To think that the decision to have children is a risk...

[GreenWoodpecker123456]

...because you can never be sure whether you'll enjoy being a parent, what kind of child you'll have etc.

I ws having this conversation with someone and they said it's no more of a risk than anything else in life like getting married or going into a particular career.

I don't agree, because having kids is the one thing in life that you truly can't reverse!

AIBU?

For me I'd always known 100% I wanted to be a mum. And I know my life would have been incomplete if I didn't have children. I honestly believe being a mum is the best thing I've ever done.

I am surprised that the damage done to your body does not put more women off.

But that's because you don't want children! That's like me saying that I'm surprised people still play rugby given the potential for injury - I have never had the slightest urge to play rugby and I am certain I wouldn't enjoy it if I did, so obviously it isn't worth breaking a nail let alone a limb to me, but rugby players must feel differently...

@lynsey91

I think it is good that more and more women are actually thinking about whether to have children or not. Really though everyone should think about it. So many though have children because "it's what you do" without even thinking if they want them, what their life will be like.

I am surprised that the damage done to your body does not put more women off.

Personally I am just so glad I don't have the incontinence problems that it seems almost all women who have children have. To have to plan your day if you go out because of needing the loo so often would drive me mad. Also having to get up in the night. Once asleep I like staying that way until morning.

I've thought the same thing about, why are more women not put off by what the body goes through during childbirth? I certainly am. I came across an account on Instagram of birth stories with videos of women giving birth. It was so graphic you had to click a button to say you wanted to see it.

Anyway it made an impression on me. How anyone can go through that, and then do it again - don't understand it!

@Hardbackwriter

I am surprised that the damage done to your body does not put more women off.

But that's because you don't want children! That's like me saying that I'm surprised people still play rugby given the potential for injury - I have never had the slightest urge to play rugby and I am certain I wouldn't enjoy it if I did, so obviously it isn't worth breaking a nail let alone a limb to me, but rugby players must feel differently...

Yeah but rugby players don't squeeze humans out of their vaginas lol. You can't compare. With childbirth you know what you're letting yourself in for and you know it's likely to be grim.

@happymummy12345 Out of interest, if you always knew 100% you wanted to be a mum - would you have adopted if you couldn't have your own biological children then? I've always wondered this about anyone who uses the 100% figure.

Childbirth was the worst pain I've ever felt by a huge margin and my pelvic floor is absolutely fucked. And I'm joyfully happy to be pregnant and totally willing to do it again, which I guess is some measure of just how much I like having a child!

I think you're absolutely right OP. And I think if that's how you feel, it probably signals that you don't want kids. Personally that's my issue. I don’t think I'd enjoy it, and I'm not going to have a child to find out because I can't exactly return them for a refund if I'm not happy!

@SecretSpAD

I think it's pretty insulting to both the child-free and the childless to suggest that parenthood transforms you into your 'best self' and you 'are more' and 'love more' and 'see more' as a parent, or that it's the sole route to 'spiritually important growth

Yes, it is. I'm not spiritual so have no interest in spiritual growth and I'm very happy being the person I am.

I do think that whilst this is a legitimate personal experience for that poster, there are a lot of women out there who have children because they think this is what they will be getting. And then disappointed when they realise that it's not their experience.

A friend of mine has never bonded with one of her three children. The child is a teenager now and luckily doesn't seem to realise because her mother is good at faking it. I know this friend was not prepared for feeling that way. I know how much she has tried desperately to feel something for her own child, and especially when the other two came along and she bonded and loved them immediately. Her own husband doesn't even know how she feels - only two close friends who don't have children...because we were the only ones she felt that she could admit this too and not be judged.

I welcome a world where girls are educated into making informed choices for them about whether or not they want children. Where they are not expected to just because it is the next step, because society says they should or just because they think it will fill something in their lives. The most fulfilled and happy parents I know are the ones who didn't have a child to fill a gap - but because they wanted a child to raise.

I agree.

It's never long on this type of thread before non-parents start getting told they've never experienced proper love, etc.

It's never long on this type of thread before non-parents start getting told they've never experienced proper love, etc.

Agreed and it's outrageous tbh. I have a son and I still think that actually one of the deepest loves I've ever felt is for my mother.

Men have always used their power to limit women, for example demanding virgins, FGM, creating a powerful 'god' who demands they be 'good' girls, limiting their education - even porn to denigrate them as real humans.

All of this is still going on in the world, and the current cultural model of motherhood which can and does trap women for their childbearing-years and beyond, is another example of the same.

