Regretting having children

[HerBeX]

There are two threads I've looked at today which set me thinking and I wanted to discuss the issues raised from a feminist perspective. Didn't want to disrupt what are primarily support threads for women feeling that they regret having children, by wandering off into theoretical feminist meanderings, so I thought I'd start a thread here to discuss this phenomenon.

The threads are

here

and

here

Basically as I read through these threads, I couldn't help thinking that if your life has been turned upside down, that of your partner hasn't and you've lost all your social status, isn't it a logical, sane response to be really depressed about that and to regret doing the thing which has led to this state of affairs? Under patriarchy, isn't it actually quite a sensible choice, for women not to have children at all, because the penalty for doing so, financially and socially, is so great?

The problem being that in some societies, the penalty for not having children, is even greater...

Any thoughts?

Just quickly posting and then going to bed. But I agree HerBex. I sometimes feel very lucky I have a supportive DH (as often women feeling like this don't) but I still feel I have sacrificed a lot more than my DH. I deliberately waited along time to have a baby because I didn't want to lose my existing, very nice lifestyle. I don't regret having children at all but I can empathise with those women who are isolated and had their world turned upside down, especially while their partners carry on regardless with status and financial independence.

in japan the women are not having children. the fertility rate just keeps dropping, and the grey-heads at the top haven't made the connection between women's status in society and the fact they're refusing to have children. It's like a silent, passive-agressive, japanese-style revolt.
Daycare is very good and widely and cheaply available, the government have even resorted to giving out cash to parents every couple of months but that in itself is not enough to encourage women to have kids. Women aren't willing to give up their promotional prospects for the sake of having a child.

The point I'm getting at is, there will come a time when Japan, and other western countries will be forced to admit that bearing a child is a huge undertaking that takes its toll on a woman's body and life.

At the moment there still seems to be a sense that babies come from cabbage patches. Corporations and politicians have some sort of cognitive block when it comes to realising where exactly their customers and citizens come from . Governments may have to start providing decent subsidies for women who are prepared to undergo childbearing .

Or they can make re-entry into the workforce more feasible for middle-aged women. Right now it's near on impossible for a woman who has taken time out for child-rearing to become a politican. there is no reason for this. I'm always astounded at the incompetency of the male politicians who are in power and I realise that they can't have got where they did on merit, because they're rubbish at their job. So why not allow women who have raised children into positions of power? Raising children teaches you a lot of things about humanity, it makes sense to me that people who have experience in raising the next generation should be the ones to make decisions for society and the country.

I think the root of this feeling that your life is over when you have a child is because lots of doors close to mothers, when they don't need to. The patriarchy has just set it up that way.

just found an article here

"Many Japanese companies are taking no chances that the government's policies will arrest the fall in the nation's birth rate, and are actively seeking to expand their market share aboard. "

That's all we are to the patriarchy. baby machines, and our babies are seen as a merely a contribution to the naitonal GDP. They don't realise that if women had equal status in society, in decision making and in business, they might be more willing to have children.

Actually the places that have the highest birth rate are the ones where women have essentially no power at all. I think Afghanistan has about the highest rate of all right nowno wait, a few African countries are higherbut it's very high. It's a pretty well-attested statistic that as the condition of women improves, a country's birth rate will drop. But maybe there are circumstances that make women (men too?) more willing to have children, in a prosperous free society. It would be interesting to hear what those conditions are.

Dead last (except Hong Kong) are the countries that lost World War 2--Germany, Italy and Japan. Coincidence?

yes but I'm not talking about barbaric countries TeiTua, where women have no access to contraception, or have no choice but to have sex, or have no other role in life apart from child-bearing and rearing.

I'm talking about situations where women have reasonable autonomy over their bodies, but who then choose not to have children because they just don't fancy risking it, because of what they'll lose. In fact you could say that extreme patriarchal countries know very well that women won't bother to have children given enough autonomy so they impose motherhood upon their women.

I'm looking towards the future where women will choose to have kids because society will recognize the value of their contribution. Tbf the UK is relatively good in this respect because it provides quite well for mothers in terms of maternity leave and state help, but it could do a lot better.

Japan is somewhere in the middle. WOmen have autonomy over their bodies, but don't have career opportunities if they become mothers. In the U.K this is less of a problem, meaning that women are more willing to become mothers. But even so women in the UK still have quite a lot to lose (though not as much as Japanese women)

I agree entirely with this thinking.

The point came up in my house the other day, when one of my husband's more unenlightened friends was talking about how he'd never employ a young woman as she would leave to have babies (let's not go there).

My response was obviously much along the same lines as the OP. Option A: having children is some sort of hobby - a personal choice made by women in the full knowledge that it comes with grave penalties. In this scenario, people would have to understand that as the population ages and fewer children are born, we would need to replenish our workforce through immigration.

Or option B: The continuation of our society through bearing and raising children is something that benefits everyone. In which case it is not the responsibility only of women, but of everyone.

I live in Spain and Hispanics adore children and are very family orientated.

