Childless: How the Most Ambitious Women Choose not to Be Sidetracked by Family

For the first time in history, three women could sit on the Supreme Court. If it happens, two of them will be childless. Whatever the reason for this personal decision by Justice Sonya Sotomayor and recently nominated Elena Kagan, there's a subtle, yet powerful, message being sent to working women across the nation: If you want a perch at the pinnacle of your profession, it's easier without kids.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-ashburn/childless-how-the-most-am_b_574249.html

:D

child-free by choice. ;)

to people that are childfree against choice but because of circumstances? and dont you have to be considerate and respectful of that group of people?

...:shrug:

i'm (merely) making the distinction that i choose to not have children, at this time. nothing more or less. the fact i've made a choice. i feel it's important to make that distinction, as it's irritating to get the, "...oh are you barren (unable to conceive)" comments, etc.

while i understand the desire to be sensitive of others (and generally attempt to be respectful of that)i'm not sure if in this case, it's possible. unfortunately it's a given that EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to comment (and/or judge) a woman's choices.

i'm attempting to state,"no, i'm not unable to conceive, i merely have no desire to do so, at this time." not that it's anyone's business. i've found stating it as such discourages further questions, (and invasive prodding by the nosy).

if maybe it is not a subject that no one can approach without caution and maybe we should cut each other slack in whether someone is really being hurtful or just stepped on a landmine accidently.

...to cut slack. primarily because i understand the myriad of ways our society judges women. how women are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. :crazy:

i also know my heart, and the intent behind my words. i generally try to speak for myself only. i've been on the receiving end of invasive, presumptive and rude questions by people who assume a married woman is going to immediately create people. i've found it's just easier to cut nosy buggers off at the pass, by making it clear this is my choice....today. (and then changing the subject--lol).

it is your choice, and i applaud. it was my choice until i was 33, yea. but for some people it isnt a choice, so when you say it is a choice, how do you think those that dont get the choice feel? could it be insensitive?

Childlessness may be wanting them but can't; those people may define themselves as they see fit.

decided she did want to have children. You're like an amazing guru or something.

You're right. People NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS.


If you expect tolerance for your family choices, start by respecting others.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...your input here, thank you. :) stated simply and succinctly.

i dont think anything disresptful is meant by it and it is a matter of shifting language....

thanks for the reminder.

>i dont think anything disresptful is meant by it and it is a matter of shifting language....<

For those of us who chose to not have children, it's disrespectful at the least. Those who call me "childless" do so in order to underline the fact they don't approve of my life choices.

The women involved made their decisions based on what would work best for themselves and their families, and two life partners is a family.

I am a childfree woman. I'm not "less" anything by not having children, and neither is any other woman who chooses this path.

i had never thought childless might be hurtful to those that chose or didn't chose to not have children. i was 33 before had children because i choose to not have children. i was never bothered with childless. not for a second. not for a moment.

recently i have listened..... LISTENED.... to women say that it is offensive. and it took little thought and consideration on my part to HEAR what they were saying. so i said to self.... self, they have a point. i like childfree better than childless. and if people want me to use childfree, it is a matter of reconditioning in my brain. i can do that. because i have no desire or intent or reason to hurt another over a word

hence, my conclusion.

people dont do it to hurt another or be condescending or make another less. but, we can as a people, respect the choice the childfree group has chosen for their descriptive word and with grace and respect, we can help spread that along. so childfree people, maybe you ought to consider that it is not a matter of slight, but many many people simply have not consider otherwise.

intent should matter

You were just like everyone else .... On your way to being a mommy.

come on rep.... surely you would be bothered if i did the same.

i had no interest in marriage. i didnt want kids. i absolutely refused to have any kinds of relationship cause i had no interest.

until i was 32.

then things changed. i was totally set in my lifestyle and perfectly content and appreciative of all i had. i wasnt waiting for anything.

Who needs marriage for kids? Lots don't. Who needs kids with a marriage? Lots don't. Don't be disengenuous. If you were childfree, you wouldn't have kids. Period. It's like being a virgin.

Don't play dumb. You know people's lives and goals change.

this is just getting too hard. so we are going to have to have a whole history fo the person before we can even address. then do we take a true o meter on how committed to nonmarriage and non kids? cause obviously just not being doesnt work for you.

our children. hubby and i die. he gets the kids. it is all written out in legal contract just waiting to happen. what do we call him?

child-free and happy about it :-)

It just sounds better.

I'm more free by having children. It allows me to view innocence once again.

By imposing "child free" on me, you are doing to me what you claim the word "childless" does to you: you are implying that people cannot possibly be free and happy IF they have children.

How about saying: "people without children" or "people who chose not to have children"?

"you are implying that people cannot possibly be free and happy IF they have children."

but i concluded that it is a matter of what one chooses to read into it. but really, on the less... that too, is people without children reading something into it. i decided that since, as a society, we have always diminished the woman without child, that i could respect the women that prefer childfree, instead of being bothered with the free.

;)

I'm a zealot for choice, and that includes all manner of reproductive and family choice from the Duggars to the "no children by choice" to any manner of loving family or individuals willing and able to adopt.


The term "free" implies the opposite of bondage. For obvious reasons, guardians and parents of children may just find this sentiment off-putting.

Child "less" implies that a person or family is without something. That's just insulting.

