Why is it taboo to admit you are having children because you want to be looked after when old?

[KeenTaupeDog]

I’ve noticed that any time someone hints at this, people jump down their throats — “children aren’t your pension,” “that’s selfish,” etc.
But if we’re being honest, this used to be the whole point of having kids. In many cultures it still is. Even here, plenty of parents quietly hope their kids will care about them when they’re elderly — not just emotionally, but practically.
We act as if you’re only supposed to have children out of pure love or to “nurture the next generation,” and that expecting any return is somehow shameful. Yet everyone still wants family nearby when they’re frail, lonely or ill.
Why is it socially unacceptable to say the quiet part out loud? Is it because we’ve built an ideology of self-sufficiency that makes dependence feel dirty — even though in reality, we’ll all need someone in the end?
Not trying to be provocative, genuinely curious what people think.

It’s not taboo, it’s just a shit reason to have kids.

Hmmm my mother trapped my father into having a child to get her own way and use us like pawns in her narcissistic game of life.

many other women through the ages had children to trap men for one reason or another, escape homes, trap men into marriage, get benefits, child support…

yes there are cultures that have children to look after older generations, but most of these cultures also nurture their children and it’s a two way respect.

i had children for purely selfish reasons, I desperately wanted then like a primal instinct but also because I wanted to be better than my own parents were. My children never asked to be born, I always understand that. I think by the fact I wanted to be the best for my children and that I never ever want them to sacrifice anything in life that will make them happy to take of me absolutely makes me 100% better than my own parents.

Same!
See so many selfish old people who expect their kids to give up their own lives to care for them. I want my kids to enjoy their lives and own families.

Why does it matter what I personally think? What matters is that we have different values around this depending on culture and there isn't really a right or wrong.

I'll tell you though. I think that there are pros and cons with both approaches. Yes, it often means that a minority of relatives are left to provide the most support, and those people are mostly women and don't always get a choice. However, I think that living in intergenerational/extended families is probably better for society in many other ways. It's cheaper for one.

I find it a little inhumane how it is encouraged to have totally separate lives to your wider family. How it is seen as shameful to have to lean on your family financially or practically as an adult and that means some people will literally sink rather than get help from their mother. I find is sad that some grandparents will refuse point blank to help their children with their grandchildren as it was "their choice" to have kids. Even when it might mean that their daughter gets to keep working/earning.

I think charity starts at home.

I understand that modern lifestyle means that a lot of people can't help family like this. They have to work. However, a lot of people won't help family even when they can, because they think they should be able to help themselves and if they can't, they're a failure. That's what our capitalist society teaches us to think. Even about our own kids.

I understand that modern lifestyle means that a lot of people can't help family like this.

I don't think you do understand though. The modern lifestyles we have today means women have choices they didn't previously have. Which means they are often choosing to opt out of unpaid caring, because they don't want to and don't have to - there are other options. Not all women are cut out to do care, but if you're not, and you live in one of these cultures, tough luck unless you have money.

The traditional societies people romanticise on here all rely on women having fewer choices. They all rely on married women having very little income of their own. Caring for children and then elderly relatives is basically woman's tax for existing in these societies. It's cheaper for everyone except her. And it's almost always white middle class people romanticising it.

Thankfully, my (immigrant) mum didn't want this for her daughters.

Yes but COL means that lots of women have no choice but to work full time. We don't have a choice as women really. We've just been taught that both of the head couple working is better for us as a society and that's why we should be glad we both have to.

I don't think we've been taught that at all. Why else would women still feel so much guilt at not being able to stay home? It's not always a choice, I agree, but the pressure still exists and the judgement if you are female but not an earth mother type.

Yes it does exist. However, women who choose to stay at home, particularly if they emphasise the caregiving aspects, are respected less. It has far less status.

It's certainly not why I had children but would be disappointed if my children don't care when I'm older. We're such an entitled, horrible and selfish generation and I hope things swing back before long.