That said, the birth rate has been dropping massively because in terms of child-rearing, the country is still modern-traditional in that the husband goes to work and everything else is left to the woman to organise (in many cases - obviously there are exceptions and things are gradually changing). There is far more grandparent support here and they are often the main child-minders for working mothers.

But basically, fewer and fewer Spanish women are choosing to get married and have children because they believe (probably rightly) that they have too much to lose.

The country's population is mainly being maintained by the many South American immigrants where it is still more common for families to have larger numbers of children.

yes, I remember there being a parallel between Japan, Spain and Italy.
That's why if mothers don't lose out on job opportunities or access to promotions then they're more willing to have an extra child or two.

Isn't there an assumption here (he says, not having read the threads that have been linked to) that social status, success and "having a life" are linked solely to one's career, earning potential and material possessions?

I mean, what you're talking about above - the lack of career opportunities for mothers and neolithic employer attitudes - essentially suggests that the way these women value themselves is linked to their place in the capitalist/consumerist hierarchy. There seems to be general agreement that this is a valid way to judge one's self-worth.

I'm surprised that this is just accepted as read. The idea of social status being defined by position and earnings is a very patriarchal position - the idea that people (men or women) only have value insofar as they climb the steps of a ladder or accumulate capital. Thus women who take time out to have children - stepping off the ladder and losing earning potential - decrease in value. Surely, as feminists, we shouldn't be so quick accept the terms of the debate?

While I agree that conditions and support systems for women (or, maybe parents) need to improve, can we not also simultaneously challenge the criteria by which mothers specifically, and people in general, are judged? Since becoming a parent myself I am far less concerned with how much money I (don't) earn, than with how much time I get to spend with my wife and daughter. In fact I view male acquaintances whose work often takes them away from their families, or keeps them late at their office, with a mixture of pity and scorn - why would you choose to get married and have children, then not spend any time with them? Is money and status really that important? To my mind it's not.

Naturally we live in a capitalist society, and if parents want to put food on the table/a roof over their children's heads, a job is naturally necessary. But I think that recalibrating the way we view both men and women along the lines of how committed a parent they are, rather than the value of their house and their job title, would be a good thing and might help women (such as those mentioned above) not feel that their life was ruined.

I agree mrIC. I'm not ashamed of the fact that, although I wanted a career, primarily I wanted to be a mother as I grew up. and I won't be horrified if my daughters do the same. As long as they know they have a choice. But. Think my desire to be a mother stems from the environment I was fortunate enough to grow up in, where parenthood was valued above all else. Where the work the primar carer of children did was considered to be more important than that of the wage-earner, even though the money was necessary and if the job that person did was of great value to society.

In addition, dh has also been brought up in such an environment, so he values my work above and beyond his.

What I regret is not any sacrifices I've made - I don't see them as sacrifices and it must be extemely damaging to relationships when you do because self-sacrifice leads to resentment - but the fact that, while my immediate family and friends value the work of parents, society as a whole, doesn't. And that shrinks my life to only being a mum unless I work very hard to make sure I have other things in it. If the whole of society felt like my social sphere did, I''m sure the challenges I experience would evaporate to nothing.

yes, that is a big part of the problem but it's more than that MrIC. For example medicine, law and politics are extremely patriarchal so it's a case of society being run by and for men. I think it was Catherine Mackinnon who wrote the book "Men's laws, women's lives"
Because women effectively have little or no say in how the world is run on a domestic or international level they are "dissappeared" by the patriarchy. Women need to be in positions of power in those fields (hospitals and the law courts have historically been houses of horror for women until feminists tried to make changes.

If men in power did right by women and vulnerable groups then you could pass this off as a capitalist problem, but unfortunately it's not; it's a capito-patriarchal problem.

I think it's overlooked by society that people can die from giving birth, that to undertake bearing a child is a life-risking decision which goes entirely unrecognized.

a good example of patriarchy is wars. wars are created entirely by men and the rape and murder victims of these wars are predominantly women. Women need enough public power worldwide to stop these wars. I think it was again Catherine Mackinnon who fought really hard to have rape recognized as a war crime because until she did the men in power pretended it didn't exist or if it did it wasn't important.

Interesting discussion. I don't regret having children but do resent the toll it has taken on my body and mental health. I am 2.5 stone over weight (ok, that was in my control but I feel so awful when I am pg I just need to eat to keep the nausea away, and I am so hungry when bfing and too tired to exercise), pelvic floor is fucked on both counts and I still feel traumatised from both labours. My husband is very egalitarian when it comes to parenting but I was the one who went through the hell of being pg and labour.

I took quite a bit of time off work when pg due to feeling so shit. The company (public sector) as a whole were very good but I did feel guilty a lot of the time as having children is increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice. In fact my (childless) old boss once said to me 'you chose to have children'. I hate it being seen as a lifestyle choice. If we all started choosing not to have children the world would be pretty screwed. (Apologies for my inarticulate take on this thread, I'm one of those feminism-lite people!).

By the way Sakura, is everything ok for you in Japan?

