Many years ago my Nana on my father’s side had eight children. If those 8 children married and had 2 children each, that would be 16 children (my generation). Then the 16 would have 32 (my children’s generation). Next, that 32 would have 64 children and that would mean babies galore!
Instead, there is one lone grandchild on the horizon among the group we frequently see, and I think my cousin has 3 grandchildren. So that would mean 4 instead of 64. Similarly, with my close group of girlfriends, our mothers produced 33 children of our generation. However, the 7 of us produced only 7 offspring. Among those seven, ages 21 to 35, only one baby is presently on the way.
Why are people so hesitant to have children? Why is the younger generation waiting so long to marry and start a family? Well, obviously, some are single, some are unable to have children, some do not choose to have children, and some are content with only one child. The reasons are personal and as numerous as there are people.
As for me, I had only two children for several reasons:
• My husband and I agreed before we married to have two children.
• I did not have my family nearby to help.
• I wanted to pursue a career.
• We had one child of each gender.
• We did not think we could afford to raise and educate more than two children
• We believed in ZPG (zero population growth)*
*Zero Population Growth was a popular movement in the 1970s when its organizers feared that the world was becoming overpopulated. Young adults were encouraged to have only two children in order to simply replace themselves in the world. People who took this seriously opted to have two biological children and adopted any additional children.
In opposition, I can come up with at least a dozen friends and acquaintances who had enough courage and energy to produce 3 or 4 children. However, these larger families are increasingly rare today. While no one should be obligated to have children, it should be a feasible choice. In the United States, we do not have cradle to grave coverage as some socialist countries do. The middle class citizens are often caught in a bind. Along with the high cost of educating children is the fear that we will not have enough money to live on when we retire. I know that our country’s population would be dropping were it not for immigrants and illegal aliens. Some European countries, in recognition of dropping populations, offer incentives for women to have children. One example is Germany holding a position for the mother for up to three years while she stays home raising a child.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I am concerned that among educated women, fewer children are being born. For my purposes, I will stipulate that educated women are those with at least an undergraduate college degree and a career. I regret that my relatives, acquaintances, and friends who are kind, witty, intelligent, and responsible people are choosing to remain childless or to have just one child. It’s a sad commentary on our society that the educated are not even replacing themselves. The reasons are numerous and complex. But I think that tax incentives for parents and more affordable higher education and elder care in the United States would be a step in the right direction.
I would really like to know what others think about this population trend.
Part II. Baby Boomlet
[Editor’s note: As a follow up to the above post, I will argue the other side. What choice do I have when I get so few comments?]
Just this past weekend, I attended two baby showers (attended one, gave one). They were on the same weekend by design. My daughter and a close friend are both pregnant and due at about the same time. They planned to have the showers close together so all the out-of-town friends could attend both on a single trip. Collectively, there were at least four pregnant women attending the showers as well as four baby girls, five months and younger, including twins.
It was refreshing to see the nearing-age-thirty women starting families. Some are still working full-time, some part-time, and some are stay-at-home moms. They were overjoyed to be sharing their experiences with friends at this rare get together. We older mothers enjoyed watching them, thinking “Been there; done that.”
Since I live in a world of senior citizens and retirees, I don’t see many babies. I hadn’t been to a baby shower for as long as I can remember before this past weekend. So, my recent experience is clearly anecdotal.
Do your experiences reflect a baby boom or a baby bust?
2 comments:
As a faithful reader, I will respond. I think this is a difficult issue. For so long, women were fighting the good fight and trying to achieve equality. They wanted the big careers and they wanted to be treated like their male counterparts. If career women did have babies, it was later in life and those babies went to full-time day care.
Now, however, we are entering a period where women are realizing we will never be completely equal with our male counterparts. It's biologically impossible. As women and mothers, our responsibilities are huge. Even if we have the same career positions, pay and respect as men, Mommy is not the same as Daddy. The demands on Mommy will always be greater.
On top of that, we know so much more about the importance of those crucial early years of our children. We don't want our babies in full-time day care. We want to parent them, not have strangers do that job. Unfortunately, in the United States, that usually means sacrificing the career. As a result, women are choosing to have the career, then have babies (many, I believe, see this as having the best of both worlds).
While money is a big issue, I see it as less of a motivating factor in late child bearing than the career issue is. Of course, educated women usually leave college with some hefty debt, and I know I could not sacrifice a career and still pay those debts (another problem with living in the United States).
My mother always tells me that the women's movement hurt women more than it helped them. She says that today's women are now expected to have a career, raise children, and run the home. We have fewer choices and more demands. In some ways, I agree. However, I also think we now look upon having children with much more reverence and thus approach it differently than previous generations. Again, as my mother says of her generation, "we were young and stupid and had no idea what we were doing."
As to the one child versus three issue, well, that comes on the heels of having children later in life. I remember as a young girl hearing that it was impossible/medically irresponsible for a woman to have a baby after 35. Luckily, we know better now and women into their early 40s are having healthy babies. However, the risks of "advanced maternal age" pregnancies (what a horrible phrase!)are still very real and must be weighed carefully. Many women opt not to hedge their bets.
This is the situation we place ourselves in...there are trade-offs to everything in life.
Sherri, Thank you for your thoughtful and wise response. It is of course unrealistic for women to act as if giving birth and raising children have no effect on their careers.
Most women have about forty-five productive years between college and retirement. No matter how women arrange their lives, career first or children first, I think that in most cases there is time to have it all in a series of steps.
Personally, I worked for 6 years and earned a master's degree, had kids and stayed home for about 7 years, then still had another 25 years of teaching mostly part-time while my children were in school and beyond. Some would say that part-time teaching is not a career, but it was both fulfilling for me and financially helpful for our family.
I thought about getting a PhD for about 6 months when I was 35. Becaause my husband was gone on weekdays from 7am to 7pm, everything else fell on me. In the end, I did what was best for our family and have never regretted it.
Post a Comment