I think a lot of this thread is focused on "care" as in physical care of people with dementia but OP also mentioned being "frail, lonely or ill".

I think a lot of people have a thought process like "I was imagining myself on my deathbed and there was nobody there, and I felt very sad at that thought and decided to have children".

There are definitely people on MN who say that even this is unreasonable because DC don't have any obligation to even visit you or be in your life at all.

Your chances of having people around you in your old age (even if some of your physical care is outsourced to paid workers) is a lot higher if you have kids. Nothing in life is certain of course but I do find it odd to just dismiss this motivation totally.

@KeenTaupeDog Quite the contrary I'd say. My boys are teens but I'm already planning euthanasia for myself if I get sick/can't take care of myself simply because I wouldn't want them suffering by seeing me suffering.

This seems like very all-or-nothing thinking. You don't think maybe they'd suffer more from losing you altogether than from seeing you ill/incapacitated?

Depends what circles you move in. Middle to upper middle class white professionals, sure. There's a lot of derision towards "yummy mummies" but I'm not sure it's because they don't work. It's more because they're a bit ridiculous with their baby tarot reading classes and whatnot, claiming their mummy Instagram is their "job". Amanda off Motherland wasn't actually that far off the mark. Tedious bores. But then so are some of the working people. So there's that. Academics get a special mention for eye rollingly competitive parenting and virtue signalling (I used to work in a university).

Working class to lower middle class circles I don't think there's so much fuss about it, mainly because people don't make either "mummying" or their jobs so much part of their identity. And there's not as much snobbery about jobs, because everyone is just surviving. And this group of women is more likely to be stretched thin, as well as caring/parenting probably working in service economy jobs.

". It's more because they're a bit ridiculous with their baby tarot reading classes and whatnot, claiming their mummy Instagram is their "job". "

I see.

What a bizarre statement.

Which generation are you referring to exactly- Boomers, Gen Z, Millennials- it’s hard to tell - and what do you want it to swing back to? How do you know what it used to be like in previous generations? Fine looking after elderly DPs in their 70s, much harder with demented ones in their 80s and 90s with a host of medical issues. It’s not like the kindly grandparent in the adverts or the smiling well groomed elderly people they usually have in the care home brochures.

People are living longer, but not necessarily healthier as medical profession can keep them alive but to what end sometimes it’s hard to know. Meanwhile pension ages have risen and most families require two working parents to pay the bills.

I am currently not working in my mid 50s with very elderly infirm DPs who live an hour away. I go up frequently but it’s costing me financially ( by not being able to go for a full time job) and mentally because they refuse to get the level of help they need or consider care homes. I could sacrifice my life and mental health for them entirely and they would scarcely notice and it would delay any inevitable outcome by 6-12 months I reckon. If that makes me selfish so be it.

What generation are you then? Your comment certainly doesn't resonate with my generation thanks very much

I'm not anti SAHM, if that's what you're driving at, but I do dislike performative and competitive parenting. I also wonder how on earth the generation of children being raised now will cope with their whole childhoods having been on social media. It's possible to be a SAHM and get on with it and enjoy it without being an Insta-mummy - and you do find more of those vapid types in white middle/upper middle class social groups, because that's the "influencer" demographic. I'd wager that this breed of Insta-parent is also less likely to do care for the elderly as well, if that's what you're bothered about. Not insta worthy enough.

Social media definitely gives people false expectations of what kind of life they "should" be living, and I feel it's contributed to a more self focused, self obsessed culture in general - there we can agree about the contribution of late stage capitalist values to people's reluctance to put themselves out in any way for others.

But if we’re being honest, this used to be the whole point of having kids

I don’t believe it was. It was because women had no right to say no to sex their husbands wanted, and there was no contraception. It just so happened that this led to a lot of children, who tended to live close by, and looked after parents in old age.