It's even worse for people who have gone through years and years of fertility treatments. Could any term point out their frustration and failure more than "childless?" Probably not.

...but it seems you are reading your personal feelings into the words, as opposed to seeing the words as they are. child-free is just that--two words meaning one "without children".

whether or not one is happy, unhappy, etc. is a separate issue altogether.

"People whose lives are not being leached away by little snot-nosed hooligans."

Better?

:P

A classic "bell curve".

The people who are most likely to reproduce (or to have the most children) are those in the middle range of intellectual capacity.

:wow:

It might be a parody, but out here in the sticks where I live, it's all around me - even in my family.

are also much more likely to remain childfree.

they simply do not have the time to raise families due to their studies and jobs, or because their "highly educated minds" have lead them to believe that children and families are a burden to them or society?

and realizing there is more to life than raising children because everyone else in the neighborhood is.

There are other people who truly do not like children and choose not to have them.

I didn't have children for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is the fact that I had no burning desire to be a parent. I think those who have children and haven't counted the emotional, physical and financial cost of parenting before that decision are nuts.

to not be a parent. Or your lack of desire to be a parent. However you want to state it.

Do you think that people who have attained more education are more likely to feel that way, rather than someone who is less educated? In other words, is it primarily education that leads one to make that decision, or is it something else? Just personal conviction developed internally somehow?

I've known plenty of people who are child-free by choice, and I'd rank them all over the place on the "intelligence scale."

What a crock of shit.

:hi:

"reproductive fitness?" Jesus H on toast.

But thanks for grabbing the opportunity to completely misinterpret my post. From your reply it seems you are taking it personally. I'm simply stating a fact about a measurable factor that correlates with human reproduction. The relationship is quite clear.

See, first you used the term "reproductive fitness." That's a bit of a bullshit throwaway term to begin with, since you can't really quantify it the way you might with say, cardiovascular capacity.

What the fuck is "reproductive fitness?"

Sperm from a single typical ejaculation can be centrifuged and used to fertilize hundreds of human eggs. A typical male can easily produce at least one suitable sample of ejaculate every day for most of his adult life. If a male fails to utilize the full potential of his reproductive fitness does that make him reproductively unfit or just a fucking slacker?

Human reproduction in practice, reproductive "fitness" and the number of people in any particular family have no necessary relation at all.

See, first you used the term "reproductive fitness." That's a bit of a bullshit throwaway term to begin with, since you can't really quantify it the way you might with say, cardiovascular capacity.

Yes, you can.

Reproductive fitness is measured by counting the number of viable offspring to which an individual makes a genetic contribution.

Sperm from a single typical ejaculation can be centrifuged and used to fertilize hundreds of human eggs. A typical male can easily produce at least one suitable sample of ejaculate every day for most of his adult life. If a male fails to utilize the full potential of his reproductive fitness does that make him reproductively unfit or just a fucking slacker?

That's all irrelevant to the measure of a man's reproductive fitness.

Human reproduction in practice, reproductive "fitness" and the number of people in any particular family have no necessary relation at all.

You don't understand the term reproductive fitness. You have fallen into the trap of taking personally a factual statement about a correlation of one measure of human capacity with another.

It's a biological term.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=reproductive+fitness&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

is a bunch of bullshit.

I fail to see the correlation between reproductive choices and intelligence.

Then again, my wife and I have one child already and another on the way. We are hoping to have, and would joyously welcome, even more...so I may just be too unintelligent to understand what you said. :eyes:

That is how many offspring a population of people produce, statistically.



Like other probabilistic relationships, this one says NOTHING about how the number of children any particular individual has with that person's intelligence.

Don't take it personally. It's not about you.

on that chart as well, I still question your original statement.
I fail to see how quantity of children or likelihood of reproduction relates to intelligence at all.

There are some very brilliant people who have larger families (Einstein had 3 kids I believe), and there are some very unintelligent folks who also have large families.

That hump in the middle of the curve means that people of average intelligence have, STATISTICALLY, the most children, and that people on the extreme ends have the least. This is basic statistics, well established math. The math is unassailable.

I fail to see how quantity of children or likelihood of reproduction relates to intelligence at all.

But there it is, right in front of you.

There are some very brilliant people who have larger families (Einstein had 3 kids I believe), and there are some very unintelligent folks who also have large families.

Of course, and there are plenty of people of average intelligence who have no children. The correlation doesn't say anything about individuals. It's about statistical probabilities among a very large group.

Once again, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. IT'S JUST A FACT.

You can't take any two normal distributions and say "tall people have fewer children than people of normal height" or "people with very high incomes have fewer children that people with average incomes". There's no correlation just because they're both bell curves.

You can say "people of average intelligence have most of the children" because most people are of average intelligence. But you can't say "people of average intelligence have more children *because* they have average intelligence" just because IQ is a normal distribution.

You have to crosstabulate intelligence and number of children to have meaningful statistics.

You can say "people of average intelligence have most of the children" because most people are of average intelligence.

OK, and that is what I said.

But you can't say "people of average intelligence have more children *because* they have average intelligence" just because IQ is a normal distribution.

And I did not say that. Go back to reply #2 and read it carefully.

You said: "The people who are most likely to reproduce (or to have the most children) are those in the middle range of intellectual capacity."