Yup, motherhood has been an eye-opener, so perhaps it has enhanced me as I see reality more clearly.

I welcome a world where girls are educated into making informed choices for them about whether or not they want children. Where they are not expected to just because it is the next step, because society says they should or just because they think it will fill something in their lives. The most fulfilled and happy parents I know are the ones who didn't have a child to fill a gap - but because they wanted a child to raise.

Hear hear.

@GettingUntrapped

Men have always used their power to limit women, for example demanding virgins, FGM, creating a powerful 'god' who demands they be 'good' girls, limiting their education - even porn to denigrate them as real humans.

All of this is still going on in the world, and the current cultural model of motherhood which can and does trap women for their childbearing-years and beyond, is another example of the same.

Yup, motherhood has been an eye-opener, so perhaps it has enhanced me as I see reality more clearly.

What do you mean by the current cultural model of motherhood? Just interested in what you mean specifically about it being oppressive.

"I agree.

It's never long on this type of thread before non-parents start getting told they've never experienced proper love, etc."

Well it is called Mumsnet. You'd expect some bias.

I’ve always wanted to be a mother, I’ve always loved children to the point where I even chose a career that allows me to work with children. So for me it was never a question of if I wanted to have children but simply when I’m settled enough to have children. Every woman is different I know women/family members that will never have children and have made that choice for themselves and there’s nothing wrong with that to each their own some view it as a risk I view it as a blessing.

My dsil never wanted dc of her own but wanted the freedom of living a life without ties etc. which she lives to the full. But she has completely thrown herself into being an aunt to my DC, now grown up and their DC/my DGC. On her terms of course and when she's not working, socialising, jetsetting etc etc. It's a fantastic two way relationship to observe and both sides get the 'best bits' My Dsil gets to spend indulgence time with my DC, DGC, but can hand them back and they get spoilt rotten to spend quality time with a cool aunt. I do feel though that if none of her immediate family had DC she might have had some regrets, lm not sure.

@chocoholic9 I mean that how we 'do' parenthood is cultural, not biological.

For example, the hormonal bond or rush many of us feel when we give birth bonds us to our helpless babies. Evolution sorted that out for us. I know we don't all feel that rush, but some kind of bond usually develops over time.

That chemical bond lasts around four years. Perhaps a reason why many (not all) mothers, feel that having a child was the best thing ever when they had young babies/toddlers.

Incidentally, when we fall in love as adults, it's the same chemicals in our brains - nature is conservative.

So what I find oppressive is that I now feel like I need to pursue my own interests in order to be happy, but I'm trapped in extended, motherhood - past the four years, and my brain doesn't default to that cultural model.

The strong biological drive that all humans (and all sentient creatures) have to pursue their own interests is squashed. I have to put others' needs first.

t's a bit of a head fuck. It would be more bearable if it was very part time - maybe the model of seperated dad who has some custody.

I sound bitter, but I'm not really. Just fascinated at times.

I've thought the same thing about, why are more women not put off by what the body goes through during childbirth? I certainly am. I came across an account on Instagram of birth stories with videos of women giving birth. It was so graphic you had to click a button to say you wanted to see it.

Anyway it made an impression on me. How anyone can go through that, and then do it again - don't understand it!

Doesn't that come down to personal experiences - my experiences of labor were very different to my friends.

I had large babies - largest 10lb and very quick labors and wasn't gven anything but gas and air - the period pains I endured every month in my teens and 20s when not on the pill were similar level of pain and all the HCP I saw dismissed it.

I do think cuts to manternity services have increased risks in some units and increased number of new mother having poor experinces.

I didn't enjoy pg or bloom - but I wanted the children.

Having said that last birth the lack of care was dangerous and I was lucky it was striaghtforard birth as it was me and DH there- and that did mean despite considering more children we couldn't face it. I met a few mothers who had that after one birth - such a bad experience usually due to lack of support or not being listened to or being unlucky with some birth complication they couldn't go through it again but that's still a more uncommon experince still I think.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had one child around every four years. Usually with a different father. There were plenty of people to help out and other mothers to chat (or was it grunt) to. Kids weren't the demi-gods they are now, and learned to be self-sufficient much earlier. Not the isolation and prolonged intensive, relentless parenting we do now.

I dunno, it doesn't feel natural to be two parents alone, or even worse, a single parent as it's so intensive and hard work to bring up human babies.