The world is so different now. I only have one friend who lived a drivable distance from parents, the rest of us was one plane flight minimum, usually more. People don’t live in little villages anymore, where they are born there, live and work there, and die there and family around the corner. I’m guessing most of my kids will end up a plane distance away, and good for them as it will mean them striking out, grasping opportunities and achieving. I don’t want them missing any of that so they can sit and watch me dribble in a nursing home every Sunday! Like myself and my parents, I hope they will think of me fondly, but not care FOR me, but be busy living their best lives.

I also don’t believe you have thought the maths through. Not having kids means bucket loads of extra money to put towards good quality care in old age. The $$ I have spent in mine all up I could have been laying in a gold plated bed, with a private staff feeding me (cut up) grapes. However, having spent shed loads on them, it will be a pretty average experience.

Same! Am currently watching my friend and her sisters run ragged by their mother v who refuses paid carers. She will payfortune in inheritance tax so could easily have afforder to pay cares. Utterly selfish woman.

Good point re the maths!! If you are working and paying tax, kids are expensive.

There's always so many extreme views on this thread that just don't match up to reality. People saying they are happy for their children to basically forget about them when they are older (in reference to the PP who said they hope their kids just think about their spouses when they are older),all this talk of just wanting to be put in a care home before you need care and talk of killing themselves before they need care.

Care homes have strict eligibility criteria and are for people with very high care needs who can no longer live at home or no longer safe to do so. You can't simply just decide to go in one because you don't want your children to care for you.

It's also one thing to talk about killing themselves, but it's another thing to actually do it. Yes caring for your parents is hard and no one wants to be a burden, but equally having your parents kill themselves would be massively traumatising for children no matter how old they are. Something they would no doubt need intensive therapy for, for years to come. Your children would as well be the ones most likely to find your dead body too and have to deal with the aftermath too.

I can't imagine either having kids and then being completely happy that they'll just grow up and forget about you one day. Do people not want relationships with their adult children and potential grandchildren and visits from them when they are older?

People don't just wake up one day and need care. People normally find their managing and in the case of dementia, not actually become aware they need help because the cognitive decline has set in.

I don't want my children to be my physical carers or give up their life to care for me. But I would hope I've brought them up well enough to be caring, loving and empathetic people that if I was frail and vulnerable, that they would still care and provide support in some way and not turn their back on family members because it is too difficult. And what I mean by this is perhaps talking to my care company to ensure I'm getting the right level of care, keeping an eye out if I am more vulnerable to abuse and visiting when they can. And I know there are caveats and people have complex relationships with parents, but outside of this it is what most decent people do because the parent/child relationship is one of the strongest there is and most children would not turn their back on their parents if they loved them and they were vulnerable.

It’s not binary. The children will suffer from the parents death anyway.

By committing suicide, they only suffer that loss, rather than the suffering of seeing a parent struggling, sometimes for years with dementia or chronic ill health and pain, and then still suffering the loss of the parent when they die anyway.

And from my professional experience in working in elderly social care is the best way is to have things in place and having honest, reality based conversations with your children or whoever is closely involved with your life.

So that involves having POA sets up, finances in order, wills made up. And for me it will be clearly stating to my children that should I need carers or need to be go in a care home then that's what needs to be done, so they can arrange things guilt free.

If dementia or alzhiemers sets in before you've had a chance to top yourself and you've had no other plans in place, it places enormous pressure on loved ones left to deal with it.

You have no idea how suicide can impact on the people left behind. It simply isn't the same as just a person suffering from the death of a parent if they heart attack or other sudden event would be. The people left behind have to deal with the fact their parent made a conscious decision to end their life.

I'd find the idea of my mum or dad doing this appalling, more so than if I had to care for them. I would be eaten up with more grief that they didn't love me enough to stay around for longer or see their grandchildren grow up or they thought I wouldn't love them enough to support them when they need it.

People think they are doing their children a favour by doing this when in fact it can lead to all sorts of lasting trauma.

You are absolutely and completely wrong in pretty much every respect of your post.

Let’s just start with yes, I do know…