Since the clause after the "or" can replace what came before it, this can be read as "The people who are most likely to have the most children are those in the middle range..."

Many people did not understand your meaning from this. You might consider that that's a result of your own awkward phrasing (which has to do with logic, not statistics) and be a little less snarky about it.

Both are not only childless but unmarried. Elena K never married. Sonia S had a short-term marriage.

Is this a statement about women in all professions? Or is it limited to law? I am/was an attorney and there are a lot of single women in the profession.
I think the legal profession is not welcoming to married women. Also there's something about the way that attorneys have to relate to other people that makes it not conducive to good personal relationships. It's not a profession that I would recommend for any man or woman.

And this is due more to the fact that these systems are built around the lives of married men, and have not once been adjusted for women who plan to have children.

Universities seem to be hostile environments to working parents...

:shrug:

I think women in many professions are making this decision or deciding to have careers first or children first, but deciding not to do both at the same time.

Some fields are still hostile environments for working mothers. Advancement can be tough.

For some, life just flew by. I suppose that each day I focused on my work instead of building my personal relationships, I made a choice. However, I did not consciously choose to remain unmarried and childless in order to "succeed" at my work. It just happened.
I think the same may be true for other women.

I wanted to marry.......

One day I was 38 and wondered where the time went. In addition, while all very nice men, none of the relationships I had were with men I wanted as the father of my children. I'm happy , unmarried, and child free- but I never set out for that. I'm not disappointed though either. It just happened.

:)

Used to bother me, but now I don't care. I have my own office, which I'm getting off the ground. :)

dg

I am absolutely fucking SICK of the elitism expressed in articles which say women's lives are worthless unless they "have it all."

The "mommmy track" and associated issues are alive and well in the academic world.

whose salary puts essentials together for her children/family and she who works a career for her own sense of fulfillment.

My goal would be for women to make equal pay so if they do get married and have kids it can be a choice between who tends to the kids when they're still very young- Mom OR Dad.

Obviously it is not a matter of choice to work to sustain one's self - we all have to do that. But it is clearly a matter of choice to decide to have a child. I'm not sure how it could be any more of a personal choice than it is. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other, or I'm misunderstanding Writer's intent?

When you're next carrying a baby in your womb, let me know how easy that choice is, okay?

No, I didn't. But it is most definitely a choice. And it's one more choice than men get in the matter.

she's forced to make these decisions. Or sometimes she divorces and - as it's traditional in the country - the woman gets stuck with the kids with a weakened career and relatively less pay than her male counterparts.

No it's MUCH MUCH more complicated than you're making this to be.

You can't "already have children" before making the choice to have them. That's how that choice works. There is even an additional layer of choice (surrendering for adoption) for women who come to believe they have chosen incorrectly in the first trimester.

As for the divorce scenario, your phrasing is telling. The mother "gets stuck with" the kids? No, the father traditionally gets robbed of his children by family courts who assume that women make better caregivers by default.

It's not complicated. It takes two to tango, but the female of the pair has MUCH more choice as to what happens after the dance than her partner does.

Lots of women get stuck raising somebody else's kids due to a family emergency or whatever.

When are we, as a society, going to get to the point where having children isn't an assumed career break for women only?

economically.

:thumbsup:

Working class men don't get to spend as much time with their kids, but men in salaried office positions are often afforded the priviledge of taking time off for their chidlren. I know. My husband takes time off to spend time with our kids. If they have a field trip or a doctor's appointment my husband can take off and there is no problem at all. In fact my husband has taken quite a bit of time off lately to move his mom up here to live with us. Salaried office woman are often perceived as less productive for taking time off for family even if they are more productive.

but men who stop working to be primary caregivers are still viewed as odd. I agree with you that salaried white collar employees are often accorded the flexibility to take time off to go to chaperone, coach, or take kids to appointments. What stinks is they're viewed as doing something noble, while as you pointed out it's more likely that their female coworkers are viewed negatively for doing the same thing.

Working class men AND women are less likely to be afforded time off with the kids although there are some enlightened employers out there.

full time. She is a pharmacist who got her board certification in pharmacotherapeutics while mommy-tracking and job-sharing her position at a large midwestern hospital where she has worked for over 25 years. Her marriage is happy and successful, and her two kids are well-adjusted and successful young adults now.

In my view, quite possibly one of the most astute people on this planet, has children and a family.

She has it all, yup yup.

I choose to be child-free and I'm just an office drone. Other women I know, both with big career jobs and without, have made the same choice. It is a personal issue, one for which stereotypes seem to be considered quite acceptable in our society. There are many more answers to the "why" that people get into than "career" or "no career".

Why don't men who choose to have no children get the same questions?

I have a friend that knew in college (20 years ago) that she didn't want kids...and just plain didn't. She married a man, who also did not want kids and knew he didn't.

Right now, my biggest career aspiration is to find a job in the field in which I got my master's degree. In deciding to be childfree, careers had absolutely nothing to do with it for me and Mr. Laurel.

Involved in the process, sure, but men don't have to, and can't, carry them, so it might not even register as a possible topic.

Perhaps the day comes when all children are created in labs, and women just no longer give birth, then women won't be asked.

