Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bye-bye baby (Childfree and Loving It)
Telegraph ^ | February 26, 2006 | Julia Llewellyn Smith

Posted on 02/28/2006 1:23:15 AM PST by beaversmom

Fascinating research suggests that as many as one in five thirtysomething British women is planning a child-free future.

When Jemma North was eight years old she had an epiphany. 'At school, someone's mum was pregnant. All the other little girls were really excited, but all I could think was, "You go through all that and all you have at the end of it is a baby?" I decided then that I would never have children.'

Of course, Jemma's pronouncement was dismissed, much as if she'd announced a plan to be a circus clown. But today, aged 32, married and surrounded by peers who are starting families, she is as adamant about her choice as ever. Yet everyone from family to complete strangers is constantly telling her: 'You'll change your mind.' If they do take her seriously, they warn her: 'You'll regret it.' It infuriates her.

'I don't want children, my husband doesn't want them and we're happy as we are,' she insists. 'The only thing that makes me unhappy is people questioning my decision all the time.'

In our society few objects attract greater pity than the childless woman. She is, we assume, old, unfulfilled, shallow, emotionally damaged, out of touch with the greatest truths of the universe. Almost daily, headlines warn about thirtysomething career women risking heartbreak by delaying pregnancy. Couples spend thousands of pounds to endure the physical and mental ordeal of IVF.

Yet for Jemma, who works for an engineering firm in Northampton, such a vision had no power to frighten. 'I am more put off by the image of being a mother,' she tells me. 'I'm not saying mothers are stupid, because, of course, a lot are far more intelligent than me, but that was my early impression. It seemed to be the thing you did if you had no other ambition.'

Jemma is far from alone. According to the Office of National Statistics, one in five British women in their thirties has decided not to have children. And it may be that a number of these have had less choice in the matter than they thought. Geneticists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge have demonstrated in mice that mutations on a certain gene can cause mothers to neglect their offspring. The same gene also exists in humans.

But whatever the social or genetic forces that play upon us, becoming a mother is still seen as a defining moment. Magazines are full of celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow gushing about how her Oscar means nothing compared to the delights of changing Apple's nappy. In contrast, rare are the voices of women such as the actress Helen Mirren, who has admitted: 'I didn't have that desire to be a mother and I don't think a lot of women do. A lot are pressured into it and they're miserable.' And whenever such comments are voiced, they are usually drowned out by a clamour of disapproval and disbelief.

'Oh, I am fed up of having to justify myself on this subject!' explodes Nicki Defago, a 39-year-old married and childfree (to use her preferred jargon) broadcast journalist. She is the author of Childfree and Loving It!, a book written after she discovered Amazon offered more than 1,000 tomes about what children eat but none about the advantages of childlessness.

'When you say you don't want children, you get the same reaction you'd have got 20 years ago if you said you were gay,' Nicki continues. 'I imagine it's a bit like you must feel if you don't go to church in America. A big section of society is appalled at the notion that there are ladies who don't want to have a baby, and quite a lot of people aren't judgemental but still just can't get it.'

Until I started researching this article, I confess, I fell firmly in the latter camp. Aware of the devastation children would wreak on my carefree life, I nonetheless always hoped to have them. So fundamental was this desire that I was sceptical of women who claimed they didn't want children. As far as I was concerned, they were just trying to put a brave face on the fact that they were unable to conceive, or had never found the right man, or had been bludgeoned by their partner into agreeing not to have them.

Nicki doesn't see it that way. 'You get a far better reception if you tell people you tried and couldn't have children, than if you tell them you don't want them,' she corrects me. But why are people who, for example, are supportive of gay rights, unable to get their heads round the idea that not everyone wants to breed?

Nicki thinks it is because the issue of children 'goes so deeply. A high percentage of us now think there's no God and if you add to that there's no need to reproduce then what on earth is it all for? Choosing not to have children gets to the heart of all those big issues.'

Existential questions apart, much of the debate seems to be fuelled by a baser jealousy. However much they love their children, most parents still yearn for aspects of their old lives.

To see a childless friend enjoying the orderliness, extra cash and spontaneity they have lost, with no apparent sense of 'missing out', can be horribly undermining. Recently the 53-year-old model Marie Helvin explained that her youthful looks were down to a life of no children and, therefore, no stress - a comment that sent a visceral pang through every mother slathering Touche Eclat on her eyebags.

'I know one father of small children who's always saying things like, "Ooh, it's not fair, you are going on holiday next week, we have to go in the school holidays,"' says Jemma North. 'He doesn't seem to appreciate that it's not a question of fairness, that I made a decision to live like this.'

For Regan Forrest, 30, a museums exhibit organiser from Leicester, the downside of children starts with conception. 'I'm uncomfortable with the physical changes of pregnancy and labour,' she admits. 'In my twenties I had body image issues. I've learnt to put up with that but the idea of putting your body through an unknown process is completely terrifying. The turning-point came at a work dinner when a colleague started going on about how his wife had disembowelled herself during labour,' she recalls.

