darwin will take care of.
Well said.
There is a serious point that in less than a hundred years’ time, Western Europe will be inhabited primarily of Moslems, Jews and Catholics.
What about evangelical Christians?
What about evangelical Christians?
Well said.
There is a serious point that in less than a hundred years’ time, Western Europe will be inhabited primarily of Moslems, Jews and Catholics.
I generally prefer dogs to most Gen-Z’er. I’m totally ok with Gen-Z not breeding, they’re a problem Darwin will take care of.
One might also note that some humans believe “realising (themselves) fully” is not as important as curtailing the overpopulation (mostly Third World) and overconsumption (mostly First World) that are driving other species to extinction and the planet to ruin. Choosing to not have children is far and away the most impactful way to do that, given that governments impose no limits on family size and — on the other end of life — encourage the immensely profitable enterprise of keeping old and sick humans alive well past their natural expiration dates. (Human births continue to outpace deaths by roughly 200,000 per day; to date, the COVID pandemic has erased only about 35 days of net population gain.)
Well said.
The Covid pandemic is over, and climate change is overestimated in its effects.
While it sounds sour and incel-like, men are assured they make incompetent if not malignant husbands and parents, so their marriage will likely end in a well-deserved divorce. Cue jibes, though I’m a lovingly married dad. And yet those jibes were already on the hoof, and may still be, if anyone at all reads this obscure post. We look for enigmatic motives. The simplest explanation may be right.
While it sounds sour and incel-like, men are assured they make incompetent if not malignant husbands and parents, so their marriage will likely end in a well-deserved divorce. Cue jibes, though I’m a lovingly married dad. And yet those jibes were already on the hoof, and may still be, if anyone at all reads this obscure post. We look for enigmatic motives. The simplest explanation may be right.
Hurray for them I say. They can pontificate all they like about oil, but the only thing that can save the planet is by at least halving the population. Long live the Dog, saviour of all planet dwellers.
Right on.
Humans are superior to all other animals.
Right on.
Humans are superior to all other animals.
Hurray for them I say. They can pontificate all they like about oil, but the only thing that can save the planet is by at least halving the population. Long live the Dog, saviour of all planet dwellers.
I would have thought that with an ever-rising global population, any article that scrutinizes this particular subset – ‘Females over the age of 30 who travel on the London tube; do not have children; and have a dog that they are inclined to neuter – would be better suited to the pages of ‘Viz’
I would have thought that with an ever-rising global population, any article that scrutinizes this particular subset – ‘Females over the age of 30 who travel on the London tube; do not have children; and have a dog that they are inclined to neuter – would be better suited to the pages of ‘Viz’
Paraphrasing the tile of the film the loneliness of a long distance runner to the loneliness of a childless mother.
Paraphrasing the tile of the film the loneliness of a long distance runner to the loneliness of a childless mother.