How many children in your future?

Standard

A rather unorthodox life-philosophy on my part centres around the propagation of the kind of joy only a child can feel in that weird, bubble-like state of ‘nothing can possibly go wrong.’ I don’t know whether or not my own childhood was abnormally happy, but those memories of security and contentment provide both the impetus for many a hard move and a stark contrast to the doldrums and heartaches of adult life.
Tied in with this desire to ‘spread joy’ – wow, what would Mill say? – is a desire to have a large family. Of course, i realize that this kind of hope requires more than just financial resources to realize, and i don’t even have those. Nonetheless, i can dream.
Lately, some of my general sense of upset has included sour grapes that i am coming to the realization that this is not going to happen. Ah well.
I had been sitting on the article found below as a draft for quite some time now and am blowing the dust off in an effort to salvage another spastic, whiny post.
Does anyone have sock to stuff in my mouth? I’d give a lot to be able to stop complaining…


Elizabeth Nickson, “Bags or babies: Women don’t have to choose,” Globe and Mail
(Toronto, Ont.: Oct 14, 2006, A.21)
In the endless gloom-a-thon that passes for our public discourse, nothing bites harder than the fact that we are ceasing to exist. Google “low birth rate” and panicked reports from all over the world fill your screen.
Japan’s drop is catastrophic; at 1.25 births per woman, Japan has the rate at which demographers believe a cataclysmic downward spiral is inevitable. Korea? Even worse at 1.08 births per woman. Russia? Dying. And don’t even mention Europe. Demographers project that the European Union will lose between 24 million and 40 million people during each coming decade unless fertility is markedly raised — at the upper end, that’s close to the number lost to the Second World War every single decade. Nor will immigration help. It takes less than a generation for an immigrant family in Canada to accept local norms and stop reproducing. In fact, fertility declines are now being detected even in the poorer parts of Latin America and Asia.
In the June issue of Science, David Reher, a population historian at the University of Madrid, maintained that much of the world is now on the cusp of a prolonged period of population decline. Mr. Reher’s heavy breathing is mirrored by Niall Ferguson, in the current Vanity Fair. Mr. Ferguson, normally a sensible historian, finds dropping birth rates to be evidence of the decline of Western Civilization, likening our situation to the last days of the Roman Empire. Mr. Reher couldn’t agree more. “Urban areas in regions like Europe could well be filled with empty buildings and crumbling infrastructures as population and tax revenues decline,” he prognosticates, adding that “it is not difficult to imagine enclaves of rich, fiercely guarded pockets of well-being surrounded by large areas which look more like what we might see in some science-fiction movies.”
The culprit? To a man, Pope, historian, or demographer, they cite secular feminism, along with its demonic twins, birth control and abortion. Liberate women from children and kuchen , wave around a Kate Spade handbag, offer a good job at the local bistro or trading floor and we won’t breed, not for anything.
Okay, does anyone else see how dumb all this is? Women don’t stop having children because they want to buy expensive bags, get beat up by a boring dead-end job or are lost in ideological fervour. They stop having children because the divorce rate hovers around 50 per cent and they have an even chance of ending up as custodial parent, looking at bone-grinding labour and penny-pinching. Committed couples suffer from pretty much the same burden. The income of middle-class families has only risen 4 per cent in real terms since 1980. We know this is true, because even the bible of the right-wing, the National Review admits it, and lathers up a whole paragraph trying to explain why this is okay. Accept the right’s eternal premise of punishing taxation and what is clear is that the middle-class family is squeezed mercilessly by the avarice of the demonic twins, government and business.
I had my daughter when I was a teenager and was so traumatized by the experience, I couldn’t bring myself to have another. In my generation, half of those who graduated from university between 1969 and 1974 had no children at all. Having children is an act of the purest hope, and we had decided that autonomy was way safer, not to mention more fun. A whole generation took their lives off, to explore the furthest reaches of what women can accomplish. But look, last summer I spent a few days in my house with my mother, daughter and her three babies, and trust me, there isn’t a party or adventure or job on earth that can compete with that, and I suspect, motivated by pleasure as we are, children will once again become necessary.
My own personal baby boomlet can be ascribed to two conditions: First, the enlightened (in this at least) CBC which allows my daughter to keep a job in which she thrives, through generous mat leaves and job sharing.
Low Alberta taxes and a booming economy in which her partner, an environmental economist, can look at a prosperous future make them a family whose exhaustion is shot through with both joy and hope. Calgary itself is suffering a baby boomlet for those precise reasons: corporations that desperately need good staff and will bend over backward to keep them, and a government that does not predate its citizenry. The policy implications are clear. Copy Calgary or die. All over the world, governments are starting to throw money at breeding couples. Recently, the governor of a Russian province gave everyone an afternoon off a week, to “go home and make babies.” It seems to be working. This summer, Australia crowed that through financial incentives, it managed to raise its birth rate from 1.72 children per woman to 1.85, most of the increases in women over 35, which is to say, women with careers and education. Factor in more enlightenment from the corporate sector, men who stick around and do more housework, and you might just get us breeding again. In fact, things could (finally) be about to get really good for young women everywhere.
We who went before salute you.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “How many children in your future?

  1. It seems like our generation feels the need to have more children than our parents did.. I want three of my own.

    Don’t give up, someone worthy will show up and give you hope for a big family of your own 🙂

  2. I hate to contextualize but….no, wait, wait, I love it…..um, yeah, overpopulation? I don’t believe that the worldwide population is decreasing for one, or even decreasing it’s rate of increase (could be wrong there). That aside, this is a good thing. A very good thing. A useful thing. A sorta thing that can solve a whole lotta worldwide problems. Thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s