childfree – Terence Eden’s Blog

Book Review: Portraits of Childfree Wealth - Jay Zigmont ★★★★☆

@edent — Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:34:44 +0000

My wife and I are planning on being DWZ DINK FIRE. That's a lot of letters to say we want to retire early and not leave any money to our non-existent kids.

This book is a (slightly shallow) exploration of 26 people on similar journeys. They're all American (or now living in the USA) so it has a slight bias to talking about things like 401(k) and medical bills which are absent in most other parts of the world. The author is a CFP® and, at times, reads a little like an advert for their services. Which is fair enough for a free book.

But it is compelling - if a little repetitive - to read about people going through similar journeys to us. Opting out of the social default can be a little alienating, so it is heartening to hear their struggles and successes. Lots of talk about using spreadsheets to model the future, enjoying the freedom to pick up and leave at a moment's notice, refusing to compromise on their plans.

While I'm a gleeful propagandist for the childfree movement & FIRE in general, it's a little one-sided. There's no one who regrets their choice, so it suffers from survivorship bias. But there are a range of ages, races, and orientations. It's not all straight, white, young couples. Even if you're not American, there's some good advice in there - and some deep questions to ask yourself.

Overall, it's a great book for provoking a discussion with your partner. I'd love to read a follow-up with all the people interviewed in, say, a dozen years.

Where are the articles asking why men don't want to have children?

@edent — Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:34:28 +0000

Truly, men have the worse of everything…⸮

But, there's something we blokes can be grateful for. No matter what grief the world throws at us, it'll always be the women's fault that there aren't enough babies!

The other day, I saw this headline:

The Business Insider article - in the "Economy" section - focussed solely on the lady-folk. Why do those pesky dames refuse to procreate? About half-way through, the journalist linked to the original study. Did it put the blame squarely on the female of the species?

Among parents and non-parents alike, men and women are equally likely to say they will probably not have kids (or more kids) in the future.

Ah.

It turns out, it isn't just the fault of the chicks. Us dudes (assuming you are one) are also equally to blame. Not that you'd know it from the media!

Here's a selection of recent headlines. I've deliberately selected fairly mainstream Anglosphere publications rather than, say, single-interest magazines.

And on and on it goes!

Try to find articles in those same publications - or anywhere else - which ask "Why are young men not becoming fathers?" Or "10 reasons why men aren't choosing fatherhood - you'll never guess number 7!!" Or "Gen-Z Blokes Back-off Baby-making".

Where's the article entitled "I don't want to be a dad… ever!"?

At best, you find the occasional article like this: But that's really about men who want kids, but haven't got around to it.

Or this: Which quite reasonably says:

Why, oh why, does nobody ever ask about the men?

Statistics

OK, so no one is asking men why they don't want kids. What about the statistics?

I've previously ranted about the way the UK's Office for National Statistics talks about childfree intentions. By law, the ONS has to gather data about live births. In its latest statistical bullitein, it says:

The total fertility rate (TFR) reached a record low in 2020, decreasing to 1.58 children per woman.

OK, but how many children were there per man? Is this one hyper-fertile chap running around impregnating everyone?

The average age (as measured by standardised mean age) of mothers at childbirth remained the same as 2019, at 30.7 years … Fertility rates for woman over the age of 40 decreased for the first time since 2013.

And what's the fertility rate of the father? Are young-bucks opting out? Are older daddies now the norm?

On the one hand, it is easier to gather data from the mother - there's reasonably solid evidence that the baby is hers. People can and do lie about who the sperm-donator are. But that seems to me like a weak reason to not attempt to gather the data.

Well, the good news is - the data are gathered! The ONS query builder shows age of father. Here are the age of fathers & mothers in 2019:

(Ew at the number of geriatric skeeves perving on teenagers!)

The full dataset only has 2017-2020 - and looks like this for the age of fathers over time:

Now, this doesn't talk about how many kids each man has fathered. But it is pretty clear that younger guys are dropping out of fatherhood at a higher rate than older ones. And, eyeballing it, at about the same rate as women.

Why is this presented as a woman-only problem?

Sexism.