Your not being unreasonable . I assumed when I was pregnant ( naively ) that because I didn’t smoke or drink I would have a ‘normal’ child . However I have a severely disabled child with autism , adhd , learning difficulties , tics and extreme challenging behaviours . Life is becoming unmanageable at the moment . He is age 9 and each day I get hit , kicked , bitten . I never envisaged my life being like this at all . I’m devastated for the both of us and upsets me daily

@GettingUntrapped also in medieval times, people lived until they were 30 (probably lower during hunter-gatherer times). Child mortality was high, you would have 4 babies and maybe end up with 1 child eventually or perhaps even none. Right now, if you have a baby, there is a high chance that baby would live till 90. Traditionally, people had kids to 'replace' them or to 'look after them', but if you are going to live until 90, its going to be a long time before you need to be 'replaced'. And most children don't care for their parents in the same way anymore.

Traditionally, people had kids to 'replace' them or to 'look after them', but if you are going to live until 90, its going to be a long time before you need to be 'replaced'. And most children don't care for their parents in the same way anymore.

People had kids because, in the absence of reliable contraception and short of never marrying/remaining celibate, they had very little choice in the matter.

@GettingUntrapped

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had one child around every four years. Usually with a different father. There were plenty of people to help out and other mothers to chat (or was it grunt) to. Kids weren't the demi-gods they are now, and learned to be self-sufficient much earlier. Not the isolation and prolonged intensive, relentless parenting we do now.

I dunno, it doesn't feel natural to be two parents alone, or even worse, a single parent as it's so intensive and hard work to bring up human babies.

I really agree with your central point here, although I do think this is a bit of an idealised view of the prehistoric past, and also suggests more uniformity than was almost certainly the case.

The one really clear thing looking at how children have been raised historically and the variety across the world now is that there's no one way, which I actually think is a really powerful and important corrective to a lot of messages in Western parenting that tell you that if you don't do it exactly like this your children will be irreparably damaged. If you look at non-industrial societies now there's a massive variety in how children are raised, from a sort of tribe culture a bit like you're describing to the societies (which attachment parenting advocates fetishize, but which are historically and culturally unusual) where there is a very close mother-child 'dyad' pretty much the child starts work themselves, to societies where babies are essentially passed around constantly from very young.

But you're absolutely right that what is unusual, in a long-term and global perspective, is the modern western ideal that parenting is an active activity that constitutes a job in itself. The idea that looking after a toddler, let alone a school-aged child, would be your sole activity would have been considered deeply strange for most of human history. People love to say that the widespread use of childcare is the 'unnatural' and unusual feature of modern parenting but it's actually the amount of time we focus exclusively on our children and the fact we think that 'parenting' is a thing that we actively do that's the real historical outlier.

People had kids because, in the absence of reliable contraception and short of never marrying/remaining celibate, they had very little choice in the matter.

This isn't really quite true. Treatments for infertility and a sense that it's a very bad thing go back as far as we have records. People couldn't control their family size as efficiently as we can now - though a lot of that was cultural not biological; there's a reason that most religions had to tell people repeatedly that withdrawal and non-vaginal sex were sinful, it's that they were widely practiced and people knew they worked, if imperfectly - but it's not true that no one wanted babies and they just happened anyway.

@CounsellorTroi

Traditionally, people had kids to 'replace' them or to 'look after them', but if you are going to live until 90, its going to be a long time before you need to be 'replaced'. And most children don't care for their parents in the same way anymore.

People had kids because, in the absence of reliable contraception and short of never marrying/remaining celibate, they had very little choice in the matter.

Not disputing this. The pill was invented in 1960.

I am Asian so my family had an average of 6-7 kids prior to the 1990s. But for DH, his family in Germany had an average of 2 kids since the 1800s. His grandma was an only child too. His extended family is tiny as a result. I know that they did try to use the unreliable methods and i guess they were relatively successful. Or it could be due to the fact that the men were away at war (franco prussian war, both world wars) which would have inhibited childbearing.

@Hardbackwriter

People had kids because, in the absence of reliable contraception and short of never marrying/remaining celibate, they had very little choice in the matter.

This isn't really quite true. Treatments for infertility and a sense that it's a very bad thing go back as far as we have records. People couldn't control their family size as efficiently as we can now - though a lot of that was cultural not biological; there's a reason that most religions had to tell people repeatedly that withdrawal and non-vaginal sex were sinful, it's that they were widely practiced and people knew they worked, if imperfectly - but it's not true that no one wanted babies and they just happened anyway.

What I meant was that if you weren't celibate pregnancy at some point was pretty much inevitable.

It's only in the last 30 or 40 years that choosing not to have children has been accepted as a valid life choice and not selfish or weird.