Definitely, especially when the goods of family life aren't being modelled by others around you! In addition, the first years of parenting involve an awful lot of physical sacrifice while you build the basis for your family and emotional labor as you build your family culture. It is hard to see in the beginning how much fruit that work will bear as the family grows into the second decade and beyond. It is still hard later on, but there are also some rewards of the first years of work that start to kick in later on that are hard to anticipate but so wonderful. Since generations are divided, young people don't have a chance to see the fruit that the hard work of getting up to nurse babies, dealing with pregnancy discomforts, handling preschooler tantrums, etc. So it just looks like a whole lot of hard work, wih not much going for it. See the whole "DINK" thing that happened on the internet a few months back!
The contrast of early parenthood to high-income childless living definitely can get to one, as you say. I have had the experience of feeling it acutely, too. But then I look at my kids, the kids who are real people whom I have the privilege of knowing and being known by, and...wow. It's so worth it.
Not for everybody. We are all called to our own paths. But in the milieux you mention, it can be really hard to see what you're missing if you choose the no-kids route.
I haven’t read this book but this topic is very important to me. In my experience, the second point seems to carry more weight when it comes to the reasons people give for remaining childless — the view human life as not inherently worth it and meaningful. A large number of the female friends I had in my twenties don’t want children and their reasons are usually things like “I don’t want the responsibility,” “I don’t want to be up all night,” or “travel is the only thing that makes me happy.” They simply aren’t seeing what having a child means or does or is, at all. It’s very heartbreaking.
I would have had kids sooner if I had met my husband sooner. Wanting kids was a roadblock for me in my previous long term relationship. I think a lot of women (probably men, too) struggle to find a spouse who also wants kids right now in time to have as many as they would have liked (or any at all).
I agree, having trouble pairing up is common. You really should read Carney's book, Greta; I think you'd find it to be greatly interesting. Carney's arguments about what makes young adults hesitant to have children (or marry, for that matter) are spot on.
I think the contraceptive mentality (and our materialism) have convinced many, especially well-educated and middle/upper class, that it’s only responsible to bring children into the world under certain extremely restrictive conditions and that children “deserve” certain levels of attention/enrichment/material goods that are very difficult to scale up. I think you see the same phenomenon writ large in China, where they’ve been unable to get people to have more children after lifting the one child policy because there is now this strong cultural impetus to produce this incredible hothouse child and that style of parenting is too intensive (and expensive) to extend to more offspring.
I agree with you about contraception per se, but I think this problem goes beyond beliefs on that topic and even the effects of the widespread embracing of contraception itself. "Contraceptive mentality" is a useful term but I think it can be overused as a blanket explanation, you know? And I know you mention materialism, too, so I don't mean to criticize your comment so much as widen the point.
Carney's book does a great job laying out pervasive problems in the whole culture that affect people with all sorts of beliefs about children and family planning and are not all directly connected to developments and changes in contraception and its moral acceptance. It's amazing how deeply and widely these things affect us as a society! I love the invitation it gives to a society-wide discussion of this issue.
I think the way you link contraception with a sense of responsibility in our culture in your comment. I know that when I was growing up, the sex ed mantra was essentially that controlling coneption = responsibility. So we start with the idea that we have to pick and choose very carefully about having children. It's hard to unlearn that even once you are married and relatively stable. There's a lot of worry that you'll make an imperfect choice about when to have kids. Whereas the reality of parenthood is that it constantly challenges your sense of control (and probably should).
I think you agree with this, but I think Katherine’s point is that due to contraception becoming such an integral part of our lives—that is, because it’s been used by so many for several generations—that we don’t even recognize how it’s changed our understanding of life and the purposes of our lives. I’m curious whether Carney spends a significant amount of time discussing this, because it would make or break his ultimate argument. I don’t see how anyone can write about plunging birth rates in 2024 without explaining at length how the last 100 years of contracepted human sexuality has completely revolutionized the world.
Adam and Eve After the Pill by Mary Eberstadt (now with a newer addition) goes deep into this, along with writing by many others who study demography (Lyman Stone, for instance). In her comment below, Nicole mentions this “what I want” mentality dominating many young people’s considerations of having children. That mentality is only possible when people control—that is, they can stop—the natural consequences of heterosexual sex. Widespread contraception is also behind the void of experience with and around children most people have (see Amy’s comment below). It’s a snowball effect. Contraception greatly reduced birth rates, and now generations of people don’t even know what it’s like to live around families with two kids, let alone more than that.
I know this topic is controversial, even and especially within churches, where the use of contraception has long been common even among faithful believers. That might be starting to change, but it will only change within Christianity, let alone outside it, if we talk about it as one of the biggest factors in the changes we see in our families, starting with low and lower birth rates.
Hi ESO! Yes, I do agree -- and Carney does deal with this at length.
I may not have expressed myself well in my response to Katherine's comment, which was a very good one. I'm in agreement with her but wanted to indicate that I think there's more at play, too, and that sometimes the term "contraceptive mentality" can minimize nuance when considering the different factors at play in our culture. I think it also can be alienating to those who use contraception but are in firm opposition to some of the things discussed here, and Carney's book is aimed at a wide audience.
I agree with you that easily available and morally championed contraception is at the root of a great deal of our social and moral change in the past 100 years. But there's so much else, too, some of it related and some of it not.
Thanks, Dixie. I’m going to have to read the book. And I get that there’s a level of tact, and hopefully compassion, required when talking about contraception. The good Lord knows it’s Complicated (capital C on purpose ) in a lot of situations. I know I also get frustrated with the way the vast majority of the conversations around it run, because it’s like walking on eggshells. But that’s a wider problem, beyond the scope of your review, which was good.
It really is like walking on eggshells with this topic. But I'm glad that you and Katherine brought it up anyway, because we have to find ways to talk about it! Thank you.
I haven't read it yet. Unsure if I have time but my first thoughts are that in America. It became all about "what I want, consumerism, less focus on family, stay young forever" when the Baby Boomers were young and it's been trickling down ever since. I was told to wait until after I have a degree, job and husband. I waited until 25 to get married and 27 first kid, and now 2nd at 29. It's so rare to be able to have kids young now unless you join the military or get a really good job or depend on welfare/relatives. Looking forward to the article.
I'm intrigued that you bring up consumerism, as Katherine mentioned materialism above! Clearly, that's significant factor at play!
In my community, many people marry soon after college and have children beginning in their early twenties. This makes me intuitively challenge the idea of young people not being "able" to have children young (although 27 is pretty young on average these days! That's when I had my first child, as well). I think Carney would argue that it's the expectations of what parents are supposed to provide that makes people feel that they are unable to have children early, not the fact that it's actually not possible to have, support, and care for children in your early twenties. I bet you would be fascinated by this part of the book -- he really makes a strong case about unrealistic expectations both on the part of parents and toward parents (i.e. that you'll do all of this in an extremely anxious context).
(Not being able to marry early because you can't easily find a good spouse is another problem, of course.)
When I think of consumerism, I think of buying the biggest house, the nicest phone, the newest car, traveling a few times a year and sending your children to the most expensive schools. And I think many younger people put off having children to have these things and circle back later to children or never.
Most of the people I went to college with are still dating and traveling. The people I went to high school with more of a mixture. But these are anecdotal experiences. We'd have to look at data for what most are doing.
Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, housing is pretty unaffordable, costs of everything are high. It's two incomes, join the military or move in with family. For an example, a 1 bedroom apt rental is around 1600-1700/month. Those with military background and family around to support are having kids and getting married.
But, others they're struggling 0-2 kids maybe. And from a non-religious perspective I can't blame them. Daycare is hard to find and expensive.
It depends on where you live and the community for the vantage. I'd consider it irresponsible to have a child and have to depend on welfare(for most of their life rather than in hardship) and put them in daycare for 40+ hours a week. I was raised by a single mom and went to daycare from birth to 12, btw.
I hear you. I think a lot depends on the demographic subculture, especially on economic class. It's intriguing to me that people who make $100K/year and $40K/year can both think it is irresponsible to have kids. It is indeed hard to generalize. I was responding to your use of the word "rare," as I don't think that's quite right (because you didn't specify that you meant only around where you live).
In my own local context, I know many families (my own included) who had children on much lower incomes than most family planner types would think appropriate and did not end up on welfare, etc.
Carney's argument is that raising children is *unnecessarily hard,* including financially, because of social changes and and cultural expectations that make it hard. Some of these things can be counteracted by individuals who make the choice simply not to buy into the ridiculousness, but instead to go for it with parenthood. But of course, not every obstacle is so easily dispensed with.
It sounds like it's indeed very hard in your region to make a go of it. Inflation in housing prices and grocery prices has been out of control. Not to mention cars! These are big problems that are worthy of our attention.
Expense is such a difficult part of family life, particularly in the last couple years, and especially for families trying to live on a single income. I wouldn’t do anything differently with my own little family (and we have no plans to slow down our baby production 😂), but I understand how people, especially those in their 20s, can find it frightening to try to start/grow a family when basic living expenses are soaring. There absolutely are many more and deeper issues at play in America’s falling birth rate, but the economy is an issue that in many ways is out of our control.
So true. With inflation how it is, the cost of groceries is of considerable concern even for the middle class. It must be incredibly difficult for those at the poverty level.
Part of the problem, too, is that there are expectations that we will invest financially in our children to a degree far above what they really need, though. In this expectation, they each "need" their own bedroom, "need" private lessons in several areas, "need" to be on sports travel teams...and yet it's "wrong" to allow them lots of time for free play (which also frees parents from considerable stress and financial investment). Clothes must be new, etc.
Whereas if you're okay with hand-me-downs, for example, they are really so easy to find...you can basically whisper "I need size 9m sleepers" and three bags full of them will appear on your doorstep within 48 hours. (I know that's partly because I live in a very kid-friendly community, but my friends in other contexts usually are able to find hand-me-downs with relative ease, as well.)
Yes, hand-me-downs are a lifesaver! I definitely agree that so many of the “necessary” expenses of raising children are not so necessary. My children share a room (and feel much safer and happier at night as a result!) and are so much more content when they have lots of free play time than when they’re booked up with activities. That is, until the inevitable crankiness happens, but that’s a separate issue. 😅
That said, with grocery expenses sky-high, it’s getting more and more challenging to keep a family well-fed with good-quality food.
I often think to myself, Our income is higher than our county average, and yet I really, truly worry about getting groceries and about things like car repair bills. The struggle for lower-income people must be immense right now.
I have the article saved, but I haven't gotten to it just yet. I'll have to make sure to read it soon!
I've worried about the same things. I used to work in the public school system, and even a few years ago, several of the kids I worked with relied on school lunches for most of their nutrition. It's scary to think how they might be struggling now.
Very interesting article. I agree with the gist and think it hits the nail on the head.
"Our culture subsidizes abortion" but wants to increase fertility. That really stands out. We live in a "culture of death," that is hedonistic and degenerative at the same time. If you don't believe in God and his power over the earth, why have kids? I live close to Seattle, it's a spiritual wasteland. The environment isn't that bad, but the people are beaten.
Government can't replace God.
If someone sees the joy and love that children bring. I think they'll have a few. But that means they have to find the right person and be able to afford it. It all cycles back to an unfriendly, I like "culture of death," pretty sure a prominent Catholic coined that. I don't take credit.
You have got to read this book. The "civilizational sadness" argument is so insightful. Carney does connect it to downward religious trends but also to other factors; it's really intriguing.
There's also something really interesting about limiting yourself to one or two kids: it means you never reach the point where you realize, through experience, that you can handle being outnumbered. By the time you've weathered three kids joining the family, I think you realize that everything is pretty well set up for a life with child and adding one or two more is a lot less threatening than it is when you're still straddling the line between life-without-kids and life-with-kids. That's not to say that parents of one or two don't "get" it or that all should have more children, but it's true (in my experience) what so many parents of many children say: adding a fourth (or more) child is just not the same as adding a first or second. It is not as scary and not as destabilizing.
I'll add it to my list of 50+ books to get too. Haha. I'm currently reading Anna Karenina and on track to finish it in a month. Then, a fantasy novel probably. I'll see if he has podcast convos on the topic.
Ahh I wish I could see from your vantage point. I'm surrounded by single motherhood, divorce, abortion and poverty in those throughout our families. At my church, Catholic, I see large families, it's such a strange spot to be in. Two opposing messages... when we were trying for a second. Church: "sooo when's the next baby coming?" Family: "I think 1 child would be perfect" and now that 2 is coming. "Are y'all going to stop ever?"
Funny how your family size is suddenly everybody's business, right? And then to think that sometimes people say such things to couples who seem empty-handed but have had miscarriages...It breaks my heart.
The reality is, there have always been all sorts of shapes and sizes of families. Remember that the church teaches that you and your husband are the ones who should discern in prudence and prayer about these matters, not all the people with loud opinions :)
"They make working easier, not parenting." That's it. That's the whole thing with most policies that aren't, as you mention, tax breaks or subsidies. The UK is a total mess in this regard, and one of the biggest problems is what notion of "family" the government wants to shape its policies to support.
Do married couples with children get different things than single people with children? Do adults caring for children or other adults in their families get recognised, fiscally, by the government? Do people who share a mortgage get something different than people who just rent from the same landlord?
Here in the UK, if you are a mother with small children, the government will pay for childcare/ nursery school (varied hours by age, etc.) But *you* are not given that money - rather the gov't will pay a daycare on your behalf. Which means that if you wanted your grandmother or niece or sister-in-law to help watch your kids, and she isn't registered with the government as an officially-inspected provider, they won't help you pay her. Nor, if you wanted to stay home with your own children, would you get that money. So the gov't claims it is a family-friendly policy, but really, it's a pro working-outside-the home-mother policy.
Married couples can only file taxes as individuals: there is no such thing, truly, as a 'household income'. So you take home *more* money (by paying fewer taxes) if both mother and father work, say each earning £35k/ year, than if one worked to earn £70k/ year. The former are taxed at a much lower rate. I know many families where it just isn't possible here for mothers to step out of the paid work force, and that's precisely because of the policies that shape tax law, benefits, etc. here.
I mention all this not only because I live in the UK but because I think in some ways the US can look to Europe and see what may be coming in terms of attitudes and practices of rising secularism.
That's wild. I was aware of this kind of inequality of support before reading Carney's book but it was really a lightbulb moment for me when he pointed out that such support is primarily ordered toward increasing wage-work.
You'd be fascinated by this book, Kerri--there's a lot in it about Europe, though more about France and Scandinavia than the UK.
“cultural sadness” - i’ve heard that a lot, especially when i was younger. people would say, “why would i want to bring a child into a world like this?” i would have to add, i think secular feminism has a huge role to play here. as women, the culture teaches us from the earliest age that everything about our biology is to be controlled, destroyed, feared, repressed - every single aspect of our fertility in particular, from monthly cycles to breastfeeding. when our fundamental role as life-giver is no longer respected - when we are conditioned to think, or at least very strongly encouraged to think - that having a career and being sexually appealing are more important than giving life, it’s very difficult to take on the already-daunting challenges of motherhood. and on the other side of that, secular feminism has also taught men that they are not valued *for being men.*
i will never forget an incident where i was downtown in a big city, right in the heart of a business district, with my oldest, maybe a year old. *every single woman* i came across that day glared at us. every single one. the men were delighted - held doors open, helped me lift the stroller up & down stairs … it was a really interesting experience!
There is so much to unpack in your two comments. There really is a hostility to children, a fear of children, along with a longing for children, in our society. Hence the contradictory policies and contradictory advice, too. It's very complex, and so different in different subcultures.
I haven't read the book (but would like to!) and I've added it to my list. My thought to add is related to the concept of "village" and it ties in to the note that I tagged you in recently Dixie - with smaller family sizes and a society more and more stratified by age and class, more and more people are less able to visualize what it means to have children and to live a life that includes parenting. My colleague who wanted to help a coworker by coming over to hold their baby honestly did not know that this was a thing you can offer, and that it is a helpful and good offer! They asked me if the baby being two weeks old was "too soon" and my response was, "This is prime time! Wash your hands when you arrive, bring snacks, and they will never forget your kindness!" And this person sent me this text because they knew (because I am not shy about it) that I am a mom. I think living the vocation to family life in our culture involves showing people that it can be done, because too many people nowadays are being told otherwise.
100%!! Yes, I remember your story in that note. Living it visibly but in a non-judgmental, non-threatening way provides important modeling. Many of us don't have models to go on and even the kindest among us may not know how to help or where to start because the customs about it are just gone.
Yes, I think I can pretty much co-sign the points here. I find the points about increasing GDP vs. actually supporting families particularly salient. I think this also applies to any sort of broader care network (I’m specifically thinking of family care — how hard it is to pay a family member to care for another elderly family member for example). And I know Ivana and others have written about this too, but the huge amount of force behind the ideas of “real” work and ?? (fake work??). Despite the video that circulates each Mother’s Day with the totally absurd job description that no one would take that is revealed to be “mom”, we still don’t value care work because we don’t get paid for it.
When I was reading “The Outsourced Self” (which I can’t find! Did the baby carry it off?) she talks about the movement of parental advice seeking from the clergy to the pediatrician and how the locus for family advice becomes “science”. But then this becomes tied to products, and things you can sell people quite quickly. And as cynical as it makes me sound, a healthy family with strong social networks is not a very good consumer. They don’t need a lot….
And of course there’s the fundamental breakdown between sex and the possibility of children. I think the fact that we see children as completely optional and separate has done so much damage. It allows so many people in my generation to see the damage caused by their own parents and decide to “opt out” without any thought as to what would have happened if any prior generation had opted out. The fact is that despite everyone’s woes about economy, etc… etc… we are NOT in worse shape than so many times in history. I’m not advocating for poor conditions, but it’s just an argument that is very short sighted and also presumes to know that us saving children from existing is magnanimous. I think it speaks to the profound lack of hope that is prevalent though. Ok, now I’ve typed on long enough… I’ll have to get the book :)
I'm struck by your point about healthy, well-supported families not being ideal consumers. Nor is the large family generally, as large families almost always come to value re-using items from child to child, activities that are inexpensive (going to the free splashpad at the park instead of to the expensive waterpark, for example), and the like. They are luxury-hesitant.
I fundamentally disagree with people who espouse the idea that, "I'm not having kids because the world is a mess" is a good decision. The world has always been a mess! My parents were born at the height of the Cold War, my grandmother was born in the immediate aftermath of WWI, I could go on. It just makes me think of the most recent season of All Creatures Great and Small on PBS where (and I am not saying spoiler alert, this show is based on a series of books that are 50 years old ;-) Helen is pregnant with her first child in 1939 when James is about to leave and join the RAF. She is talking to her friend Audrey how she feels about having a baby at this moment with James due to leave and Audrey responds with, "It's a tonic to have something to look forward to." Babies pull us out of ourselves and toward the future. Children are the reason so many of us keep building houses and businesses and planting trees and crops and doing all those tiny acts of hope that the world is built upon!
Yes. I think it's a way to avoid doing the hard work of looking at how little control we actually have, and how much we must rely on God. I always think of the Madeleine L'Engle poem:
Maybe it’s the phones? A week ago, I read an article called “It’s the phones, people”. In this article, the author made the case that people are literally connecting less (and having sex less) due to phones. I do think that phones and social media have magnified our fears- including fears around parenting. The author was talking about how as a society we have traded real life for online life. I think that applies to having children as well. Phones cause us to have tunnel vision instead of being able to grasp the bigger picture of what is really important in life. Social media influencers of ALL kinds get us right where we are afraid, with so many different versions of “the end is coming.” It’s hard to cut the noise and declare: Life is good, God has made it good, the earth, creation is good and worth protecting. To live that and affirm that every day is counter cultural. Link to original article below. 👇
Speaking candidly as a married 29 year old with sudden 'baby fever', I have noticed 3 things in my relationship:
1) We acted as if there is a proper order to the way you are supposed to be an adult. Undergrad, then grad school, then career focus for a few years, then enjoy life for a few years, maybe take a year off entirely to travel... Obviously it doesn't work out that way. But that was the main narrative animating life for us. Your life ends when you have kids. So do everything else first.
2) Cost. It's really real. Painfully real. Of course having kids has always meant making financial tradeoffs. But... Man. We have good 'respectable' jobs that we enjoy, working for local institutions in our city. We feel like we make a positive impact through our careers and we are both working in the fields we studied in college. But in order to pay for childcare and feel somewhat financially stable, I think I am going to have to 'sell out' and go work for a larger for-profit company of some sort. I have the skills and experience. It's just not where my heart is. But what else can I do? Really if anyone has suggestions, please tell me.
3) 'Social imaginary'. None of our close friends have kids. Many of our friends don't want kids in the future. Having never seen another person 'become' a parent, how can we imagine it for ourselves? How can we even fathom a baby when neither of us have held one in years? We've always known that we want kids in an abstract way, and I think we assumed there would be others in our life going ahead of us, showing us the path so to speak. But there just hasn't been anyone.
1) I want to encourage you. Your life changes dramatically when you have children. It involves radical self-sacrifice. But you also do not have to become entirely subsumed by your children. You can allow yourself balance, to give yourself the fuel to mother your children well. One thing I have noticed about the 1- or 2-child culture is that people think of it as a short season (I juse have to get through these three years!), but parenting is a long haul. This actually is more reason, not less, to keep up with your self-care in the early years.
It is also incredibly rewarding. Truly. There will be times when your heart swells so much with the goodness of it that you will think you're about to burst. It's just hard, as you note, to imagine when you don't have many models of full and healthy family life to look to in your social circle.
2) It is real. I think Carney's point about this is that many of us can take a hard, long look at these costs and find places to cut. Babies need very little; remember that a lot of baby items are about marketing and making money, not about need. But childcare -- yes, this cost is enormous. Many families choose to designate one parent to step out of the paid workforce for a time because the trade-off is just not worth it. But yes, sometimes the sacrifice ends up being one of changing workplaces for a time or other such things.
I am not trying to pressure you in either direction with this, but remember that there are more than two boxes. It doesn't have to be "work more and in a way you don't much like" vs. "become a SAHM." I would encourage you to read my friend Ivana Greco's piece on the word homemaker (https://hearthandfield.com/the-job-for-which-all-others-exist-lets-bring-back-the-term-homemaker/) and how it can encompass the great flexibility of part-time work, volunteering, etc. along with childcare. You and your spouse get to decide how parenting and working will look for you, within your circumstances. You don't have to pick a side.
3) This is very real, too! So many of us suffer from a lack of models of parenting. And then, there's the reality that if you are the groundbreakers in this area in your social circle, you can feel pretty isolated. Again, let me encourage you: there are probably so many young parents in your area who would make great friends. You may have to add to your social circle; it may be worth seeking out friends like this right now, in fact! We as a society lose a great deal by the division between generations and states of life; think of how much help you could be right now to a young family, a couple who is just desperate for someone to come have coffee with them and bounce the baby for them, or watch the baby so they can go out on a date! And then think of how much help such a family could be to you, providing you advice and experience and also emotional support for the transition when you become parents. And then you can pass this on to some of your other friends as they eventually become parents. And those who don't -- that's fine, too! They also may find over time that they need friends who are families.
Make new friends, but keep the old, as the saying says!
And very sincerely, Lara -- always feel free to e-mail me :)
I got the book in the mail yesterday! So pumped to read it. Though my husband grabbed it and cracked it before I had the chance so we’ll see😅 Heading to read your thoughts now!
Definitely, especially when the goods of family life aren't being modelled by others around you! In addition, the first years of parenting involve an awful lot of physical sacrifice while you build the basis for your family and emotional labor as you build your family culture. It is hard to see in the beginning how much fruit that work will bear as the family grows into the second decade and beyond. It is still hard later on, but there are also some rewards of the first years of work that start to kick in later on that are hard to anticipate but so wonderful. Since generations are divided, young people don't have a chance to see the fruit that the hard work of getting up to nurse babies, dealing with pregnancy discomforts, handling preschooler tantrums, etc. So it just looks like a whole lot of hard work, wih not much going for it. See the whole "DINK" thing that happened on the internet a few months back!
The contrast of early parenthood to high-income childless living definitely can get to one, as you say. I have had the experience of feeling it acutely, too. But then I look at my kids, the kids who are real people whom I have the privilege of knowing and being known by, and...wow. It's so worth it.
Not for everybody. We are all called to our own paths. But in the milieux you mention, it can be really hard to see what you're missing if you choose the no-kids route.
“People are good.” Excellent.
It comes down to this, doesn't it?
I haven’t read this book but this topic is very important to me. In my experience, the second point seems to carry more weight when it comes to the reasons people give for remaining childless — the view human life as not inherently worth it and meaningful. A large number of the female friends I had in my twenties don’t want children and their reasons are usually things like “I don’t want the responsibility,” “I don’t want to be up all night,” or “travel is the only thing that makes me happy.” They simply aren’t seeing what having a child means or does or is, at all. It’s very heartbreaking.
I would have had kids sooner if I had met my husband sooner. Wanting kids was a roadblock for me in my previous long term relationship. I think a lot of women (probably men, too) struggle to find a spouse who also wants kids right now in time to have as many as they would have liked (or any at all).
I agree, having trouble pairing up is common. You really should read Carney's book, Greta; I think you'd find it to be greatly interesting. Carney's arguments about what makes young adults hesitant to have children (or marry, for that matter) are spot on.
I think the contraceptive mentality (and our materialism) have convinced many, especially well-educated and middle/upper class, that it’s only responsible to bring children into the world under certain extremely restrictive conditions and that children “deserve” certain levels of attention/enrichment/material goods that are very difficult to scale up. I think you see the same phenomenon writ large in China, where they’ve been unable to get people to have more children after lifting the one child policy because there is now this strong cultural impetus to produce this incredible hothouse child and that style of parenting is too intensive (and expensive) to extend to more offspring.
China is definitely a sobering test case.
I agree with you about contraception per se, but I think this problem goes beyond beliefs on that topic and even the effects of the widespread embracing of contraception itself. "Contraceptive mentality" is a useful term but I think it can be overused as a blanket explanation, you know? And I know you mention materialism, too, so I don't mean to criticize your comment so much as widen the point.
Carney's book does a great job laying out pervasive problems in the whole culture that affect people with all sorts of beliefs about children and family planning and are not all directly connected to developments and changes in contraception and its moral acceptance. It's amazing how deeply and widely these things affect us as a society! I love the invitation it gives to a society-wide discussion of this issue.
I think the way you link contraception with a sense of responsibility in our culture in your comment. I know that when I was growing up, the sex ed mantra was essentially that controlling coneption = responsibility. So we start with the idea that we have to pick and choose very carefully about having children. It's hard to unlearn that even once you are married and relatively stable. There's a lot of worry that you'll make an imperfect choice about when to have kids. Whereas the reality of parenthood is that it constantly challenges your sense of control (and probably should).
I think you agree with this, but I think Katherine’s point is that due to contraception becoming such an integral part of our lives—that is, because it’s been used by so many for several generations—that we don’t even recognize how it’s changed our understanding of life and the purposes of our lives. I’m curious whether Carney spends a significant amount of time discussing this, because it would make or break his ultimate argument. I don’t see how anyone can write about plunging birth rates in 2024 without explaining at length how the last 100 years of contracepted human sexuality has completely revolutionized the world.
Adam and Eve After the Pill by Mary Eberstadt (now with a newer addition) goes deep into this, along with writing by many others who study demography (Lyman Stone, for instance). In her comment below, Nicole mentions this “what I want” mentality dominating many young people’s considerations of having children. That mentality is only possible when people control—that is, they can stop—the natural consequences of heterosexual sex. Widespread contraception is also behind the void of experience with and around children most people have (see Amy’s comment below). It’s a snowball effect. Contraception greatly reduced birth rates, and now generations of people don’t even know what it’s like to live around families with two kids, let alone more than that.
I know this topic is controversial, even and especially within churches, where the use of contraception has long been common even among faithful believers. That might be starting to change, but it will only change within Christianity, let alone outside it, if we talk about it as one of the biggest factors in the changes we see in our families, starting with low and lower birth rates.
Hi ESO! Yes, I do agree -- and Carney does deal with this at length.
I may not have expressed myself well in my response to Katherine's comment, which was a very good one. I'm in agreement with her but wanted to indicate that I think there's more at play, too, and that sometimes the term "contraceptive mentality" can minimize nuance when considering the different factors at play in our culture. I think it also can be alienating to those who use contraception but are in firm opposition to some of the things discussed here, and Carney's book is aimed at a wide audience.
I agree with you that easily available and morally championed contraception is at the root of a great deal of our social and moral change in the past 100 years. But there's so much else, too, some of it related and some of it not.
Thanks, Dixie. I’m going to have to read the book. And I get that there’s a level of tact, and hopefully compassion, required when talking about contraception. The good Lord knows it’s Complicated (capital C on purpose ) in a lot of situations. I know I also get frustrated with the way the vast majority of the conversations around it run, because it’s like walking on eggshells. But that’s a wider problem, beyond the scope of your review, which was good.
It really is like walking on eggshells with this topic. But I'm glad that you and Katherine brought it up anyway, because we have to find ways to talk about it! Thank you.
I haven't read it yet. Unsure if I have time but my first thoughts are that in America. It became all about "what I want, consumerism, less focus on family, stay young forever" when the Baby Boomers were young and it's been trickling down ever since. I was told to wait until after I have a degree, job and husband. I waited until 25 to get married and 27 first kid, and now 2nd at 29. It's so rare to be able to have kids young now unless you join the military or get a really good job or depend on welfare/relatives. Looking forward to the article.
I'm intrigued that you bring up consumerism, as Katherine mentioned materialism above! Clearly, that's significant factor at play!
In my community, many people marry soon after college and have children beginning in their early twenties. This makes me intuitively challenge the idea of young people not being "able" to have children young (although 27 is pretty young on average these days! That's when I had my first child, as well). I think Carney would argue that it's the expectations of what parents are supposed to provide that makes people feel that they are unable to have children early, not the fact that it's actually not possible to have, support, and care for children in your early twenties. I bet you would be fascinated by this part of the book -- he really makes a strong case about unrealistic expectations both on the part of parents and toward parents (i.e. that you'll do all of this in an extremely anxious context).
(Not being able to marry early because you can't easily find a good spouse is another problem, of course.)
When I think of consumerism, I think of buying the biggest house, the nicest phone, the newest car, traveling a few times a year and sending your children to the most expensive schools. And I think many younger people put off having children to have these things and circle back later to children or never.
Most of the people I went to college with are still dating and traveling. The people I went to high school with more of a mixture. But these are anecdotal experiences. We'd have to look at data for what most are doing.
Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, housing is pretty unaffordable, costs of everything are high. It's two incomes, join the military or move in with family. For an example, a 1 bedroom apt rental is around 1600-1700/month. Those with military background and family around to support are having kids and getting married.
But, others they're struggling 0-2 kids maybe. And from a non-religious perspective I can't blame them. Daycare is hard to find and expensive.
It depends on where you live and the community for the vantage. I'd consider it irresponsible to have a child and have to depend on welfare(for most of their life rather than in hardship) and put them in daycare for 40+ hours a week. I was raised by a single mom and went to daycare from birth to 12, btw.
I hear you. I think a lot depends on the demographic subculture, especially on economic class. It's intriguing to me that people who make $100K/year and $40K/year can both think it is irresponsible to have kids. It is indeed hard to generalize. I was responding to your use of the word "rare," as I don't think that's quite right (because you didn't specify that you meant only around where you live).
In my own local context, I know many families (my own included) who had children on much lower incomes than most family planner types would think appropriate and did not end up on welfare, etc.
Carney's argument is that raising children is *unnecessarily hard,* including financially, because of social changes and and cultural expectations that make it hard. Some of these things can be counteracted by individuals who make the choice simply not to buy into the ridiculousness, but instead to go for it with parenthood. But of course, not every obstacle is so easily dispensed with.
It sounds like it's indeed very hard in your region to make a go of it. Inflation in housing prices and grocery prices has been out of control. Not to mention cars! These are big problems that are worthy of our attention.
Expense is such a difficult part of family life, particularly in the last couple years, and especially for families trying to live on a single income. I wouldn’t do anything differently with my own little family (and we have no plans to slow down our baby production 😂), but I understand how people, especially those in their 20s, can find it frightening to try to start/grow a family when basic living expenses are soaring. There absolutely are many more and deeper issues at play in America’s falling birth rate, but the economy is an issue that in many ways is out of our control.
So true. With inflation how it is, the cost of groceries is of considerable concern even for the middle class. It must be incredibly difficult for those at the poverty level.
Part of the problem, too, is that there are expectations that we will invest financially in our children to a degree far above what they really need, though. In this expectation, they each "need" their own bedroom, "need" private lessons in several areas, "need" to be on sports travel teams...and yet it's "wrong" to allow them lots of time for free play (which also frees parents from considerable stress and financial investment). Clothes must be new, etc.
Whereas if you're okay with hand-me-downs, for example, they are really so easy to find...you can basically whisper "I need size 9m sleepers" and three bags full of them will appear on your doorstep within 48 hours. (I know that's partly because I live in a very kid-friendly community, but my friends in other contexts usually are able to find hand-me-downs with relative ease, as well.)
Yes, hand-me-downs are a lifesaver! I definitely agree that so many of the “necessary” expenses of raising children are not so necessary. My children share a room (and feel much safer and happier at night as a result!) and are so much more content when they have lots of free play time than when they’re booked up with activities. That is, until the inevitable crankiness happens, but that’s a separate issue. 😅
That said, with grocery expenses sky-high, it’s getting more and more challenging to keep a family well-fed with good-quality food.
It really is. I can't believe the prices at the grocery store. Did you see the recent discussion over at Whole & Holy about this? https://wholeandholy.substack.com/p/its-never-just-about-the-food-2
I often think to myself, Our income is higher than our county average, and yet I really, truly worry about getting groceries and about things like car repair bills. The struggle for lower-income people must be immense right now.
I have the article saved, but I haven't gotten to it just yet. I'll have to make sure to read it soon!
I've worried about the same things. I used to work in the public school system, and even a few years ago, several of the kids I worked with relied on school lunches for most of their nutrition. It's scary to think how they might be struggling now.
Very interesting article. I agree with the gist and think it hits the nail on the head.
"Our culture subsidizes abortion" but wants to increase fertility. That really stands out. We live in a "culture of death," that is hedonistic and degenerative at the same time. If you don't believe in God and his power over the earth, why have kids? I live close to Seattle, it's a spiritual wasteland. The environment isn't that bad, but the people are beaten.
Government can't replace God.
If someone sees the joy and love that children bring. I think they'll have a few. But that means they have to find the right person and be able to afford it. It all cycles back to an unfriendly, I like "culture of death," pretty sure a prominent Catholic coined that. I don't take credit.
Good review Dixie!
Thanks, Nicole!
You have got to read this book. The "civilizational sadness" argument is so insightful. Carney does connect it to downward religious trends but also to other factors; it's really intriguing.
There's also something really interesting about limiting yourself to one or two kids: it means you never reach the point where you realize, through experience, that you can handle being outnumbered. By the time you've weathered three kids joining the family, I think you realize that everything is pretty well set up for a life with child and adding one or two more is a lot less threatening than it is when you're still straddling the line between life-without-kids and life-with-kids. That's not to say that parents of one or two don't "get" it or that all should have more children, but it's true (in my experience) what so many parents of many children say: adding a fourth (or more) child is just not the same as adding a first or second. It is not as scary and not as destabilizing.
I'll add it to my list of 50+ books to get too. Haha. I'm currently reading Anna Karenina and on track to finish it in a month. Then, a fantasy novel probably. I'll see if he has podcast convos on the topic.
Ahh I wish I could see from your vantage point. I'm surrounded by single motherhood, divorce, abortion and poverty in those throughout our families. At my church, Catholic, I see large families, it's such a strange spot to be in. Two opposing messages... when we were trying for a second. Church: "sooo when's the next baby coming?" Family: "I think 1 child would be perfect" and now that 2 is coming. "Are y'all going to stop ever?"
Only 50?
Funny how your family size is suddenly everybody's business, right? And then to think that sometimes people say such things to couples who seem empty-handed but have had miscarriages...It breaks my heart.
The reality is, there have always been all sorts of shapes and sizes of families. Remember that the church teaches that you and your husband are the ones who should discern in prudence and prayer about these matters, not all the people with loud opinions :)
"They make working easier, not parenting." That's it. That's the whole thing with most policies that aren't, as you mention, tax breaks or subsidies. The UK is a total mess in this regard, and one of the biggest problems is what notion of "family" the government wants to shape its policies to support.
Do married couples with children get different things than single people with children? Do adults caring for children or other adults in their families get recognised, fiscally, by the government? Do people who share a mortgage get something different than people who just rent from the same landlord?
Here in the UK, if you are a mother with small children, the government will pay for childcare/ nursery school (varied hours by age, etc.) But *you* are not given that money - rather the gov't will pay a daycare on your behalf. Which means that if you wanted your grandmother or niece or sister-in-law to help watch your kids, and she isn't registered with the government as an officially-inspected provider, they won't help you pay her. Nor, if you wanted to stay home with your own children, would you get that money. So the gov't claims it is a family-friendly policy, but really, it's a pro working-outside-the home-mother policy.
Married couples can only file taxes as individuals: there is no such thing, truly, as a 'household income'. So you take home *more* money (by paying fewer taxes) if both mother and father work, say each earning £35k/ year, than if one worked to earn £70k/ year. The former are taxed at a much lower rate. I know many families where it just isn't possible here for mothers to step out of the paid work force, and that's precisely because of the policies that shape tax law, benefits, etc. here.
I mention all this not only because I live in the UK but because I think in some ways the US can look to Europe and see what may be coming in terms of attitudes and practices of rising secularism.
That's wild. I was aware of this kind of inequality of support before reading Carney's book but it was really a lightbulb moment for me when he pointed out that such support is primarily ordered toward increasing wage-work.
You'd be fascinated by this book, Kerri--there's a lot in it about Europe, though more about France and Scandinavia than the UK.
Moving here has opened my eyes to a lot of things that I didn't think much about before!
I'm grateful for reviews like yours but then my TBR list just goes haywire, haha!
It is definitely easier for me to get to my TBR pile when certain books have review-based deadlines!
“cultural sadness” - i’ve heard that a lot, especially when i was younger. people would say, “why would i want to bring a child into a world like this?” i would have to add, i think secular feminism has a huge role to play here. as women, the culture teaches us from the earliest age that everything about our biology is to be controlled, destroyed, feared, repressed - every single aspect of our fertility in particular, from monthly cycles to breastfeeding. when our fundamental role as life-giver is no longer respected - when we are conditioned to think, or at least very strongly encouraged to think - that having a career and being sexually appealing are more important than giving life, it’s very difficult to take on the already-daunting challenges of motherhood. and on the other side of that, secular feminism has also taught men that they are not valued *for being men.*
i will never forget an incident where i was downtown in a big city, right in the heart of a business district, with my oldest, maybe a year old. *every single woman* i came across that day glared at us. every single one. the men were delighted - held doors open, helped me lift the stroller up & down stairs … it was a really interesting experience!
There is so much to unpack in your two comments. There really is a hostility to children, a fear of children, along with a longing for children, in our society. Hence the contradictory policies and contradictory advice, too. It's very complex, and so different in different subcultures.
I'm reading the book literally right now for another review... so I'll probably be back to read and respond. :)
I will look forward to reading your take on it, Haley!
I haven't read the book (but would like to!) and I've added it to my list. My thought to add is related to the concept of "village" and it ties in to the note that I tagged you in recently Dixie - with smaller family sizes and a society more and more stratified by age and class, more and more people are less able to visualize what it means to have children and to live a life that includes parenting. My colleague who wanted to help a coworker by coming over to hold their baby honestly did not know that this was a thing you can offer, and that it is a helpful and good offer! They asked me if the baby being two weeks old was "too soon" and my response was, "This is prime time! Wash your hands when you arrive, bring snacks, and they will never forget your kindness!" And this person sent me this text because they knew (because I am not shy about it) that I am a mom. I think living the vocation to family life in our culture involves showing people that it can be done, because too many people nowadays are being told otherwise.
100%!! Yes, I remember your story in that note. Living it visibly but in a non-judgmental, non-threatening way provides important modeling. Many of us don't have models to go on and even the kindest among us may not know how to help or where to start because the customs about it are just gone.
The book talks a lot about the village idea!
Yes, I think I can pretty much co-sign the points here. I find the points about increasing GDP vs. actually supporting families particularly salient. I think this also applies to any sort of broader care network (I’m specifically thinking of family care — how hard it is to pay a family member to care for another elderly family member for example). And I know Ivana and others have written about this too, but the huge amount of force behind the ideas of “real” work and ?? (fake work??). Despite the video that circulates each Mother’s Day with the totally absurd job description that no one would take that is revealed to be “mom”, we still don’t value care work because we don’t get paid for it.
When I was reading “The Outsourced Self” (which I can’t find! Did the baby carry it off?) she talks about the movement of parental advice seeking from the clergy to the pediatrician and how the locus for family advice becomes “science”. But then this becomes tied to products, and things you can sell people quite quickly. And as cynical as it makes me sound, a healthy family with strong social networks is not a very good consumer. They don’t need a lot….
And of course there’s the fundamental breakdown between sex and the possibility of children. I think the fact that we see children as completely optional and separate has done so much damage. It allows so many people in my generation to see the damage caused by their own parents and decide to “opt out” without any thought as to what would have happened if any prior generation had opted out. The fact is that despite everyone’s woes about economy, etc… etc… we are NOT in worse shape than so many times in history. I’m not advocating for poor conditions, but it’s just an argument that is very short sighted and also presumes to know that us saving children from existing is magnanimous. I think it speaks to the profound lack of hope that is prevalent though. Ok, now I’ve typed on long enough… I’ll have to get the book :)
"The profound lack of hope." exactly.
I'm struck by your point about healthy, well-supported families not being ideal consumers. Nor is the large family generally, as large families almost always come to value re-using items from child to child, activities that are inexpensive (going to the free splashpad at the park instead of to the expensive waterpark, for example), and the like. They are luxury-hesitant.
I fundamentally disagree with people who espouse the idea that, "I'm not having kids because the world is a mess" is a good decision. The world has always been a mess! My parents were born at the height of the Cold War, my grandmother was born in the immediate aftermath of WWI, I could go on. It just makes me think of the most recent season of All Creatures Great and Small on PBS where (and I am not saying spoiler alert, this show is based on a series of books that are 50 years old ;-) Helen is pregnant with her first child in 1939 when James is about to leave and join the RAF. She is talking to her friend Audrey how she feels about having a baby at this moment with James due to leave and Audrey responds with, "It's a tonic to have something to look forward to." Babies pull us out of ourselves and toward the future. Children are the reason so many of us keep building houses and businesses and planting trees and crops and doing all those tiny acts of hope that the world is built upon!
Yes. I think it's a way to avoid doing the hard work of looking at how little control we actually have, and how much we must rely on God. I always think of the Madeleine L'Engle poem:
The Risk of Birth
by Madeleine L'Engle
This is no time for a child to be born,
With the earth betrayed by war & hate
And a comet slashing the sky to warn
That time runs out & the sun burns late.
That was no time for a child to be born,
In a land in the crushing grip of Rome;
Honor & truth were trampled to scorn—
Yet here did the Savior make His home.
When is the time for love to be born?
The inn is full on the planet earth,
And by a comet the sky is torn—
Yet Love still takes the risk of birth.
That is beautiful. I'd never seen that before. Thanks for sharing, Annelise.
So beautifully said, Amy! When was the world not a mess? But a child -- a child is a light. So powerful against the darkness.
Maybe it’s the phones? A week ago, I read an article called “It’s the phones, people”. In this article, the author made the case that people are literally connecting less (and having sex less) due to phones. I do think that phones and social media have magnified our fears- including fears around parenting. The author was talking about how as a society we have traded real life for online life. I think that applies to having children as well. Phones cause us to have tunnel vision instead of being able to grasp the bigger picture of what is really important in life. Social media influencers of ALL kinds get us right where we are afraid, with so many different versions of “the end is coming.” It’s hard to cut the noise and declare: Life is good, God has made it good, the earth, creation is good and worth protecting. To live that and affirm that every day is counter cultural. Link to original article below. 👇
https://open.substack.com/pub/magdalene/p/its-obviously-the-phones?r=1k5wlf&utm_medium=ios
I'm sure that's part of it. It absolutely figures into the nihilism and hedonism and sense of civilization sadness!
Thanks for sharing the article.
Speaking candidly as a married 29 year old with sudden 'baby fever', I have noticed 3 things in my relationship:
1) We acted as if there is a proper order to the way you are supposed to be an adult. Undergrad, then grad school, then career focus for a few years, then enjoy life for a few years, maybe take a year off entirely to travel... Obviously it doesn't work out that way. But that was the main narrative animating life for us. Your life ends when you have kids. So do everything else first.
2) Cost. It's really real. Painfully real. Of course having kids has always meant making financial tradeoffs. But... Man. We have good 'respectable' jobs that we enjoy, working for local institutions in our city. We feel like we make a positive impact through our careers and we are both working in the fields we studied in college. But in order to pay for childcare and feel somewhat financially stable, I think I am going to have to 'sell out' and go work for a larger for-profit company of some sort. I have the skills and experience. It's just not where my heart is. But what else can I do? Really if anyone has suggestions, please tell me.
3) 'Social imaginary'. None of our close friends have kids. Many of our friends don't want kids in the future. Having never seen another person 'become' a parent, how can we imagine it for ourselves? How can we even fathom a baby when neither of us have held one in years? We've always known that we want kids in an abstract way, and I think we assumed there would be others in our life going ahead of us, showing us the path so to speak. But there just hasn't been anyone.
Three strong points, Lara.
1) I want to encourage you. Your life changes dramatically when you have children. It involves radical self-sacrifice. But you also do not have to become entirely subsumed by your children. You can allow yourself balance, to give yourself the fuel to mother your children well. One thing I have noticed about the 1- or 2-child culture is that people think of it as a short season (I juse have to get through these three years!), but parenting is a long haul. This actually is more reason, not less, to keep up with your self-care in the early years.
It is also incredibly rewarding. Truly. There will be times when your heart swells so much with the goodness of it that you will think you're about to burst. It's just hard, as you note, to imagine when you don't have many models of full and healthy family life to look to in your social circle.
2) It is real. I think Carney's point about this is that many of us can take a hard, long look at these costs and find places to cut. Babies need very little; remember that a lot of baby items are about marketing and making money, not about need. But childcare -- yes, this cost is enormous. Many families choose to designate one parent to step out of the paid workforce for a time because the trade-off is just not worth it. But yes, sometimes the sacrifice ends up being one of changing workplaces for a time or other such things.
I am not trying to pressure you in either direction with this, but remember that there are more than two boxes. It doesn't have to be "work more and in a way you don't much like" vs. "become a SAHM." I would encourage you to read my friend Ivana Greco's piece on the word homemaker (https://hearthandfield.com/the-job-for-which-all-others-exist-lets-bring-back-the-term-homemaker/) and how it can encompass the great flexibility of part-time work, volunteering, etc. along with childcare. You and your spouse get to decide how parenting and working will look for you, within your circumstances. You don't have to pick a side.
3) This is very real, too! So many of us suffer from a lack of models of parenting. And then, there's the reality that if you are the groundbreakers in this area in your social circle, you can feel pretty isolated. Again, let me encourage you: there are probably so many young parents in your area who would make great friends. You may have to add to your social circle; it may be worth seeking out friends like this right now, in fact! We as a society lose a great deal by the division between generations and states of life; think of how much help you could be right now to a young family, a couple who is just desperate for someone to come have coffee with them and bounce the baby for them, or watch the baby so they can go out on a date! And then think of how much help such a family could be to you, providing you advice and experience and also emotional support for the transition when you become parents. And then you can pass this on to some of your other friends as they eventually become parents. And those who don't -- that's fine, too! They also may find over time that they need friends who are families.
Make new friends, but keep the old, as the saying says!
And very sincerely, Lara -- always feel free to e-mail me :)
I got the book in the mail yesterday! So pumped to read it. Though my husband grabbed it and cracked it before I had the chance so we’ll see😅 Heading to read your thoughts now!
Augh, the husband book-interception!
I hope you'll both enjoy it.