We Kid You Not Childfree Forums

Full Version: Does Having Children Make You Happy?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I actually know this reporter. She's a friend of my breederiffic ex-boyfriend the music critic. I feel like writing to her now...

*******
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792?GT1=43002
CULTURE | TRUE OR FALSE
Having Kids Makes You Happy
By Lorraine Ali | NEWSWEEK
July 7-14, 2008 issue

When I was growing up, our former neighbors, whom we'll call the Sloans, were the only couple on the block without kids. It wasn't that they couldn't have children; according to Mr. Sloan, they just chose not to. All the other parents, including mine, thought it was odd—even tragic. So any bad luck that befell the Sloans—the egging of their house one Halloween; the landslide that sent their pool careering to the street below—was somehow attributed to that fateful decision they'd made so many years before. "Well," the other adults would say, "you know they never did have kids." Each time I visited the Sloans, I'd search for signs of insanity, misery or even regret in their superclean home, yet I never seemed to find any. From what I could tell, the Sloans were happy, maybe even happier than my parents, despite the fact that they were (whisper) childless.

My impressions may have been swayed by the fact that their candy dish was always full, but several studies now show that the Sloans could well have been more content than most of the traditional families around them. In Daniel Gilbert's 2006 book "Stumbling on Happiness," the Harvard professor of psychology looks at several studies and concludes that marital satisfaction decreases dramatically after the birth of the first child—and increases only when the last child has left home. He also ascertains that parents are happier grocery shopping and even sleeping than spending time with their kids. Other data cited by 2008's "Gross National Happiness" author, Arthur C. Brooks, finds that parents are about 7 percentage points less likely to report being happy than the childless.

The most recent comprehensive study on the emotional state of those with kids shows us that the term "bundle of joy" may not be the most accurate way to describe our offspring. "Parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," says Florida State University's Robin Simon, a sociology professor who's conducted several recent parenting studies, the most thorough of which came out in 2005 and looked at data gathered from 13,000 Americans by the National Survey of Families and Households. "In fact, no group of parents—married, single, step or even empty nest—reported significantly greater emotional well-being than people who never had children. It's such a counterintuitive finding because we have these cultural beliefs that children are the key to happiness and a healthy life, and they're not."

Simon received plenty of hate mail in response to her research ("Obviously Professor Simon hates her kids," read one), which isn't surprising. Her findings shake the very foundation of what we've been raised to believe is true. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, 50 percent of Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness. But which parent is willing to admit that the greatest gift life has to offer has in fact made his or her life less enjoyable?

Parents may openly lament their lack of sleep, hectic schedules and difficulty in dealing with their surly teens, but rarely will they cop to feeling depressed due to the everyday rigors of child rearing. "If you admit that kids and parenthood aren't making you happy, it's basically blasphemy," says Jen Singer, a stay-at-home mother of two from New Jersey who runs the popular parenting blog MommaSaid.net. "From baby-lotion commercials that make motherhood look happy and well rested, to commercials for Disney World where you're supposed to feel like a kid because you're there with your kids, we've made parenthood out to be one blissful moment after another, and it's disappointing when you find out it's not."

Is it possible that American parents have always been this disillusioned? Anecdotal evidence says no. In pre-industrial America, parents certainly loved their children, but their offspring also served a purpose—to work the farm, contribute to the household. Children were a necessity. Today, we have kids more for emotional reasons, but an increasingly complicated work and social environment has made finding satisfaction far more difficult. A key study by University of Wisconsin-Madison's Sara McLanahan and Julia Adams, conducted some 20 years ago, found that parenthood was perceived as significantly more stressful in the 1970s than in the 1950s; the researchers attribute part of that change to major shifts in employment patterns. The majority of American parents now work outside the home, have less support from extended family and face a deteriorating education and health-care system, so raising children has not only become more complicated—it has become more expensive. Today the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that it costs anywhere from $134,370 to $237,520 to raise a child from birth to the age of 17—and that's not counting school or college tuition. No wonder parents are feeling a little blue.

Societal ills aside, perhaps we also expect too much from the promise of parenting. The National Marriage Project's 2006 "State of Our Unions" report says that parents have significantly lower marital satisfaction than nonparents because they experienced more single and child-free years than previous generations. Twenty-five years ago, women married around the age of 20, and men at 23. Today both sexes are marrying four to five years later. This means the experience of raising kids is now competing with highs in a parent's past, like career wins ("I got a raise!") or a carefree social life ("God, this is a great martini!"). Shuttling cranky kids to school or dashing to work with spit-up on your favorite sweater doesn't skew as romantic.