Sorry, were you expecting a more detailed explanation? OK. Lots of sexism.

There is a stereotypical perception that men generally don't want kids. That's not true - I know loads of mates who were desperate to become fathers.

And there is an equal and opposite presumption that all women want to breed. But it is only that stereotype which seems to be the target. Men simply don't get an equal amount of grief in the media.

As people get better access to education and jobs - they see the structural advantages to the way (some) child-free people live their lives. And they see the misery inflicted on (some) people by having kids. This affects men and women equally.

As people take a rational look at both the economy and the health of the planet - they realise the monumental unfairness of bringing life into the world. Again, both men and women take a long-term rational view of their lives and the lives of potential children.

You can't escape the fact that you need a womb in order to give birth. But, as the old song goes, it takes two to tango. "Blame" for the lack of babies needs to be shared equally.

My imaginary children aren't using your streaming service

@edent — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:08:02 +0000

Whenever I start up Netflix, I'm asked if I want to create an account for my children.

I don't have children. I don't want children. I find most children annoying - not yours, obviously, yours are lovely. But I resent being asked every single time whether my imaginary kids want an account. It's just annoying.

I can't imagine what it is like for bereaved parents who have recently lost a child. Or for those struggling with fertility issues. That constant reminder every time they try to numb the pain with a sitcom.

For some reason, all the streaming services are desperate for me to add accounts for my (imaginary) children. Are they worried about being sued if little Jimothy accidentally hears a swear word? Thankfully, Netflix lets you delete this imaginary child.

The BBC's iPlayer is less enlightened. They recently forced an "add child account" setting to the front page. It is impossible to remove it.

Apparently, it is technically impossible to remove an option which has recently appeared.

Amazon Prime has the same forced default child-profile. Although, thankfully, they allow you to remove it with a couple of clicks.

Channel 4 goes a step further. Any time I want to watch anything with sex, drugs, or violence - I have to confirm that I don't want to set up a parental lock.

There's no way that I can find to dismiss the screen. That's an extra click for my RSI-ridden hands every time I want to watch a stupid game show.

Here's the thing. The majority of households in the UK don't have kids.

London contained the highest proportion of families with dependent children in 2019; accounting for half of all families in London, compared with the UK average of 42.0%.

There's this weird belief that everything needs to be made safe for children. Even if no children are present, we have to protect them. That has led to some weird antipatterns.

Frankly, if a child somehow makes it into my home, and is left unsupervised long enough to work out which of the 7 remote controls turns on the TV and surround sound system, and figures out how to access Netflix - I'd say they're mature enough to watch whatever they want.

What's the solution?

I get that making your UI easy for harried parents is a priority. They're a big market - and they can be vocal about any perceived harm to their little ones. But there's no reason to keep showing the option if someone doesn't engage with it. You can ask if a child profile is necessary during set up. If you have a pop-up asking if a user wants a child-friendly account, make sure it has a "never ask me again" option.

The world doesn't revolve around children. It's OK to let people who don't have kids use your services without frustration.

"Do you have kids?" - "Thankfully, no."

@edent — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:11:47 +0000

One of the hardest things to do is shut up someone who is well-meaning. I have a lovely colleague who, almost every time I see him, asks if I have kids. He's not malicious, just forgetful.

If I say "no", I get "Well, plenty of time yet!" or "When you do..." or "Why not?" or any number of comments.

In the childfree community, we call these "bingos". Because, after a while, you start to mentally stamp a card like this: Other variants are available.

I am childfree by choice. Emphatically not childless.

Because some people don't take "no" as a complete sentence, I've tried several different strategies for getting people to stop pressing the point.

"I don't want them." Just leads you open to bingos.
"None of your business." Bit rude. It is, after all, a fairly normal question. Just annoying when you've answered it multiple times per day.
"We can't have kids." A lie - and often leads to well-meaning advice about infertility.
"I don't like talking about my sex life at work." High risk but usually causes an embarrassed silence in which to change the subject.

In the end, the only one which I've found works is "thankfully, no." It lets them know that I am happy with my decision and doesn't give them much room to argue.

