BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Ignorant Drivel From The Daily Mail (UK)

Originally posted on the LJ community "childfree":

May 3, 2006 Wednesday

As a poll finds the majority of men and women value a career more than family, one mother asks if we have become a...SELFISH SOCIETY

BY BEL MOONEY

WHICH do you rate more highly - earning a packet, eating in the best restaurants and wearing designer labels, or having a child? If that question is phrased in terms of relative importance, most people pay lip service to the vital role of having children. But if it's down to personal wishes, that's a different matter.

According to a new poll, we're turning into a selfish society which values children less than career. Britain's low birth rate is due to a generation of potential parents who value having fun more highly than having a family.

I don't know about you, but I find it astounding that 64 per cent of the men questioned and 51 per cent of women agree that it is more important for women to enjoy themselves than to have children.

What kind of a future waits when they are old, wardrobes stuffed with outofdate clothes, rattling around luxurious houses crammed with the latest gadgets, desperately investing in every youth-preserving aid possible - but with no children or grandchildren to visit, nobody to care?

How long will it take before they see that 'fun' has a sell-by date?

All over Europe we are witnessing a major demographic shift, which should make us all uneasy. People just aren't reproducing as they used to. The Office of National Statistics reveals that about 20 per cent of women reach the end of their fertile life childless, compared with 10 per cent in the 1940s.

In the Sixties the norm was 2.95 children per woman, now it's 1.77.

Figures like that seem meaningless until, perhaps, one reflects that the women not having children tend to be those with education and the resulting privilege of choice.

We could also remember that birth rates are rising elsewhere in the world, and that a stable, responsible society like the one we all wish to sustain needs the next generation to carry it forward.

Sometimes people murmur easily: 'Well, there are plenty of children in the world.' Well, I'm not xenophobic, but don't we want our children in the world?

Let me be clear: I respect anybody's free decision not to start a family. As somebody who has always been immersed in the demands and delights of family life, it isn't a choice I truly understand, but no matter - to live a childfree life that is fulfilling is a perfectly reasonable option.

But that isn't really what bothers me here. It's the widespread attitudes, which this poll reveals.

Imagine being introduced to a woman who had four children and who told you enthusiastically that she was perfectly happy to stay home with them.

How would you regard her? Any stay-at-home mother will tell you how eyes glaze over, how she is dismissed for putting up with such a boring, non-achieving life.

Then imagine being introduced to a glamorous highflier with an executive job, and clothes and car to match. Be honest: who impresses you most?

It's not to express any judgment on the merits of career vs children (after all, many parents combine the two successfully) to say it's a terrible pity that the most important job in the world has become so devalued.

People today are judged by career, status and salary, and are encouraged by government to work and shop until they drop. This is the new creed, which dominates our culture.

Because of it there are no tax breaks for families, and now ministers are driving through policies which would turn schools into babysitters, as parents work longer and longer hours.

The children of those parents are, as the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said this week, subjected to 'loving neglect' - when parents with stressful jobs are just too tired (and/or lazy?) to lay down the parameters all children need.

Is it any real wonder that twenty-and-thirty-somethings are opting out of parenting altogether? Better never to bring a child into the world at all than to lovingly neglect it. But it surely means we're laying down a time bomb for the future.

The ICM poll reveals two interesting shifts in our social attitudes. Men seem to have moved towards supporting women in the desire not to have children, with only 32 per cent thinking that women should put children before work.

Why is this? Optimistically, it could be down to a sense of equality. But I have a suspicion that it might be pure selfishness - for a man who is not required to help provide for a family is one who has more to spend on himself, his car and his holidays.

What's more, he isn't made to get up in the night, or submit to the mundane demands of daily life with kids, or choose Disneyland instead of jet skiing in the Caribbean.

Yes, raising a family costs a great deal. Yet it seems to me that much of the outlay goes on posh accessories which aren't really necessary, but which the modern image-conscious parent requires. Once again, status matters more than substance.

I can never quite believe it when I hear young parents bemoaning the cost of their children's 'needs' - like the Pounds 400 three-wheel buggy; the 'must-have' clothes, the ' ultimate' travel cot and so on.

Isn't this a reflection of what they want for themselves?