For the childless, all this research must certainly feel redeeming. As for those of us with kids, well, the news isn't all bad. Parents still report feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than those who've never had kids. And there are other rewarding aspects of parenting that are impossible to quantify. For example, I never thought it possible to love someone as deeply as I love my son. As for the Sloans, it's hard to say whether they had a less meaningful existence than my parents, or if my parents were 7 percent less happy than the Sloans. Perhaps it just comes down to how you see the candy dish—half empty or half full. Or at least as a parent, that's what I'll keep telling myself.

Answer: False
Oh, I just love the self-congratulations in that last paragraph. It is vindicating to me, knowing that after trashing us for "not having purpose and meaning in our lives" or whatever, these breeders have to REMIND us (themselves) that they really ARE happy! Oh, yes, indeedy! Look at me! I maded a clone! Wink

Brick1

Jen M.
Do it! I wonder what she'd think. Wait, this article shows that thinking isn't her strongest suit.
dune67 Wrote:Do it! I wonder what she'd think. Wait, this article shows that thinking isn't her strongest suit.

It is pretty well-written though, don't you think? She started out as a music critic, so I guess this is something new for her. She was also single when I met her, but that was back in 1998.
It would have been fine except for the conclusion. I was also not happy with "childless."
At the end she did say "FALSE" though. So it sounds like she came down on our side of the fence, despite having kids.
Well yeah, she did. But I hate that any kind of article like this always has to pander to parents/breeders. We can never get an article that lays out the facts without some sort of "it's all worth it" statement seeping (or barging) to the surface. Is it so difficult to write something for mainstream media that says, "This is a life worth living"? I don't see parenting articles that mention how not having a kid is a good thing, too. I guess I am just feeling crabby because of the constant need to be "balanced" in any article about the childfree.
dune67 Wrote:I don't see parenting articles that mention how not having a kid is a good thing, too.

Excellent point.
I don't like the use of the term, "childless," either, unless one is talking about people who wanted but were unable to have children.

Jen M.
Minority Report: The burden of parenthood



By Marjorie Asturias-Lochlaer
Minority Report
Email Print Comment Recommend
Finally. Someone had the guts to say it.

In case you missed it, NPR (89.5 FM) ran a story yesterday titled, “Studies Show Kids May Not Be ‘Bundles of Joy.’”

Catchy, huh? I thought so too.

According to Robin Simon, the Florida State University sociologist interviewed in the report, “parents definitely experienced more depression” than childless adults. In fact, Dr. Simon found that “parental depression increases along with the number of children parents have.”

I don’t point out the study because I’m anti-children, nor do I think that was Dr. Simon’s objective either. Rather, I believe that it serves to highlight the terrible discrepancy between the dream of parenting and its uncomfortable reality, especially in this country. People spend a lot of energy convincing women of a certain socioeconomic class, race and age range that their lives would be transformed into something miraculous and holy — complete with soft-focus lighting and eternal bliss — if they would just pop out a few adorable tykes.

Of course, if you’re a young Hispanic or black woman and already have a kid or two — or even if you’re white but poor and uneducated — you’ll get the opposite argument, i.e., you’re a welfare queen who should get her ass off the couch and work, for God’s sake. Oh, and while you’re at it, head on over to the doctor’s office and get yourself sterilized.

Yeah, that’s what we mean by “family values” in this country.

Dr. Simon found that parental depression and anxiety stems from — surprise! — the overwhelming demands that child-rearing exacts on them as caregivers. Moreover, she is careful to point out that the root of all this unhappiness lies NOT with the kids themselves, but rather with the way our society is structured.

In the United States the burden of caregiving lies completely with the parents. Unlike other nations with loads of family friendly policies — generously subsidized day care, long parental leaves, extensive social benefits to families and children, universal health care — we would prefer to encourage people to have children while at the same time expecting them to bear the full responsibility for them, despite our lip-service to the idea that “it takes a village to raise a child.”

No wonder I and a few of my girlfriends are resisting the urge to procreate and satisfy some external need imposed upon us by society. Sure, we would like to have children, but we’ve also seen how the financial and psychological costs of raising them are more often than not borne by the mothers themselves, regardless of their marital status.

A couple of decades ago, a study found that the happiest women are those who are single, employed and child-free. Those of us who grew up hearing those statistics remember the lessons we learned from them: If you’re a woman and you want to have children, be prepared for some pretty painful years.

Put aside the psychological costs that Dr. Simon found in her studies and focus instead on the financial side for a moment. Depending on the statistics you cite, women typically see anywhere from a 30 percent to a whopping 77 percent decrease in their standard of living following a divorce; the rates increase if children are involved. Single motherhood deals you the double whallop of isolated child-rearing and the horrifying fact that it’s the most common reason women of any age end up in poverty.