ONS And Childfree Intentions

@edent — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:58:30 +0000

I've written before about the difference between a person being childless and being childfree. It is a simple matter of intention. Those who want children but don't have them are childless - whereas those with no desire to procreate are childfree.

This is quite an important distinction - and yet it is almost completely absent from the recent Office of National Statistics' report saying "one fifth of women are childless at age 45."

They recently put out these data as an infographic on Twitter.

Looking at the real data, we can see that the pattern seems to be regressing to the mean.

The press release is rather sparse on the details, but I find the language rather confusing. The report is specifically called "Cohort Fertility". To my mind, this isn't looking at fertility. There may very well be those who are childless who have fertility issues - but there will be many who may be perfectly fertile yet choosing not to breed.

The full statistical bulletin makes a single mention - in a footnote - of people being childfree.

Basten, S (2009). Voluntary childlessness and being Childfree. The Future of Human Reproduction: Working Paper #5.

One of the other papers quoted, mentions the numbers of childfree-by-choice adults,

Fertility expectations	NCDS	BCS70
Fertile and open to having more children	44.6%	58.3%
Fertile and categorically not want children	20.9%	13.9%
Fertile and don't know intentions	32.2%	23.6%
Infertile/partner infertile	2.4%	4.2%

..and yet it fails to address this in its conclusion. Merely stating:

... [W]e can expect a rise in the numbers experiencing ‘ambivalent’ childlessness is likely to occur. This group of people have been termed 'perpetual postponers' elsewhere in the literature – a group (of women) who maintain a latent desire for children but do not act upon this either at all, or until it’s too late (Berrington 2004).

Failing, of course, to mention the men who may delay - or have no desire for - procreation.

I - along with several other people - queried the ONS's infographic, and wording:

We got back these rather lacklustre replies.

Is This A Problem?

Semantics are important - in this case, the distinction between childlessness and childfreeness reveal several interesting questions.

Is there a biological fertility problem? That is, are people who are willing to breed but unable to do so?
Are there political and social problems which are convincing people to delay pregnancy?
Are these problems driving the desire not to reproduce?
Do men and women differ in their attitudes and desires?
What impact (if any) does the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships have on the desire to bear children?
Finally, are they over-counting by failing to measure those who get pregnant unintentionally?

But, no. We just get a tabloid-friendly moral panic that women (and only women) are failing in their patriotic duty to lie back and think of England.

You Are Not Stuck In Traffic

@edent — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:00:45 +0000

You are traffic

Yes, it's a marketing slogan, but I think it illustrates the way we think of ourselves.

Each of us is the star of our own show. However empathetic we are, we only see through our eyes.

As the world hits 7 billion people, it's time to realise that there is not "an over-population problem". Rather, "we are an over-population problem!"

Each of us is contributing to over-population. There are many ways we can mitigate our impact - go vegetarian, recycle, practice energy efficiency - but there is a zero-effort solution.

Don't reproduce.

How Not To Have Children

Don't have sex.
Use contraception.

That's pretty much it. It's cheap (or free in many parts of the world). Reliable. And incredibly easy. It's a positive choice you can make to keep the population at a sustainable level.

Child Free - Not Childless

Being child free is a choice. It's not for everyone.

The use of the world "Childless" - as though there is a deficiency - is not applicable to me. If you can't have the children you desperately want then, yes, you are childless - and my heart breaks for you.

But, for me, it's a positive choice. I am free from the pain, heartbreak, responsibility, agony, and boredom of rearing a child. I am childfree

We're Not Special

As I mentioned, we're all stars of our own shows, but that doesn't make us special. Every single one of us is here because every ancestor managed not to die before procreating. In a Darwinian sense, each of our ancestors was able to adapt to their environment and reproduce.

We have to think of our responsibility to the whole of our society, our civilisation, our species.

It is the act of a monstrous ego to assume that one's genes are special and deserve to be passed on. Unless you have an extra-special mutation which will be useful to the species, you are just one of billions.

Some Resources

If you do decide to go down the child free path - and it is a choice - you may find these resources helpful.

Most of them are fairly biased towards the female experience. There's usually some discussion from a male point-of-view, but it is in the minority.