Childfree lifestyle gaining steam

More evidence that the decision to become childfree is becoming more mainstream comes from BBC News. They've posted an excellent piece on their Web site titled, "The rise of the 'childfree.'"

Childless or childfree? Not so long ago, all women without children were known as childless, with its implication of a state of loss. Nowadays, a growing number of women are insisting on the term childfree - with its emphasis on liberation.

Mariah, who lives in Sweden, decided to be sterilised at the age of 25An increasing number of women in their 30s are rejecting the job description that they believe comes with parenting - loss of freedom, reduced career prospects and financial burdens.
[LINK]

Childfree researcher and documentary maker seeking subjects

A writer in Roanoke County named Laura Scott is documenting childfree couples for a book and film project.

Here's an interesting snippet from the article about her project:
Many assume that couples remain childless so they can sleep late on Saturdays or dine out whenever they want. According to Scott's research, those freedoms may be the benefits of being childless but they're not the primary motivators.

Many of the voluntarily childless say they lack maternal/paternal instincts and believe that it's morally wrong to risk a pregnancy if they're not able to happily welcome a child into their lives.

Scott's interviewees underscored the research of Westminster College sociologist Kristin Park, whose studies show that people who are childless by choice tend to be primarily white and college-educated, in high-income brackets and more unconventional than most. Couples who choose to remain child-free have also reported the highest levels of marital satisfaction among all couples.
[LINK]

Advice BNOB can get behind!

Advice columnist "Ask Amy" has some good advice, including buying "Baby Not on Board," for a childfree couple who is getting pressured by their family. Thanks, Amy!
[LINK]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In her article "Kids: Bad investments, big returns," MSN Money columnist MP Dunleavy did a detailed cost-benefit analysis of having a child. The child lost:

Most people see children as a joy, a priceless gift -- and so they are. But those powerful emotions make it hard to weigh what that extra $269,000, deposited into a retirement account -- instead of soccer lessons -- might yield.

Needless to say, Dunleavy's article stirred up a poop storm among parents, who wrote angry letters chiding Dunleavy for daring to consider the economics of childrearing. Most fascinatingly, many say money should never be a consideration when deciding to have children. Never? It seems to me at the very least a parent should consider whether they are financially able to provide for their child over a lifetime before popping one out. To not do so is irresponsible.

If you'd like to add the childfree perspective to this mix, you can email investor@microsoft.com.
[LINK]

The Mini-Me Assumption

In a USA Today editorial piece, writerPhillip Longman, who's also the author of "Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It," says that because liberals are more likely to be childfree than conservatives, we can expect a more conservative future. He writes:

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

While I think Longman is right, conservatives do tend to have more kids than liberals, he makes what I call the mini-me assumption: that your kids will turn out to be just like you. That's simply not the case. As one who leans left politically, I've certainly had friends tell me I should have kids so there can be more little lefties in the world. But I was raised by Conservative Christians and turned out to be neither of those things, so why should I assume that my kids, if I had them, would turn out just like me. To me, this is just wishful thinking!
[LINKS]

A Web site just for DINKS

The editor of Dual Income No Kids recently emailed to make me aware of her Web site! It's full of articles and resources for childfree couples. I like the fact that they focus on couples who are permanently childfree and those who are just procrastinating. Even if you plan to have kids eventually, you can still make the most of your childfree existence!

From the site:
In an effort to effectively market to a specific demographic, some New York marketing guru years ago came up with the acronym DINK to identify household’s with two working adults with no children. It stuck. DINK stands for Dual “or Double” Income No Kids. The general perception is that since these couples don’t have children (yet), they have more discretionary income to buy high priced luxury products and services. Certainly, many of these couples have a healthy amount of disposable income. But, in a society that still puts a value on procreation, people who eschew the joys of parenthood even for a short time in life are still looked upon as being somewhat against the norm.

Over the years, due to the lack of more specific terminology, the word DINK has often been misused to also categorize couples who wish to remain permanently childfree. This is rarely the case as “DINK status” is usually temporary. Being a DINK is one of many stops along the road in a relationship. For example, a newly married couple without children would be classified as a Double Income No Kids household until such time as they had children.
[LINK]

Childfree lord seeks heir

This just in:
Sir Benjamin Slade, 59, is childless, and told the New York Times there are no suitable British heirs who could assume the mansion in the tranquil area of Somerset.

The problem is money -- the 13th-century mansion that's been in the family since 1772 is falling apart, and Slade won't even consider selling it to the National Trust in exchange for free rent.

At a minimum, the home requires $140,000 in annual upkeep. But on top of that, the driveway needs $70,000 worth of repairs, and the stables require a $1 million upgrade.

[LINK]

Working it out

Last week Good Morning America contributor Tory Johnson wrote a provocative column asking whether it was fair to extend benefits like flexible hours, paid maternity and paternity leave, and others parents but not equal rights to non-parents. The response was so overwhelming, she's published a follow-up.

Here's a snip:
Other people — those with kids and without — disagreed, saying none of us is entitled to accommodations, and that if someone can't handle their responsibilities at work, they should change jobs.

Men and women without children expressed resentment for being expected to pick up the slack when a parent comes in late or leaves early to tend to their families. They said they believe it shows a lack of respect for their personal time. They're tired of the assumption that no kids means no life outside of work.

Some people went so far as to say that working is a choice for parents, and if they can't handle their jobs, they should stay home. (In fairness to parents, most people work out of necessity. They don't have the financial luxury to abandon their jobs.)

This is clearly a very tricky issue! One of the benefits of being childfree is the ability to pursue one's career uninhibited by maternity leaves, shorter work days, and the like. And because I have to share a world with these kids, I don't necessarily want them to be raised by the television because their parents have to work late. At the same time, parent or no, you are obligated to do the job you are hired to do and not expect your childfree colleagues to pick up the slack. And it does strike me that if flexible hours are being offered, they should be offered to everyone. I don't understand the mentality of saying nobody is entitled to accomodations. I mean, a bathroom break could be seen as an accomodation if you want to be rigid about it!

Curious what other hard-working childfree people think!
[LINK]

Childfree news from around the world

More than half of Japanese women over the age of 30 don't have kids. What they do have are really cool cell phones.
[LINK]

Attention all Procreative Procrastinators! (That would be the childfree who are simply putting off having babies until they write a novel, buy a second home, become CEO, lose 15 pounds ...) According to a new Harvard Medical Study on Centaurians, women who have children in their 40s are more likely to live longer. That is, if you can have kids in your 40s. Check it:

We concluded that if you are a woman who naturally had a child in her forties, you are four times more likely to live to 100 years old rather than dying at the age of 73. However, we believe that it is not the act of having a child in your forties that promotes long life, but rather that having a child late in life is an indicator that the woman's reproductive system is aging slowly. A slow rate of aging would therefore bode well for the woman's subsequent ability to achieve very old age.
[LINK]

And from Glasgow, researchers say childfree workers should be given the same kinds of flexible schedules afforded to parents.
[LINK]

Kick the baby videos!

We here at BNOB generally shy away from being mean to babies--it's not their fault they smell like fart--but this series of videos featuring an old woman kicking a baby simply must be shared!!!

With thanks to BoingBoing.

[LINK]