They can create the child, but they just don't need to be that involved. Afterall, if those silly broads complain about it they can just get theirs when science lets them stop "carrying children" (implication, as GAWD, male patriarch of the UNIVERSE fucking intended). :sarcasm:

Women have the same option WRT not being involved - they can surrender a child for adoption. Hell, women have MORE of an option, as they alone can choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Perhaps in your zeal to paint the other gender as bad and irresponsible, you've neglected to consider that society automatically views men who choose not to procreate as immature playboys incapable of responsible "proper" family life?

It was just a snide remark in response to another snide remark, nothing new for DU.

I see you have posted a lot. I am sorry you have a personal problem with people having different opinions than you toward the enforcement of gender rolls and feel women don't deserve to be questioned for not having children. I realize that the practice of questioning women's personal choices and following with criticism men would never receive is considered a very important social control to many in our country.

Another admonishment to a woman to "act like a lady" which only means "behave in the manner to which men are accustomed and expect."

"They can create the child, but they just don't need to be that involved."

Men also don't have much say in the abortion process either. Even if the guy wants to be involved, he can't tell the woman not to have an abortion if she wants one. If the guy doesn't want to be involved, he can't tell the woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want one.

"Afterall, if those silly broads complain about it they can just get theirs when science lets them stop "carrying children""

I just meant that if that time comes, and both men and woman are taken out of any birth process, maybe the questions would no longer come up. Is it fair that woman get asked those questions much more often then men? No. But you asked why, not should. I gave a possible reason as to why. Should men be asked why they want no children? If women are going to be asked that question, I see no reason why they shouldn't.

It registers as a possible topic, and rightly so. It's very sad that so many people still don't get it.

But that wasn't the question. At least the way I read it.

"Why don't men who choose to have no children get the same questions?"

Men don't really get to choose whether or not to have children. They can choose to have sex or not. They can choose a partner who also doesn't want children. Ultimately though, when it comes to actually giving birth, it's up to the woman.

Why don't men get those same questions? I'm just throwing out a possible reason. It may not be the reason, it may not even be a reason, but it was an open ended question.

If the question was "Should men who choose to have no children get the same questions?", I'd say sure, if you're going to ask woman that question, why the hell not ask men. But the question was why. Maybe it has something to do with the physical differences between men and women. Maybe it doesn't. I know I don't care what the reasons are for a woman having or not having a kid, but the question was more of a look into the collective mind of society, and all the variables and complexities that exist within it.

have decided not to have children. I don't know their reason, just that they have said that they choose not to have them. I'm sure that she will be asked about this much more than he will, when it's a choice that they both have made.

>Why don't men who choose to have no children get the same questions?<

Most of the thinly-veiled disdain and peer pressure I've had in the past came from women who had children early in life, were very unhappy with their choices, and couldn't wait to tell me that there was something "wrong" or "sad" about me because I didn't make the same choices they did.

I could write all day on the things people have said to me. Here's a good one: "I'm so sorry you'll never know what real love is."

Yeah.

:eyes:

"I'm so sorry you'll never know what real love is."

That was absolutely horrible. I imagine it took a great deal of restraint not to throttle her.

Surely a lot of this is conditioning. In my grandfather's house, women did the cooking, cleaning, and child keeping. This went for daughters and grand daughters as well.

In fact, when the pastor came over, the "females" were relegated to the kitchen so that my grandfather, deacons, uncles and even male cousins that were my age sat at the dining table.

On a southern "Fried Chicken Sunday", whether or not you actually got a piece of chicken depended on the generosity of a male cousin stowing away a piece or two on your behalf, or my mother, aunts or older cousins remembering to steal a few pieces ahead of time to put away before the platter was placed on the main table. Since, my mother felt my father's family was a bunch of "yahoos", her being there meant I never had to worry. But, if she wasn't...

But, shucks, let them get to talking AND eating too long, and they'd even ask..."hey, is there any more chicken?" Which meant you were supposed to confess and bring out your hidden stash. Or, tick off a male cousin and he'd sit and eat the last piece (he didn't really want) just to get back at you. We're talking kids here.

Gender roles can be serious business and hard to break. Eating in the kitchen when the pastor visited was a tradition that died with my grandfather. Heck, feeding the preacher at all is on life support these days.

I've had female friends that had to iron their clothes and their brother's clothing. One such friend remarked with great earnestness how grateful she was one day (on our way to school) when her brother felt sorry for her because she was tired and wore jogging pants to school so she wouldn't have to iron his clothes for him. Make no mistake, this isn't the way she raised her son.

So, we're raised in a society that still often believes strongly in set gender roles. Roles set by "other" people. These roles are changing, but some die slowly.

I've never wanted kids...ever...I've known since I was about 16...had a very happy,childhood,nothing negative there...but I've been so debased by over people over the years for my choice,"there must be something wrong with me" - and my attitude towards them is a big FU!

I used to have a friend that would have my ears ringing with the horrible treatment she was receiving from her only (adult) child then after an hour of that would almost inevitibly and seriously ask "Aren't you afraid you will regret not having kids when you are old". :silly: She was friends with my husband as well and never once asked him that question.

