Time magazine catches on to the childfree movement, misses the green angle{large image}

[xchrom]

http://grist.org/living/time-magazine-catches-on-to-the-childfree-movement-misses-the-green-angle/

?w=240

The childfree trend is experiencing its biggest mainstream-media moment ever thanks to Time’s new cover story: “The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children.”

(And the magazine gets kudos for using the word childfree, preferred by those who don’t want children, as opposed to childless, which is more appropriate for people who want kids but don’t have them.)

Writer Lauren Sandler notes that an increasing percentage of Americans are bypassing parenting:

The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest in recorded American history, which includes the fertility crash of the Great Depression. From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which there’s data, the fertility rate declined 9%. A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s. Even before the recession hit, in 2008, the proportion of women ages 40 to 44 who had never given birth had grown by 80%, from 10% to 18%, since 1976, when a new vanguard began to question the reproductive imperative. These statistics may not have the heft of childlessness in some European countries — like Italy, where nearly one-quarter of women never give birth — but the rise is both dramatic and, in the scope of our history, quite sudden.

[fasttense]

1. Yeah and if the economy were half decent

and wasn't continuing it's slow crash, these folks would be having children.

Reduced marriage rates and childlessness are common results of depressions and economic suffering. It started before the "official" announcement of the economic crash, but that was simply because most poor and middle class saw the affects of it sooner.

[freeplessinseattle]

2. Rather simplistic reasoning there

I personally know at least 3 couples around my age (41, and happily childfree!) who are financially comfortable but simply have no desire for children.

Believe it or not, some people really, truly, do not want children.

[fasttense]

6. Yes, a few

but not as many as we currently have.

It's the economy.

[freeplessinseattle]

11. LOL Because it is so abnormal to not yearn for

little ones?

[enlightenment]

4. You know this because?

Some people do not want to have children. Improving the economy won't change that. I know many, and their choice was not made because of some external factor, but because that is what they want - to be child-free.

Can the economy have an impact on people who want to have children but feel they cannot afford to have them? Sure, but that isn't the topic being discussed.

[fasttense]

7. Many people rationalize their choices to fit the current meme.

Yes, some people do not want children. Most people in this economy do not want children because they can't afford them.

[enlightenment]

9. Without evidence

either way - I have no hard and fast evidence and I'm not sure any recent quantifiable studies have been done on the topic - I guess we might have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with your "most", simply because it assumes that "most" people want children (which would be a rationalization to fit the accepted meme - grow up, marry, reproduce). That doesn't mean, however, that "most" people want to remain child-free - just that I think there might be a more even split between the child-free and the childless than you suggest.

Without actual numbers, though, we're just tossing around quantifiers!

[TlalocW]

5. You're wrong

I've been childfree since the good old days of the Clinton economy (when I got my vasectomy). I've ended a lot of romantic relationships when I discovered the woman I was dating lied to me about being childfree and thought she could change me and have me get a vasectomy-reversal or not started a lot of potential relationships by telling women that if one of their goals in life is to have children then it would be best not to date me as it would keep them from that goal.

TlalocW

[on point]

3. True one thing needed to fight climate change is to crash the population

This frightens capitalists because their system requires continual growth, as opposed to continual profit. Not the same thing.

But Humanity needs to crash the human population by a lot perhaps 50%, to get us out of this mess and move to a sustainable future that also has room for the natural environment. And by the way this also fits our technical stage of development where less labor will be needed in the future. End result is better standard of living for everyone and the planet will have enough margin to heal.

Btw, rather crash the population from 1 child only couples as opposed to war, famine, environment disaster which is how it will happen if we don't do it voluntarily

[fasttense]

8. I must admit I admire those adults who refuse to procreate because of the world population.

I refused to have more than 2 children because I didn't want to add to the population problem. When my husband and I die, we will have added no more extra beings.

I think people who go on to have child after child simply because they can are selfish.

But I still believe that the majority of people who refuse to have children really can't afford them. And the majority of people who do have children can't afford them either.

[stuntcat]

10. of course.

Nothing will ever ever make selfish baby-boomers stop calling people like ME "selfish"

I will not make another consumer. But my real reason is that I will NOT give my baby the rest of the century. I've been in online CF groups for years and this reason is NEVER mentioned.

And I'll be hated for my decision until those fat old shits finally die.


I guess I'll buy this rag anyway.