'My partner's a doctor and the obstetric part of his training completely repulsed him. I'd never want him to be repulsed by me.'Equally daunting was the prospect of combining her career with childcare. 'I like to give my career 100 per cent. I don't think I could do the at-home mum thing.'

To parents, such misgivings may seem narcissistic and defeatist. But, Regan retorts, 'I'm demonstrating a degree of self-awareness. I may be selfish but at least I'm not going to let my selfishness affect another person. Anyway, what could be more selfish than propagating your genes? People say that on a biological level that is what we are here to do, but as a species we have transcended our biology. We don't live in caves any more and we don't need to breed.'

Like all women I spoke to, Regan is unconvinced by the arguments in favour of parenthood - the almost transcendent love you feel for children, the joy of watching them develop. 'Maybe women like us are mentally deficient,' says Regan. 'But we're so lucky to be born at this point in history. In the past, I'm sure, women felt like us, but they didn't have a choice.'

The polarity between the two camps could not be sharper. When I told friends who are mothers, or hope to be, about this article, they repeatedly said that - while intellectually respecting the position of the childless - emotionally they found it completely alien. Similarly, child-free women are politely disbelieving when they listen to friends describe a yearning for babies that is almost like a physical ache.

'I'd love to be sympathetic when I hear about women breaking their hearts trying to get IVF, but I can't. It's the opposite of what I feel,' says Anne-Marie Greenslade, 28, a mental-health worker from Warrington, Cheshire. 'I must look so callous when they're telling me, but I can't help it. I simply can't imagine being in their position.'

And there are compelling statistics to back up Anne-Marie's decision. Surveys show that people who choose not to have children (as opposed to those who desperately want them, but can't) tend to have better marriages, better finances and are no more likely to be unhappy in old age than parents.

Alison Townley, 55, a civil servant from Glasgow, toyed with the idea of becoming a mother in her twenties because it was what society expected of her, but felt unable to take the plunge. Today she has no regrets. 'The anguish I was warned about simply isn't there, which surprised me but in a wonderful way. My husband and I revel in our freedom and we resent implications that our life somehow has no purpose. When people have children they seem to give up on their own aspirations and pass the buck on to the next generation. I love the idea that I can still achieve my potential, rather than foisting all my hopes on some other sap.'


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: childfree
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-228 next last
To: beaversmom
as a species we have transcended our biology. We don't live in caves any more and we don't need to breed.'

Give this lady a Darwin Award.

81 posted on 02/28/2006 8:12:37 AM PST by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 145-150)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Most say no, one says, "a little, sometimes". Lots of the ladies who have had children have profound regrets about that choice.

I just plain flatly don't believe you.

82 posted on 02/28/2006 8:13:14 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Bridge
Besides there is a broad movement among European men to renounce traditional families because the divorce rate is at nearly 50%. It is not funny to be a cash cow.

I wonder how that is related to the decline of Christianity in Europe. When a man and woman were married in the Catholic Church, divorce was simply not an option. One was very careful when selecting a mate. For many of us, that's still the case.

Since the decline of Christianity, divorce has come to be a common and easy thing--almost expected. In my opinion, Western society has suffered greatly on many levels from this and will continue to do so.

I think it is a fact that human nature can not be tricked. If a woman decides to live without her own kids (this can be very reasonable in some cases) she usually has to pay a bitter price.

You are 100% correct. I have noticed the same thing with many of my very highly educated relatives. The single women tend to latch themselves on to the kids of the nearest relative as a surrogate family.
83 posted on 02/28/2006 8:18:08 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
She is a 46 year old orthodontist who hates children.

Strange that someone who hates children would choose to make a living out of straightening their teeth.

84 posted on 02/28/2006 8:19:47 AM PST by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 145-150)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom

I look at it as just differences in people. Don't care what she does, one way or the other. She'll never know the feeling that envelopes you when your grandchild says, "God sure showed you how to be a good gramma." I'll never know how it feels to be a size 2 at age 60. Trade-offs.


85 posted on 02/28/2006 8:20:42 AM PST by BBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaDuce
So get off your high horses and apply the "freedom and liberty" view point we all here at FR like to express about other things to people who don't want kids.

You can thank us later when you're old and decrepit and our kids are: mowing your lawn, shoveling your walkway, delivering your mail, helping you cross the street, protecting you from criminals, and taking care of you in a nursing home.
86 posted on 02/28/2006 8:21:10 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus

Julia Llewellyn Smith walks into a store. She accidentally knocks over a $10,000 crystal vase. The store owner comes running up, appalled and looking at the shattered vase. She tells him, "It's okay. I wasn't hurt at all."


87 posted on 02/28/2006 8:22:07 AM PST by Richard Kimball (I like to make everyone's day a little more surreal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Don't believe it, then. I remember the Dear Abby column years ago when she asked her readers "if you had it to do over again, would you have children" and 70% of her responses said "no". Naturally, if it wasn't what you had hoped for, you have a stronger motivation to answer a poll like that, so it's a self-selected group of responses, not a statistically valid one.