I come from a very large, matriarchal family (on my mom's side). I have two aunts, two uncles, all of whom have at least three children...a total of 13 first cousins and a stack of 2nd cousins too large to count. I'm the 2nd oldest cousin at 36 and the youngest of the cousins is 20. Eleven cousins are married, six already have at least once child of their own and some have two now. With few exceptions (my parents being one), they've all stayed in the Houston, TX area. My grandmother, and to a lesser extent, my mom, have a very hard time understanding my choice to get married later in life (I'm not yet, but possibly on the way) and to not desire kids. I am constantly bombarded by the "when are you going to settle down and have kids!" question. To my grandmother and mom, a family and kids are the ONLY way to a happy life.

I've tried on severl occasions to explain that I have no desire for children and it falls on deaf, non-understanding ears. Until recently it has been just an annoyance but when my girlfriend came home with me for Christmas, my grandmother immediately started in about the fact that we weren't getting any younger and needed to get married and started on our family right away.

Please believe that it's not just females who get talked down to for not having kids.

I get your point. And, people can get downright personal about that...which one of you "can't" have children as opposed to maybe you just didn't want to or better yet, what business is of yours in the first place.

that really pisses me off. i know your pain (as i've heard similar crap)...so sorry to hear you've experienced this. it's total and complete bullshit.

:hug: for you.

is that the questions and comments have stopped. Before that, though, if someone started in on me, I'd be polite, and then the gloves would come off if they didn't stop. My favorite comeback was "Why are you so concerned about it?" It's guaranteed to stop people in their tracks -- after all, most adults will realize that persisting just makes them look stupid.

Two of my girlfriends are infertile. One made the decision with her husband that they would remain a family of two. I know she probably still wishes things were different, but they are happy, and she moved on with her life. My other girlfriend is an ex-Marine, and has been married for 20 years. They've never used birth control, and for some unknown reason, she just never got pregnant. Another woman working in the same building decided she'd start in one afternoon on my friend about why she didn't have children. She got so nasty and so pointed that my poor friend burst into tears.

It takes a lot for me to lose my temper, but I did that afternoon. The woman who just wouldn't let up? SHE was crying by the time I was done with her.

It's really nobody else's business. For those who desperately wanted a child and couldn't have one for whatever reason, it's painful enough without having others poking around in a subject they already told the Snoopy McSnooperson to back off of, or changed the subject.

I'm sorry you've gone through this as well. Obviously, it says a lot more about the person in question than it would ever say about any of us.

Here's a :hug: for you, too.

I'm like, fine with me.

along those lines to me.

I replied with, "I bet I get more loving every week than you do".

Then I told her to fuck off.

I'm a mere artist/gardener. But choosing not to give a baby the rest of this sad century makes me feel better about myself than just about anything else I could be proud of :)

I really can't stand the cultural dualism about women that you are either a slave to your family or to a career (or trying to do both). It's so obnoxious and excludes so many women. Idle hands on a woman are truly the Devil's workshop to most people.

:thumbsup:

It is assumed that men will work and sacrifice their lives for their wives and children.

They die 10 years earlier than women, or is that not considered unfair in your book?

My neighbor has been a house-husband and house-Dad for 10 + yrs.

:)

My disinterest in having children or a big career stems from a single reason - lack of overall motivation/drive. I know the work involved in raising children right - my parents were great examples of how NOT to do it. Parenting the way I'd want to seems as exhausting as climbing the corporate ladder would be. When my days of retail mid-management are longer than normal (say, 10 hours instead of 8), I am pretty much useless when I get home. I can't imagine being up for the 80-hour weeks required of ambitious lawyers, nor can I fathom coming home from a day at work to a night of cooking, cleaning, changing, bathing, crying, and broken sleep. Maybe I have undiagnosed CFS, or maybe I'm just extremely lazy, but I can't function if I haven't had at least a couple hours at the end of the day to decompress before bed. Kudos to those who find fulfillment in their kids or their work; it's just not for me.

I wouldn't call you unambitious. Rather, you sound satisfied with life and who could argue with that?

Children are wonderful...for those who want them. Choosing a child-free life means you've actually thought about the consequences. I don't think that applies in too many cases of child-filled lives.

Re- the burdens beyond just doing one's job well, the BEST a woman lawyer can hope for is that either she is single and childless or is married to a spouse who carries 50% of the load, so that the woman and has no burdens beyond her fair share, and that the clients and others she deals with do not discriminate against women.

The WORST a man faces is that either he is single and childless or is married to a spouse who carries 50% of the load, so that the man actually has to carry his fair share, and that the clients and others he deals with do not discriminate against women.

not usually.

When they start asking about men's family relationships as they relate to career vs personal lives we will have a real social conversation. Not until.

Lots of us had shitty fathers, and are trying to do a better job, which is something our feminist mothers may have urged us to do when we were young. The author assumes "mothers, who still bear the brunt of childcare responsibilities" is somehow natural. Not in my house! My wife is one of those successful women with children she describes, and I'm a homemaker.

Our kids are age 5 and 19 months. I've been in the workforce, and I've been a homemaker, and I know that no boss is ever as demanding as a preschooler, or an infant. I feel a little guilty because I feel that, when I return to the workforce, which I'm trying to do, it will be a break. I sympathize with these mothers, because I have a suspicion that when I return to work I will still be doing all the laundry, most of the cooking, all of the cleaning, most of the childcare, and all the yardwork. Once you set up a division of labor and specialization within a household, it can be hard to change.

"Once you set up a division of labor and specialization within a household, it can be hard to change."