Perhaps if they practised saying No to themselves a little more, it might be easier to say No to the kids in later life.

How is it we have become so weak and self-indulgent?

The second shift concerns attitudes to relationships. It was once a given that when two people fell madly in love, they wanted to marry and (in time) raise a family.

That - for better, for worse - was how the universal human story went. Of course, things didn't always go according to the 'love-and-marriage' clichE: people made mistakes, fell out of love, children didn't arrive and so on.

But in this age when consumer choice is worshipped, people seem paralysed when it comes to commitment. The ICM poll suggests that people are afraid of being unlucky in love: 53 per cent of women and 46 per cent of men thought it more difficult than ever to find the right partner.

So this isn't so much an independent decision not to have children, as a fear of not finding 'the one' to have children with.

Just under half expressed the mournful view that people do not stay together nowadays.

Watching the antics of our politicians, sportsmen and other 'celebrity' figures, it isn't hard to see why the young are cynical.

It is a sad paradox that in this age of mass communication and multiple choices, a deeply rooted pessimism about love is paralysing a whole generation.

By 'love' I mean the love between man and woman and the love between parent and child.

The truth is, it is a colossal piece of self-deception to think that anything you can pick up with a credit card will give you any lasting happiness.

It's universally known that the most important ingredient in happiness is your intimate relationships with others.

Of course I am biased: I believe the greatest life experience of all is having a family with somebody you love, loving those children, shaping their lives, knowing in middle age that (grownup now) they adore you.

How sad that so many people are too scared - or too selfish - to choose that gift.

My retort:

1.) She states that it's "perfectly fine" to have a childfree life, but throughout the whole article, she takes not-so-subtle jabs at the childfree.

2.) I like how she uses the term "selfish" in such a condescending manner. Yeah, I'm sure you had children for completely selfless reasons, lady.

3.) Some people don't view children as a gift. They're a burden to many and not a burden worth carrying for decades.

4.) The overall tone of the article (especially when naming all the stuff the childfree do because they're so "selfish") that she's got a bit of "Children aren't all sunshine and Kodak moments and more people need to be miserable like me!!!!" going on.

5.) Sometimes people murmur easily: 'Well, there are plenty of children in the world.' Well, I'm not xenophobic, but don't we want our children in the world?
This could be read so many different ways and none of them are good. BTW: I was informed on the community that this particular magazine is not only misogynistic but on the racist side as well.

6.) knowing in middle age that (grownup now) they adore you.
"Children begin by loving their parents; after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them." - Oscar Wilde

7.) Others have pointed it out, but children do not automatically equate companionship come old age. In fact, I think that if you have children, you're more likely to be lonely because you'll be sitting there waiting for your children and grandchildren to call because you've centered your life on them and have forgotten how to cultivate relationships outside of your children.

8.) You know what? Being an executive is more impressive than becoming a parent. It doesn't take much work to gain a child by normal means. Becoming an executive of a company requires years of hard work, sacrifice, late nights, high stress, for a payoff that amounts to a lot more than a maybe.

9.) "The truth is, it is a colossal piece of self-deception to think that anything you can pick up with a credit card will give you any lasting happiness."
Sounds like somebody hasn't bought a vibrator.

10.)"It's universally known that the most important ingredient in happiness is your intimate relationships with others.
Are children the only ones who one can have an intimate relationship with? And frankly, that sentence sounds kind of squicky. Anyway, you can have a close relationship with your dog. The dog will provide comfort and unconditional love. Children don't always do so.

11.) "How sad that so many people are too scared - or too selfish - to choose that gift."
Lack of desire does not automatically equate fear or selfishness. How retarded is this woman?

12.) Greatest life experience? Children will not be my biggest accomplishment in life and I feel sorry for the empty life she must lead to think that.

There's a lot more, but I'm too annoyed. In short, bite me, [censored] off, and instead of spending your time writing ignorant drivel like this, maybe you should be taking care of your "gifts."

Wow.

I suppose the writer of this piece will someday be sitting at the nursing home, awaiting her children who will never come to visit.

And people who say that you need someone to care for you later in life...well, that's not selfish or anything.

(Prepare for rant, starting in 4, 3, 2...)