Now, again, remember that the children themselves are not the reason for these sad statistics. Children come with a host of problems, but being the cause of all this fiscal and emotional grief isn’t one of them. Rather, we live in a society that ostensibly honors families but won’t provide any social support to back up those values. We want motherhood and apple pie, but only if women themselves are willing to make the sacrifices for them. We want the benefits of a population that can sustain itself in the future, but not if that future means fewer middle- and upper-class whites and more brown, black and yellow faces spanning the full spectrum of socioeconomic class.

You see now why some of us aren’t rushing out to buy “What to Expect When You’re Expecting,” or why we don’t swoon over the Classic Pooh onesies display at Target.

It’s not that we don’t want children. We’re just waiting for the day when we aren’t punished for having them simply because we don’t fit some outdated racist, sexist and classist stereotypes.

At the rate we’re going, though, I’m not holding my breath.
I'm sorry, but it's a fucking LIFE CHOICE! You choose your life path. It is your responsibility.

I don't buy into the "It Takes a Village" crap. The "village" that these people are thinking of is actually the extended FAMILY of the parents, not every Tom, Dick, and Sally that's within 50 fucking FEET!

People are stupid.
Jen M.
I agree Bittercat. I hate that "It Takes A Village" crap. A village of what? Idiots?

I am not responsible for raising your child. You are. Deal.

PrairieGirl

Quote:I hate that "It Takes A Village" crap. A village of what? Idiots?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!
I've always kind of thought... (gasp)... it *does* take a village to raise a child, but that most North American cultures don't support that concept, and that's why children cause such depression in our culture, in a way it does not it other cultures.

If you live in neighbourhood where you have extended family, friends, neighbours who care and WANT to particpate in the rearing of your children, that's wonderful, and you ALL reap the benefits of that large network and cameraderie. Sometimes old people (ha) like having kids for a few hours, sometimes older kids learn responsibility by taking care of younger ones, and young kids get a sense of safety by knowing they can trust a large circle of people around them. I'm not saying I need to participate in the raising of the kids on my block... I'm just saying the woman who lives next door with that baby likes knowing me by name, I like knowing her by name, her son smiles when he sees me and knows I'm a friendly familiar face, and if anything were to ever happen, he could come over here and trust me. He's only 2, but still. There is a sense of community here.

I obviously don't *want* to raise other people's children. That's not what the 'village' comment means at all. It just means society as a whole is better off when you all have common goals and look out for each other, specifically the weakest among us, which usually includes children and disabled. Just makes for a more civilized community, I think.
Unfortunately, families tend not to live in close proximity of each other otherwise the "village" theory would work. It worked 50 or 100 years ago, but not now.

The Village that Hilary Clinton spoke of and made famous in her speech refers to the village as society as a whole - government, neighbors, friends, the store clerk, etc. . .

It's the parents' job to raise the kids, not society or the government. Sure, we all have to look out for each other as human beings and respect our fellow human but I don't think my taxes should pay for Jr.'s day care.

Mrs Flowerpot

"Parents still report feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than those who've never had kids"

How do you measure by comparison the level of purpose and meaning in someones life against another? How does anyone else know what another is truly feeling?

I would love to read an article from a child free person on the subject of the grass being greener. Are there any around?
Mrs Flowerpot Wrote:"Parents still report feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than those who've never had kids"

How do you measure by comparison the level of purpose and meaning in someones life against another? How does anyone else know what another is truly feeling?

I would love to read an article from a child free person on the subject of the grass being greener. Are there any around?

You are correct. Welcome to the board, BTW.

I find helping animals (especially cats) meaningful and it brings purpose to my life. A kid on the other hand, would suck the life right out of me.

If a child brings purpose to your life, great! Have a child and feel purposeful but don't try and say that your purpose would be as meaningful in my life as it is in yours.

Everyone is different!
Jo, I agree with you to an extent; however, people have an EXPECTATION that others will raise their kids for them, and that's simply not true. I will look out for the safety of people around me, but I will NOT take care of someone else's child.

Jen M.
It DOES take a village to raise a child, but breeders don't really understand what that means. To "raise" a child does not just mean that the village gives you money and free babysitting with no questions asked. In return for the favors that the village gives you and your children, the village deserves an equal say in how that child is raised. Our opinions deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed with "You're not a parent, so don't tell me what to do with MY kid." We also deserve to be treated with respect by your child, since we are contributing to their upbringing.
CFS, that is so true!
Jen M.
Reference URL's