That is so true!

We went to an event for a local mothers' club. One of my wife's friends had brought a camera and took a whole bunch of pictures--we posed for a couple, but she also took some unposed pictures of the festivities. In every picture of my family, I'm taking care of the children or playing with them, while my wife is chatting with friends or just sitting down. Just sitting there: I don't get to do that. Guess I know what Betty Friedan was talking about. It seems to me that some of the behavioral differences we observe are not essential, but a result of folks playing different roles: when you assume the homemaker role, if you don't do it, it won't get done.

Looking forward to getting a job. Not looking forward to having strangers raise my kids.

want to be able to do what women have been allowed to do forever. as they should. i have a brother that would have made and excellent stay at home and his wife should have been the one in the workforce. didn't happen and i feel it was a major factor in an inevitable divorce.

there are ways for women to be able to accomplish what they want and need, with a little creative exploration and rejection of conditioned roles.

If the article had been written last year, it would say, "One of the women on the Supreme Court has child(ren), one does not. Success is possible both ways."

The appointment of Elena Kagan cannot suddenly change such a broad conclusion.

without children. i dont know who or if any are gay... i dont think so. i haven't heard. but who knows. dont care. (dont know any of them at all really, not in same area). but.....

not being married, not having children isn't new in our family. it is almost as likely as the tradition choices. i have an uncle and brother not married, one never had children. two brother in laws never married, gay.

i mean, in my world, it is not a given.

but, i am all for women that make those choices, see them no less or no greater than any other choice we make in life. i respect women so much more for not having children, if they dont want to have children

where i have issue is people being parents and then not fulfilling their roles.....

I think the men who are child free usually just don't want kids or haven't met Ms. Right. The reasons are different.

I didn't choose to not have kids for any reason other than I didn't want them. My husband made the same decision for the same reason. Maybe we're not so different after all. :shrug:

back when my uncle (Vietnam vet) was pursuing his Phd, he was advised not to marry and have children until he finished or it would be the kiss of death. In fact, they suggested he wait until later in his career. He decided not to marry or have children. But, he's never seemed to have any regrets. But, he did mention that he was a bit ticked at the time.

Thank goodness those who want to remain child free figure that choice out before they bring an unwanted child into the world.

>Thank goodness those who want to remain child free figure that choice out before they bring an unwanted child into the world.<

Because after all, those who "want" children have never, ever brought an unwanted child (or a child they could not care for,) into the world, have they?

The childfree must overcome incredible family and social pressure to reproduce. It's not a decision made lightly.

How hard is it to tell your family (if you did) that you just don't plan on having children?

Family members have their own agendas and ideas about becoming grandparents. My parents never seemed to care, although I can tell they enjoy their grandchildren. But, there didn't seem to be any pressure.

My mother had been told that she couldn't have children, but then had two. Go figure? She married young and I think really wanted her life to take a different direction.

But, I have friends who really felt pressured to marry and have children. Period. They were under some pretty serious guilt trips.

I have one friend whose mother has even called men on her behalf "hoping" to get her married off so she can have grandchildren.

Geesh...it occurs to me, I know some pretty strange people.

I didn't meet my husband until she'd been gone two years, so I didn't get it from her. My husband's family was (and continues to be,) the biggest problem. My sister in law burst into noisy sobs at a restaurant table a few years back when she started in again on "When are you going to have a bayyyybeeeeee so I can be an auntie? I need a baby!", and I told her that we weren't. The first time I met my father-in-law, he patted my belly and asked if there was "somethin' in the oven". When I told him that no, I was not pregnant, he turned to my husband and demanded, "What's wrong with you?"

Anyone that chooses this path had better have a spine of steel, or you will give in. The pressure from others to conform is tremendous.

...to the sister in law would be, "then have a child yourself."

:eyes:

...another hug for you :hug::pals: good grief, some people are so friggin' insensitive.

i used to try to explain. got over that (realizing it's no one's business). :banghead:
now i say something to the extent of,"....wow--that's a very personal question, don't you think?" that usually gives them pause, and clears the way for me to change the subject. at the very least it makes it clear it's not something i'm fielding questions about.

if someone is incredibly dense (and they continue to press) i quickly saying something like,"...i've tried to be polite about this, i'm really sorry but i'm really not open to discussing this issue. despite media reports to the contrary, i personally consider procreation a private matter." and i change the subject.

anyone pushing beyond that is quite obviously an asshole, and deserves to be walked away from. ;)

i have friends who take an entirely different route. they just--rapid fire--start asking the person a bunch of personal questions...

"...how much money do you make?" "....are you a top or bottom?" "....do you smoke right after, or do you like to cuddle?" when they start to inevitably stammer and look uncomfortable she says,"....yeah---i don't like to be asked such personal questions, either."

...none of the people choosing "child-free" come from abusive families of origin. ;) for many it's important to ensure the pattern of familial abuse stops with them.

while they're off on maternity leave. That's okay, I'm for that. I just really don't appreciate it when the Mommies Club then expects me & everyone else who doesn't have kids to keep picking up the slack for them while they take more time off from work to go do Mommy things, AND still feel entitled to be in the same line for promotions that we are.

dg

I don't understand this kind of hostility toward parents, I really don't.

I would think that since the quality of future generations affects us all, we'd all be concerned with ensuring that all children are well cared for... that includes having good boding time during the first few months of life.