I have nothing useful to add except that I agree with Sakura. I adore having children, feel like it's made me a much more fulfilled and rounder (ha! literally) person than before, I have discovered latent talents and passions that I don't think would ever have been unlocked pre-children. And i don't think that's incompatible with the idea that having children means the loss of everything that society values.

I mean, this is why men don't stay home, isn't it? Much as they joke about wanting to, they don't do it, or very rarely. Because lipservice to the idea of wanting to spend more time with their children is one thing, but the sacrifices involved - effectively, not being seen as a real person anymore - are just too great.

I work part time. On my day off with my toddler I have a lovely routine in our local village, which is very similar to the routine of many other mums because it's centred around some free village activities (sounds just darling, doesn't it?) and so I run into loads of mums I know, it's this real community feeling.

But apart from them, I'm invisible. On the days when they're not there, I'm invisible. When my routine takes me further afield, I'm invisible. Pushing a stroller, i'm invisible, in a way that I am not, in a crowd of preoccupied commuters on a rushed Monday morning. It's quite extraordinary.

I suppose that I come from a slightly different point of view. Motherhood to me did not have a massive physical or career impact. In fact my career has improved since having the children. I know that for me , from experience that if I had not continued with my career full time I would have found motherhood soul destroying and would have been depressed.

I do not however, feel that everyone should respond as I did. I do think that the nurturing, caring work traditionally associated with women and mothering should be valued higher in society and a valid option to both women and men. For example, we were not able to afford me to take a long maternity leave but could have easily and usefully transferred it to my then husband, but it was not an available option. Similarly, until flexible working is not regarded as a predominantly female, 'mummy stream' career choice we can't fundamentally and structurally change the current balance between work and family life.

I'm really lucky in my job actually that there is a really good flexible working ethos and the men take nearly as much advantage of it as the woman. And in our friendship group a lot of the dads work part time to look after the kids as well as the mums. So things are changing, but very slowly.

I wonder if post natal depression, of a situational kind rather than a chemical kind, is more common now that woman do have a lot more to give up and having children is quite a shock. Whereas 50 years ago woman were expected to become SAHMs and didn't have much of a life to give up. Not saying that was better, but with greater freedom has come greater emotional distress. There is a cognitive dissonance between having children and having a career/life/whatever which causes so many WOHM/SAHM debates because in order to become ok with our choices we have to believe that they are the best thing for our children (and us) which is why when someone makes a different choice we often become defensive.

ha! yes tortoise, the invisibility of motherhood.

Compare it to the visibility of war "heroes". Society completely ignores the fact that death is an occupational hazard in child-bearing, although it's something that women actually doing for the human race (rather than with the aim to destroy the human race)

come to think about it, maybe that's why men love war. So they can "put their life on the line" like women do every day.

I think pnd is related to the isolation of motherhood now. In the fifties, when everyone was a sahm, there was a far better support network, and we were prepared for the job asit was what was expected of us from the minute we were born. Now, once you give birth, you soon find yourself getting lonelier and lonelier as your an classmates start to go back to work, and nobheads like the odd few on MN etc. Like to tell you you're obviously dim or you wouldn't be able to stand being at home with your children because they're so dull. You start to feel like the only person in the world who is a sahm and, although you may like what you're doing, society tells you that you ought to want more from your life, so you end up in internal conflict.

I did my anthropology MA dissertation on PND. Basically, to generalise hugely, women in communities where motherhood is viewed as the natural fulfillment of a female role, where women's work is domestic work, & there are extended community networks, don't tend to get PND. In communities e.g. shanty towns in Indonesia or townships in South Africa where "traditional" ways are coming into conflict with "modern" ways, where people live hard lives economically & rapid industrialisation/population movements means family support isn't always there, women suffer PND more. & obviously in the UK/USA/western world.

At least I think that's what I thought

That's interesting, iskra. I was wondering if there was some correlation between incidences of PND and a woman's expectations of her role as a mother/the value placed on that role etc.

Actually, the patriarchy is actually quite supportive of sahms through the medium of marriage.
Even if a woman does NOT pay a penny financially to household costs and her husband pays for everything, in the event of a split, she will still be entitled to share of assets all the same. Her childcare will have worth attached to it.

Anyway, Joan Smith said something very, very interesting in yesterday's Independent on Sunday about this is issue/ To paraphrase: it's been assumed that ALL women are maternal because for so long there was no choice in the matter.

The truth is that a lot of women are not maternal at all.

Frankly, unless a woman becomes pregnant through the disgusting act of rape, the vast majority of us are able to CHOOSE for ourselves whether or not we get pregnant.
Contraception is free and women do NOT have to reproduce if they don't want to.
We are very lucky in the UK as regards this issue and we should not ever forget that.
It IS a choice to have children in the UK and every choice has its pluses and negatives.

I think they were talking about day-to-day support i.e. actual help looking after children which the patriarchy most definitely does not help out in. That is how women feel isolated, especially if they don't live close to their family, their friends may not be having children, their husband may not be around much (due to work or other reasons!). Financial support isn't the only requirement for raising children. And a lot of men who leave their families don't even provide financial support.