ARGH!

You're right -- that's an ignorant piece of garbage right there. Whether you take that to mean the article or the breeder who wrote it, is up to you.

"So this isn't so much an independent decision not to have children, as a fear of not finding 'the one' to have children with."

Grr....as a happily married woman, this part of the article has me quite irritated. I love my hubby...he is perfect for me, and he is wonderful with children too. However, we just don't want any! This person needs to get it through their thick skull that plenty of couples want to enjoy each other and not have some screeching brat in the way of their relationship. If anything, I imagine a higher percentage of the childfree are confident in their relationships -- they already have something they value very much in life, and don't see any reason to mess it up. Also, none of these people ever seem to think about childfree husbands and wives caring for each other in old age -- I have definitely seen childed elderly couples taking care of each other more than their children take care of them, so I imagine growing old as a CF would be similar (although the CF will probably have more money laying around...).

"It's universally known that the most important ingredient in happiness is your intimate relationships with others."

This is rubbish -- it's just opinion, NOT fact. No one truly knows the secret to happiness. It would seem that the path to happiness is different for everyone, and many people are happier alone than surrounded with loud people. (I would fall into this group.) A good place to start, though, is the idea that happiness is a choice, not something dependent on one's lifestyle. I hate getting into the whole war of "I'm happier than you because of my lifestyle choices"...it's so stupid and petty to bring it to that.

And on the "who impresses you most" portion, I pick NEITHER! Both having children and being an important executive seem to do more with animalistic desires: procreation, consummation/hoarding of resources, status and control over others. BOTH PATHS ARE SELFISH. I am much more impressed by spiritual devotion, academic education, artistic creation, and selfless volunteer service to the community. In other words, I am impressed by things that require us to think about more than ourselves...things that allow us to reach out to our communities and our universe...things that require full use of our gifts as human beings, our minds and souls. Animals can reproduce, so focusing one's life around breeding makes one an animal. Animals can hoard resources and become the head of the pack, as it were, so focusing one's life around a big career is also similar to what animals do. But there are things we humans can do that are totally unique -- anyone who gets too immersed in breed and/or greed will miss out on all the things that define us as humans, distinct from the animal kingdom.

There are more things to achieve and attach to in life than a job or a kid. People need to expand their horizons, which is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm not tied down to anything that will eat up my time and resources -- not a child, not a career, not anything. I'd rather be an explorer of the world and all it has to offer.

And so, perhaps this is why so many of the childed don't understand us -- they don't have the boldness needed to expand their horizons and imagine what they could do with their lives.

Having kids is following the script.

Focusing solely on career is following the script.

You need to throw the script away, and find what it really means to be human!!


No one great was ever remembered just for having kids or just for having a good career. Remember that.


(Rant over.)

Anyway, thanks for the article and comments, Hatsumomo. I really relate with what you had to say about it. I hope my rant didn't detract with or counter any of your points, because I thought they were good ones. Believe me, my anger and the comments that followed were intended for the narrow-minded jerks who tell us we're wrong for our lifestyle choices.

Oh my goodness. Just when I was thinking that Childfree choice in the UK was becoming acceptable I read this article. And yes you're right, it is ignorant drivel.

What bugs me tho, is that you are immediately put into one of only two categories. Have children or have career.

I don't have a high flying career, nor do I want one. I enjoy spending my time travelling, learning new things, enjoying a happy and loving time with my husband. I've recently signed up as a volunteer at the animal shelter at weekends (I work full time during the week). I sing with a band. I feel very fulfilled and I feel happy. But like what was said previously, what makes people happy varies from person to person.

Yes a woman or man may feel deeply fulfilled and happy by having a child, but that does not mean it will be the same for the next person and I'm sorry but I'm not going to have a child just to see if it makes me "more happier". The other thing you have to ask, is "is she really really happy?" or does she say those things because there is no alternative. As a mother she may feel that she can't say "well sometimes I hate it" because that would be frowned upon and she would look hypocrital too and the article wouldn't have the edge it does.

I think the media have picked up on the new phenomena of the childfree choice, but they will cultivate it to be more sensationalist than it really is. Why? Because it makes good reading that's why.