In other countries there is a far more family-friendly attitude. I hope someday to see that here.

I have. It's becoming more & more prevalent too. I haven't seen dads demand special treatment like I have mommies.

dg

and when i was single and without knowledge, the one always put upon because i was single and childfree, i had a shitty attitude too. but it helps to consider

that many of these "mommies" (i put into quote cause i am pretty sure you say this in scorn or less)HAVE to work. because they NEED money to pay the bills and feed the family. because we are in a society today where ONE person cannot bring enough money to take care of needs. so generally, because of the whole patriarchal and conditioned and tradition rule, the woman is the one that is consistently getting called from work to take care of the kids.

and yes

this means that this woman will not be the one up for promotion

and no

it is not always the woman, sometimes the man. and it is not always the woman as the single parent, sometimes the dad

but instead of the ugliness of it, i have learned to be a little more patient with them because i know they are living a bet of hell and would probably rather not be stretched so thin.

:wtf:

Just exactly the Mommy Entitlement Syndrome I'm talking about.

dg

if you confuse a human being with chores or bills, then you are so closed minded, that discussing it with you matters not.

but i also notice how you totally ignored the point of peopke HAVING to work to eat, not from choice. and lack of sympathy or understanding on your part says a lot.

Do you really think that single people work because they're bored, or that we have all the time in the world to ourselves to get our personal business done?

I am NOT a second-class citizen just because I didn't CHOOSE to have a kid. And no, I do NOT have sympathy for people like you who not only expect but DEMAND I take on extra work & duties because you're too special a mommy. Perhaps you should climb down off your high horse & at least say "Thank you" to those who pull extra duty so you can tend to Junior.

dg

We're part of the "village" when it's time to dip into our wallets or have us pick up their work slack, But when we lose our jobs we qualify for practically no government assistance. I mean, seriously, we can FOAD as far as many of the parents here are concerned.

And don't get me started on how the mommies have coopted feminism.

that my post is saying you dont count, you dont need to eat, yada yada yada.

you know, i worked for over two decades single and without children and my taxes went to pay for shit. and i gotta tell you, i did not have this chip on the shoulder. i experienced exactly what you are all experiencing. i would get pissed cause so much of my taxes were taken out. but never..... would i feel like you two posters.

It was a general comment not directed at any particular poster because there are so many of them here.

As for our bitterness, it comes from dealing with the unbelievable attitude of entitlement that many parents have.

how ridiculous are you being.

that is an absurd statement alone and makes one tend to not read the rest of your post.

we weren't talking about you

we were talking about "mommy"

you implied that single people don't have those concerns. I ain't exactly livin' the life of Riley over here, and I don't mind pitching in on occasion. But I DO object to being belittled, taken for granted, & having to give up *my* personal time to do someone else's work, whenever someone in the Mommy Entitlement Club "has" to take time off from work.

Again, climb down off your high horse & say "Thank you" for once to the person YOU inconvenienced because you dumped work on them.

dg

but necessity is a reality. again. nothing to do with you or your choices.

reality

if two parents are working, there are going to be times where a parent has to leave work to take care of child. dont get to put them aside until later like a bill

you can say.... i was saying, regardless of the fact that wasnt what i was saying. you can say it loud and often and in outrage. it also doesnt make you correct

are you talking about me climbing down from high horse? me personally? me thanking you?

You make the choice to skiv off work to go care for Junior, one of your co-workers has to cover. Do you ever thank them or return the favor? Or do you just expect that you can skip off whenever you need to because someone will always have to pick up your slack?

dg

you dont have a clue about me and listen to all you say.

stay at home. have been from day one. that choice works for me. i dont INFRINGE on you at all. as a matter of fact, my husband has not had to infringe on you at all, too. seeing how i am on call 24/7 and doesnt infer on hubby work day. further, since i take care of all things, you know the bills, errands, house, food ect... i bet you are steppin on his toes, sliding some personal stuff in and maybe you ought to be thanking him for putting in the 12, 14, 16 hour days.

he owned a business. and we had working parents. we also had the single adults without kids. we have seen it all. and we have had to have the patience and understanding for both groups. and probably both groups have a whine about the other groups.

but hey, wtf.... lets not cut a single person any slack what so ever and just feel shat upon.

Both mommies and daddies today seem to think that they should take absolutely no hit on their careers or incomes despite taking on the time consuming and expensive endeavor of having children. They really do want it all. They want their children 100% subsidized. You see this attitude all over DU.

then wonder why we don't fall down on our knees at their awesomeness. :eyes:

A fucking "Thank you" & perhaps some returned favors would make up for a lot, but apparently, that's just asking for TOO much from the Mommy Entitlement Club.

dg

Not all of them are like that, but the ones who are stand out! It's everywhere; not just in the workplace.

I am so sick of the garbage women must "have it all" when men don't, either.

Besides, few women have glamorous "careers," and I am sick and tired of reading the rot people's lives are worthless unless they have them.

We have not achieved any kind of meaningful equality.

Family should not be an impediment to any persons professional success.

Men have been doing that as well as forgoing families in order to pursue greatness.

Way of putting it. I disagree with the comment about intelligence up-thread.

