Childfree: the unsung heroes of the workplace

Times U.K. writer and enlightened parent writes in defense of the childfree office-worker, so often expected to work when others run off to have "family time":

... the childless (or childfree, whichever you prefer) are largely taken for granted. They are invariably the unsung heroes of the workplace, the troupers whose flexibility facilitates the smooth running of a business 365 days a year. Only thanks to them do the majority of parents get to block-book the wallplanner at key times of the year and return with grinning photos to display around the office. So how galling must it be to receive the message that your needs and lifestyle choices are somehow less valid than those of someone who happens to have successfully mated? Or that parents have the monopoly on fatigue? But if you protest, you risk being labelled as a bitter baby-hater.

[LINK]

Women's perspectives on being childfree

Women who have chosen not to have kids and are proud of it are showcased in this article in the Cyprus Mail:

Maxine, 39, a hairstylist put into words what she and three of her contemporaries think about motherhood. “To be honest I see parenting as a boring, annoying, upsetting and difficult job. You are locked into an unbreakable 18-year minimum contract with no chance of promotion, opportunities or pay rises. In fact you pay through the nose something ridiculous like £170,000 to rear a child to maturity. Plus, being a parent becomes your whole identity and you have to live your life through your children.That’s something I just don’t see myself getting into.”

I was most struck, however, by this statistic: "It is projected that a quarter of women born in 1973 will be childless by the age of 45."

That's the year I was born! I've often said that mine was the first generation to truly have the choice not to have kids. Looks like a lot of my contemporaries are making that choice.

[LINK]

How Many People Is Too Many?

That's the provocative question that reporter and plant-breeder Stan Cox asks me and six other experts/advocates in an article for AlterNet.

Here's the set up:
By mid-October of this year, the world's third most populous nation will hit 300 million inhabitants. And thanks to America's burgeoning fertility rate, we will keep moving briskly onward, hitting 400 million in less than 40 years, by Census Bureau projections.

Is 300 million people too many -- or not enough? Wade into a discussion of population size, and you're soon up to your neck in a host of knotty issues: sex, contraception, immigration, economic justice and ecological crises. To find out who'll be celebrating the big milepost, who'll be deploring it, and why, I got in touch with seven individuals who have especially strong views on the various forces that will decide the eventual size and composition of our nation's population.

And part of my contribution to the dialogue:
Jennifer Shawne has heard plenty about the alleged baby bust phenomenon since she published her book "Baby Not on Board: A Celebration of Life Without Kids" last year. Shawne, who lives in Oakland, California, told me it's not just religious conservatives who try to convince her of her duty to have children. "Some of my very liberal, nonbelieving friends tell me, 'You and your husband are liberal and well-educated, and you have good-paying jobs. You are the type of person who has an obligation to raise kids. Otherwise, there will be all kinds of societal problems.'"

Aside from the not-so-subtle prejudices implied by such arguments, Shawne points out the unsupported assumption that political and cultural attitudes are inherited traits. "The idea that people will turn out like their parents … it's so untrue, so silly."

Others have told Shawne that, without kids, her life's missing a dimension, that she's not a complete person until she has sacrificed for the sake of children. "Well," she says, "If I don't go live in Japan, my life's missing that dimension. That doesn't mean I should do it. And of course, if you do have kids, you give up a lot of other things."

As for more religious folks, Shawne says they need no longer be concerned about the command to be fruitful and multiply. "On that front, I think humanity can say, 'Mission Accomplished'! We all get a big pat on the back for that one."

Cox does a great side of presenting many different sides of the argument over how humans should respond to the world's growing population. The story has sparked quite a discussion on Alternet's message boards.
[LINK]

Family-Only Parking Spots?

Jeff Edelstein, a columnist in Trenton, New Jersey, writes about pulling into a premium parking place only to discover it's designated for people with children only.

"Customer with child parking," the sign read, along with a helpful pictogram showing a tot in a shopping cart.

I was aggravated by the thought of having to back out of the spot and find another one. Growling and steering wheel punching was involved.

Now understand I'm not a total jerk -- perhaps the sign can be changed so it reads that women currently giving birth can have the spot.

You know, women in labor. I'’m all for giving up my spot for a woman who is moments away from having a baby.

But for someone who'’s already given birth? I don'’t think so.

And where does it end? If I went with my parents to Wegmans, can we park in the "customer with child parking" spot? I am their child, after all.

I, for one, hope this isn't the start of a new trend. Where will it end indeed? If you have four kids do you get a better spot than someone with just one? If you don't have children, are you forced to park on the street and walk? On the other hand, that a business would extend the same courtesy to a person with kids as they would one would a person with a serious disability is, well, saying something about what it's like to have kids.
[LINK]