I have recently read a number of articles addressing a debate raging in North America, Europe, and Britain: Should we or should we not have children? Corinne Maier is of the camp that we should not, and the release of her book, No Kid: 40 Reasons Not to Have Children, has prompted controversy and backlash. As a mother of two Maier admits that she has had moments in her life where she deeply regrets having had children. Her 40 reasons to avoid having kids if you haven't already fallen victim to breeding include:
1. Labour is torture
2. You will be a slave to your children
3. Kids are unbiased allies of capitalism
4. Kids signal the end of your youthful dreams
There are 36 more equally forceful, tongue-in-cheek, shocking reasons provided to avoid having children and keep living a life that's actually fun, fulfilling, and involves sleep and sex.
Not surprisingly parents, and those who dream of being parents, are deeply offended by this diatribe. There have been numerous responses suggesting that Maier is a monster, a bad mother, and clearly lacking patience, love, and compassion. In a counter attack parents have posted lists of 40 reasons to have kids. Some of these reasons include:
1. Kids love you unconditionally
2. Kids mean that you get priority boarding on planes
3. Kids help you appreciate the simple things in life
4. Kids give the best hugs
What shocks me about all of this is the atmosphere of hatred, attack, and intolerance. Both sides of the debate align themselves with deeply one-sided views of parenting--each condemning the other for making the wrong choice. Those who choose to remain childfree condemn those with children for putting yet another spoiled, energy guzzling, resource hogging child on the already overpopulated planet. Those with children condemn those without for being selfish, unloving, greedy Narcissists who only care about their cars and their next trip to a trendy overpriced restaurant. Both sides make highly essentialist arguments that deny the fact that there are moments of joy and moments of frustration inherent in BOTH modes of living. Both sides are practising delusional thinking--one assuming that a life with children is devoid of pleasure and the other assuming that the childless life is devoid of real love. The notion that kids will love you unconditionally is just as fallacious as the notion that they will treat you like a maidservant and never appreciate what you've done for them. Furthermore the contention that labour is torture is a matter of perception. You could just as easily view it as a painful but rewarding rite of passage. On the flip side there is a societal notion that labour should be this beautiful, magical process that leaves you in tears of joy. This perception ignores the physical reality of birth which does indeed involve possibly the most horrendous pain a woman will go through in her entire life. What no one seems willing to admit is that both sides have valid arguments and I can't help but cry out "can't we all just get along?"
The fact of the matter is that both sides are oversimplifying. The Maier camp tends to focus on all the comforts, freedoms, and privileges that one will have to give up when you become a parent. They tie this to ethical superiority by playing the environmental card. Children in developed countries are huge resource and energy gluttons and are contributing to the destruction of our planet. The child proponents focus on love, beauty and the belief that children are the future of the world and we have a duty to produce good ones. They claim that they never knew what love and self-sacrifice were until they had children. They claim that they have grown immensely as people and suggest that those who remain childfree are living in a perpetual state of selfish childhood themselves.
And I have to wonder, instead of vilifying each other for our procreative choices why can't we have a balanced conversation that admits that there are indeed pros and cons to BOTH options? One is not morally better than the other. One is not more human than the other. The world will be a better place if we all carefully consider why we are choosing to procreate or remain childfree and create a diverse population of people with different roles to play. If we were all free to make decisions without being exposed to hatred and intolerance for our choices we might acheive a more balanced society in which parents and the childfree appreciate each others' unique contributions to the world and work towards more open and accepting forms of community and family.
Those who remain childfree may indeed have more time and often more money to pursue other goals. This might mean being more deeply involved in the work of politics and industry. It might mean the ability to participate in large scale global projects that involve travel and extraordinary focus on career. It might mean freedom to explore their own talents in ways unavailable to parents taking care of small children. And I can respect those who want to have a life that allows them to make contributions that they couldn't make if they were driving kids to hockey practise and trying to keep their house free of jam hand prints. I also know that the lives of those who do not have children by choice or otherwise are not void of love and courage and a desire to participate fully in the act of living. Having children is not synonymous with selflessness and declining to have them is not evidence of excessive self love. Those without children are valuable in their ability to conceive of different formulations of family. We tend to think of family in the 2 parents + x children formulation, but those who do not fall into this "ideal" pattern have much to teach us about how many unique permutations of family there really are.
Those who choose to have children, particularly women, are often less likely to develop high profile, high paying careers but this doesn't meant that they aren't making a contribution to public life. The job of parenting is invisible and that's really a shame. It deserves to be validated as a Work. If people saw choosing to be a parent in the same light that they saw choosing to be a lawyer or an engineer or a nurse there would probably be a lot more respect for parents everywhere. And my suspicion is that parenting takes just as much time, mental energy, creative thinking, and innovation as any publicly validated career choice. In terms of the environmental argument, parents are indeed impacting the world by putting more consumers on the planet, but they are also showing extraordinary hope for the future by believing that the world can be a place fit for children, and believing that their children can make a positive contribution to life on the planet. Many fight daily for a world that will be fit for the next generation and simultaneously work towards a world that is better for all of us. Parents are not environmentally ignorant people hell bent on destroying the rainforests along with destroying trips to museums for everyone else by towing along their screaming children. They are not all bowing to social norms and having children simply to stave off lonliness in their old age. Many parents are having children because they think that doing so will make the world a better place and will enrich their own lives, helping them to become better people, and thus better citizens of our global community.
There is beauty, fulfillment, and an opportunity to sample hundreds of experiences that life has to offer regardless of the decision made about bringing children into the world. Each choice offers a different perspective on life and having varying perspectives can only enrich global conversation. If we all decide to stop having children human culture will be dead in 100 years. If we all decide to raise families of twelve we will quickly strip the planet of its resources and choke ourselves out of existence. The key in this, as in all things, is balance. In a balanced world we will learn to appreciate the diverse ways that people make a difference. We will find beauty in the many strategies that people develop for living in the world. We will learn from each others' experiences and know that all of us are doing the best we can to live and love and make the best of the all to short lives that we have been given.
I respect Maier for daring to admit that being a mother isn't all rainbows and puppies. And I also applaud those who stood up to her to defend the positive experiences in parenting. And while I don't believe that there is a valid "Should" attached to the question of children I think there is a "Should" attached to the question of ongoing dialogue. We should keep talking about these big issues--parenting, the environment, how to live together on this increasingly taxed planet, how to achieve fulfilling and socially aware lives, how to love amidst the chaos.