One thing we can do, is not pressure women who do not have kids by negative comments on a situation that is none of our business regarding having kids or not having them. I actively support and encourage women who've decided to to be child-free, or are putting off having a family.
I'm not child free. I had them very young. I'm a much better grandparent than I was a mother

...for saying this, and for taking the time to encourage other women to remain child-free (whether eternally or just for a short time). i think it helps other women to hear that they have choices...from those who've been there. ;) :hi:

Our society punishes women for having children so if you want to have a career it does make more sense to not have children.

Perhaps unfortunate, but the single wisest financial decision a woman can make is to not have children regardless of their income or marital status.

:eyes:

Did you mean question the sanity of women who choose to have children or who choose not to have children?

any reasoning that can be easily refuted or argued.

lazy post

hm

bring it on

:rofl:

I am going to hope for the best here.

:crazy:

Sheesh, and they say we childfree folks hate kids!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Congratulations. You've just earned yourself the "Dumbest Post on DU Today" award.

that these successful women who don't have kids here would have them there if there were no educational and career "distractions."

I don't know that that's true.

Perhaps it's just as as simple as, not having kids, that they poured that passion for life into their careers and would have done that regardless of the environment.

make it so that it's very difficult to have such a career AND children? It damn well shouldn't be, but our culture's work-life balance demands and the underlying gender biases and prejudices make it so. So, the focus should be on why that is and how can we change that? And how can we change the deep-seated cultural bias against women who choose not to have children?

I really have to shake my head whenever I talk about this with people and they ask "well, you're a mother, don't you love being a mother?" Um, yeah, I do, indeed, enjoy being a mother and wouldn't trade it for anything. But that doesn't mean that every single woman feels or should feel the same way, or that all women want to be mothers or that there's something "wrong" with them if they don't.

Framing this as ambition rather than wisdom is a false premise.

Really?

The premise is as coercive as the directive to reproduce.

and I don't have kids.

But I'm a dude -- we never get judged for this shit.

Popular culture doesn't even acknowledge my existence. Idle hands on women are truly the Devil's Workshop - so much so that it dare not even speak its name!

:rofl:

I don't have a child, but I wonder if people like them, Condi, etc. would make different choices if they were able to go back in time.

Most, if not all, answer No on the choosing to be childfree. Some express anger over the difficulty of obtaining a tubal libation or other sterilization.

is hysterical. Really. What a blast.

It's amazing to me that fert drugs, etcetera, are simpler to get than a childfree female in her thirties asking for a tubal ligation. At the very least, you'll find yourself in the hospital psychologist's office, among other hoops to jump through. After all, all women really want children, and there's something wrong with you if you don't.

How long do you think the Octomom's doc argued with her when she had at least eight embryos implanted? Seriously.

I find it the height of irony that the local hospital newsletter shows up four times a year with numerous classes for those who are getting ready for parenthood. I once asked the hospital why they don't offer a class for those who aren't sure they want kids. Wouldn't it be good to let those people make an informed decision?

Considering the fact a routine delivery exceeds $10K, OF COURSE NOT! It's a profit center...

Even though I fully support the right of women to not have children if they don't want them, not all ambitious women are non-mothers.

yet another crap article from HuffPo.

The 14th century mystic and author (via amanuensis) of the first autobiography in English. Until the 1930s when her full writings were found, folks assumed she was childless. She traveled to Jersusalem, Spain, Germany, Rome, and all over England. It didn't seem possible for a wife and mother to be as amibitious outside the home. Turns out she had 14 children, battled severe post partum depression, and still found time to follow her own interests.

It can be done!

If a man at a high levels of career achievement chooses to have a family, he knows it will not "sidetrack" him; he can have a wife whose primary focus is taking care of family concerns. Women at high levels of career achievement know they cannot expect a spouse of theirs to do the same.

Just as a point of comparison, Antonin Scalia has a wife with a BA in English; they have NINE children. If you Google her name, on the first page of results that come back, the only one that is actually about HER and not her husband is the 4th one down - the Radcliffe class of 1960 e-mail directory.

Welcome to the stalled-at-halfway gender revolution.

Unlike women.

The "option" of staying home is only an option to those who are solidly middle-class or higher. The difference between men and women in my family is that the men came home from a grueling day at work and sat down with a beer in front of the TV. The women came home from a grueling day at work and started cooking dinner, doing laundry, and referee-ing fights between the kids.

Read "The Second Shift" sometime.

It does not change the fact that there are very, very limited options for men.

Working means NOT getting to see your family. It is a sacrifice that men are FORCED to make.

Do you think men have that choice or not?

Women's "liberation" MUST be about men's liberation as well. If both genders do not get freed from their set gender roles, no one is going to get any free-er.

Antonin Scalia has NINE children...wow! That's a lot of children. I had no idea.

The thought of nine more people in the world with views like his (one of them a Catholic priest and one a major in the Army) is pretty scary.

He's a sad reflection on our highest court. And not because he has 9 kids, either.

Not much difference except the reversal of accepted patriarchal norms.

Lately though, it seems that new demographics might begin to support stay at home dads. And who knows with all the hormones in the environment they might even be able to breast feed... just not in Olive Garden.

She never married, rose very high in her profession, is a private pilot, and has a great circle of friends. Women of her generation were expected to either marry and quit work/"mommy track" OR be successful. I think it's different for women now, but not much.