I would not say that the parents we know have "profound regrets"; mostly during the years their kids are teenagers they range between frustration and despair, but it gets better when the kids go off to college. :)


88 posted on 02/28/2006 8:23:45 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

And we'll be paying for all of those services. :)


89 posted on 02/28/2006 8:25:19 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Bridge
Can you imagine how ridicoulos the whole discussion about "Eurarabia", "Dhimmitude" and "Muslim toppling of Europe" from the German view is?

Germany is not nearly as bad off as some other places in Europe--like France, the Netherlands and Sweden, for example. What do you make of statistics like the birthrate in cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, where nearly as many Muslim children are being born right now as native Dutch? Is that not troubling?
90 posted on 02/28/2006 8:28:04 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Most say no, one says, "a little, sometimes". Lots of the ladies who have had children have profound regrets about that choice.

I just plain flatly don't believe you.


Call me a liar if you like. But you need to tell others why I would have an incentive to lie about this. We "childfree" folks are darn comfortable with our choice. The vehemence from your side suggests you are not.
91 posted on 02/28/2006 8:28:42 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
But you need to tell others why I would have an incentive to lie about this. We "childfree" folks are darn comfortable with our choice.

You can be as "comfortable" as you like. That doesn't change the moral impact of it.

The vehemence from your side suggests you are not.

"Comfortable" with your choice? Nope, not at all. Comfortable with mine? Absolutely, but more important that being "comforted," I know that what I'm doing is my duty to God and society.

92 posted on 02/28/2006 8:31:57 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Those who refuse to reproduce will be ruled by those who do. Its simple mathematics.


93 posted on 02/28/2006 8:33:20 AM PST by bella1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Campion
>>And when it comes to self-absorption, one could make a case that generating a mini-replica to carry on one's legacy after you are gone ranks pretty high

>I doubt very much you're a parent, or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.

I wasn't the one cooing about "posterity".

>A society in which a significant number of people decide that reproduction is "optional," and an "option" they can do without, is doomed. That's not even debatable, unless you like to argue with mathematics.

"Doomed"? That is ridiculous, because there has always been a segment, including happily married fertile couples, who choose not to reproduce.

>That's why we call it selfish. It is selfish; it's eating your economic seed corn today so you can get good and fat, never mind the fact that there will be nothing to plant in the spring and you will starve next winter.

Newsflash: reproduction is not immortality. Failure to have children does not cause one to starve. A more pertinent agricultural point is that at a more primitive time in human history, having lots of children was essential for a family's survival. In modern times, a family can survive just as easily with or without children.

>For a time, a society can artificially prop up its standard of living by refusing to bear, feed, raise and educate the next generation. But that only lasts so long, doesn't it.

You speak as if the small minority who choose not to have children are out there proselytizing and pressuring others not to. Yet you are living proof of who is doing a proselytizing and pressuring. And your language about "the next generation" sounds like Hillary Clinton's "it takes a Village". Don't kid yourself that you are raising the next generation. You are just raising your own kids, because that's what you wanted to do.
94 posted on 02/28/2006 8:36:09 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

I don't think that's true; I think that some people, for religious or other reasons, honestly do not think it is RIGHT for people to be childless.

On a conservative website, it always amazes me to see that people make this exception for individual decision-making, which conservatives usually support.

The arguments I have so often seen fall into three major groups, none of which speak to love of children, frankly:

1. Contraception is morally wrong and should not be practiced (obviously not something people generally agree on).

2. The Muslims are having the children we are not having, and will take over the world (therefore, have babies to kill and be killed).

3. Social Security would not be in trouble now if we'd had all of the babies that were aborted or otherwise prevented from being born (therefore, have babies to be indentured servants for our retirement).

None of those seem to be compelling arguments for having more children, since none of them have to do with love of children.


95 posted on 02/28/2006 8:36:50 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Easy enough to correct by taking away the various government give-away rewards for breeding. That focuses the mind wonderfully (particulaly among those of limited means, which for obvious reasons tends to be common among unassimilated and uneducated recent immigrants).


96 posted on 02/28/2006 8:37:04 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: bella1
I for one am encouraging my children to have more than just two.

Good for you. I had but one brother as a kid. Having a brother is a wonderful thing--the closest relationship outside of marriage that many of us will ever have. My wife has a brother and three sisters and their family life is a joy. We get together with them at least twice a week--it's a built-in support network.

I want my children to have the same thing. A large family is an incredible blessing. So far, we've got three with one on the way. God has truly blessed us.
97 posted on 02/28/2006 8:37:29 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

And immediately, we've seen argument 1 and 2 made just in the time it took me to post. I've been on FR long enough that I know when it's going to be completely predictable! :)


98 posted on 02/28/2006 8:38:20 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Campion

>That doesn't change the moral impact of it.

I see, now we are "immoral" for choosing not to have children.

Dismissed.


99 posted on 02/28/2006 8:38:26 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
They'll under-breed themselves out of existence.

If that were true...how do you explain homosexuals?

100 posted on 02/28/2006 8:40:05 AM PST by antaresequity (PUSH 1 FOR ENGLISH, PUSH 2 TO BE DEPORTED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-228 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson