Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of my friends and family constantly ask about me having kids. They go on and on about how cute they are and how much fun they are. However, after a drink or two, they open up about how time consuming kids are and how much trouble they are. I've even had one friend who admitted she regretted having children.
Why do you think many people are dishonest about the realities of having children? If not dishonest, they never seem to be mention all of the negatives.
My 3 kids have given me some of the greatest joy in my life as well as some of the biggest sorrows. I always knew that I would have children. I tell people that ask to only have children if you have a strong desire.
There are also a lot of studies that show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to have children. I think this is because many educated people think about every single aspect of something before making a decision and it's usually fact based and not emotionally driven.
Having children doesn't look good on paper and the only compelling reasons for having them are based on emotions.
I never came across such studies. Instead, I read more educated people are having kids when they are much older. It makes sense - education and sometimes career dictates this.
Second part could also be said about pets, fancy goods, and so on. People still decide on having pets and buy fancy goods
There are also a lot of studies that show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to have children. I think this is because many educated people think about every single aspect of something before making a decision and it's usually fact based and not emotionally driven. Having children doesn't look good on paper and the only compelling reasons for having them are based on emotions.
In past centuries, people had children so they could work on the farm and provide free labor. We don't live in such a society anymore, so the only reason to have children is "because I want to".
I think more educated women are so busy pursuing degrees and a career, that they run of out time. By the time, these women are in their late thirties and forties, it's harder to give up their careers. It's also harder to find an equally successful spouse. I've known college friends who waited to marry in their forties and never found anyone.
OTOH, men can purse degrees and careers without giving up a family. The men marry less career driven or younger women. It's not unusually to find a successful doctor or high level lawyer with a stay-at-home wife holding down the fort. I'm not saying every successful man does this, but from my experiences, most do.
If you don't think child don't look good on paper, start reading about childless, orphan seniors. Old people still depend on their children for care.
If you don't think child don't look good on paper, start reading about childless, orphan seniors. Old people still depend on their children for care.
At the risk of quoting you out of context, or perhaps even misquoting, an observation about "looking good on paper".
At my present age, it is typical for peers' offspring to be somewhere between high-school age, to mid-20s and beyond. For the older professional-types who married late, the kids are still teenagers. The more traditional or blue-collar types are now grandparents. Those of us without kids are viewed askance. To be a non-parent means to be a person now on the back-slope of life, without a concrete stake in the future. This is the stereotype and the bias. A decade ago I'd have been accused of a dissolute favoring of sports cars over fatherhood. That phase of life has passed. Now I'm not overtly accused of anything, but instead am quietly but persistently viewed with skepticism, as a fellow who didn't plan wisely.
The bias goes like this: if you're sailing into old-age (or just older-age) without having had kids, you are not oriented towards the future. That renders you unfit to do long-range planning or to be a senior decision maker for long-term strategy. How can you be an executive steering the organization for what might happen in 50 years? You yourself will be long dead. Your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be in charge. It will be their world, not yours. So, if you have no progeny, you have no future-world of which to conceive (pun intended). Why should you be trusted to make decisions now, affecting the world 50 years hence?
If we look at senior people in science, culture, business, politics and so on, we find a curious trend. Sure, plenty of artists, composers, mathematicians, architects and other "creatives" are child-free. They are individua contributors, who maybe lead the culture, but they don't lead teams of people. Politicians, CEOs, formal leaders of various sorts, almost invariably have kids. Imagine a candidate for governor, senator or the like, who doesn't have kids. Would this be a successful candidate?
In other words, one needs to have kids, to "look good on paper".
Good birth control didn't come into being until about the 1960s. Not so long ago after endless centuries of no choice about childbearing. The social changes that came with birth control (and then legal abortion in the 1970s) are still reverberating.
Many people/couples/women just don't wanna. It's not a "career versus family." Adults work, unless they are taking care of dependents. Just. Don't. Wanna.
At the risk of quoting you out of context, or perhaps even misquoting, an observation about "looking good on paper".
Those of us without kids are viewed askance. To be a non-parent means to be a person now on the back-slope of life, without a concrete stake in the future. This is the stereotype and the bias. A decade ago I'd have been accused of a dissolute favoring of sports cars over fatherhood. That phase of life has passed. Now I'm not overtly accused of anything, but instead am quietly but persistently viewed with skepticism, as a fellow who didn't plan wisely.
The bias goes like this: if you're sailing into old-age (or just older-age) without having had kids, you are not oriented towards the future. That renders you unfit to do long-range planning or to be a senior decision maker for long-term strategy. How can you be an executive steering the organization for what might happen in 50 years? You yourself will be long dead. Your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be in charge. It will be their world, not yours. So, if you have no progeny, you have no future-world of which to conceive (pun intended). Why should you be trusted to make decisions now, affecting the world 50 years hence?
If we look at senior people in science, culture, business, politics and so on, we find a curious trend. Sure, plenty of artists, composers, mathematicians, architects and other "creatives" are child-free. They are individua contributors, who maybe lead the culture, but they don't lead teams of people. Politicians, CEOs, formal leaders of various sorts, almost invariably have kids. Imagine a candidate for governor, senator or the like, who doesn't have kids. Would this be a successful candidate?
In other words, one needs to have kids, to "look good on paper".
I quoted the OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by briskwheel
Having children doesn't look good on paper and the only compelling reasons for having them are based on emotions.
Look at NY Mayor Ed Koch - he never married or had kids. I'm sure there are many more.
I am sure that there are many negative ramifications for child-free people. My point was its harder in old age to plan for care without a child or sibling to make decisions.
Why do you think many people are dishonest about the realities of having children? If not dishonest, they never seem to be mention all of the negatives.
For the downsides, they just want to complain and vent. That's all it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by briskwheel
I've even had one friend who admitted she regretted having children.
I never take anyone seriously who says this. If given the option to go back in time and literally choose not to have their kid(s), they wouldn't do it. 99% of parents would choose to keep their kids due to all the "good parts" they always talk about, and it wouldn't even be close. They're just complaining when they say stuff like that.
I love my job but some days complain about it a lot. Why do I have job? Why I am being dishonest about loving my job?
These are similar questions to what topic starter was asking in my opinion.
Yes, OP didn't question why people choose to have children or not. The OP questions why people are supposedly dishonest about the realities of having children. Two entirely different questions.
OP do you only think people are only dishonest about it if they tell you what a joy children are, but not if they tell you how much work children are?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