Why would we want to read an intellectual lets think about this from both sides when we can read something that heats up our emotions and gets a reaction. That's what the media want.

When we read articles about Childfree in the media, it will mostlikely be one of two camps. Either on the side of the childfree which will [censored] the childed off, or on the side of the childed to [censored] the childfree off. It will be done to gain a reaction and all that will happen will be that the gap between the understanding of the two "camps" will be widened.

The Childfree will be seen as selfish, unhappy and lonely by the childed, especially when they have read articles like the one in the daily mail.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Hey, gokudo: "What bugs me tho, is that you are immediately put into one of only two categories. Have children or have career." YES! That's exactly how I feel about it!

It sounds like you have a lot of very fulfilling, important things going on in your life.

Don't listen to people who judge you based on careers or family. It sounds like you and your husband have a great life together! : )

And I totally agree with you about the media.

Thank you Xantres. It is lovely to have that said to me <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I'm so glad and grateful there are people like you in the world.

It's true tho isn't it? If you tell people you don't want kids they immediately assume you're a hard nosed career woman who wouldn't [censored] on someone if they were on fire (excuse my language but it's a great expression!).

As I said, the next few years will be interesting. We must stick together and make sure that we never lose sight of our feelings. To not be swayed by the well meaning but shortsightedness of others.

When you hear something repeated many times you will come believe it, remember that. So for every negative thing you read or hear about CF, read something positive afterwards. Maybe keep a list of what you enjoy most about your life.

<img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

wow.

one thing that bugs me is how she says parenthood is a job. no it's not. IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY! i get so sick and tired of people saying that if they were paid for what they do as parents, then they'd be millionaires. it's not a freaking job! ... sorry, that's been bugging me all week.

and i really hate being put into categories. that's not how we are. we are all different. and i dont' think it's fair of her to judge our choices or the circumstances that led us to our current situations.

Blegh. Not xenophobia, eh? Then what DO they call "sure there are lots of kids, but they're not OUR kids, they're not the kids of educated parents!" Smart people should keep popping them out like Pez dispensers...because EVERYBODY knows that you can solve a problem by adding to it!! BLEGH. Do they not see the absolute LACK OF LOGIC in this argument??

Why are we more impressed by someone with a snazzy career than kids? Because to be a corporate CEO or doctor takes a lot of work and education. Any animal can get knocked up and reproduce. Being a GOOD parent requires work, but anyone who tells me they have a kid and expects me to be impressed...hardly.

Notice that they lament that men don't think WOMEN should put children before career. They don't concern themselves with whether the MEN should put their children before their career. HM.

Now, granted: if you HAVE kids, they should be first. But if you DON'T, then what's the harm in putting your career higher on the priority list than non-existant, hypothetical offspring??

And, I laugh--how bloody naive to assume that your children will still be there for you in your old age, and that they will "adore you" when they're grown!! Guess they never went to a nursing home to see how few of the residents got a visit in the last six months, and I guess they never knew anyone whose kids hate them upon adulthood. HAHAHAHA. Idiots.

Go ahead, lady. Abandon logic in a desperate attempt to try to convince yourself you're right.

Hi there all,
Funnily enough, I had a letter printed in the Daily Mail, quite a few years ago now. It was in response to a reverend stating that women who didn't have children were selfish, etc, preferring expense life-styles! Well I wrote basically telling him off, saying what parents want the same things that CF's want but at least CF's don't leave children in nursery care all day to get them!)
I happen to get the Daily Mail every day because it has many good articles, it's just that now and again, it prints some dodgy ones! But it is known to have a right-wing bias.

But going back to myself, I don't lead a lavish life-style, I drive an old banger (because I choose to) I have a part-time job (as I don't want to be at work all day, I want to come home and walk my lovely little dog and sit in the garden, read, etc.) When I see parents doing the school run, I shudder. I would hate all that commotion in the mornings, getting them ready for school, etc.
Sometimes I think will I get lonely when I am old with no-one to check up on me, but say if my 'child' emigrated? What could I do? Or if they turned out to be unloving individuals who didn't want to know their parents anymore!
Just a thought! Pessimistic I know but true!
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts!
Nancy2