Maclean's magazine has a cover story this week on why we shouldn't have children. (See http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/) Too tempted, I bought the magazine and after reading the 4 page article (in which I was reminded why I had previously let my subscription lapse), I was flabbergasted. I was offended because, I was being labelled as selfish, three times over.
Children will hamper one's careers, will ruin one's social life, will ruin marriages, will bankrupt the family, will eventually disappoint the parent, will destroy the earth's resources, and on and on it went. It described people with children as selfish. Ironic, considering one of main reasons why some people choose to remain child-free was that they didn't want to change their lifestyle. That sounds selfish to me. Another individual stated that each child on this earth was an ecological disaster waiting to happen, reasoning the food the child ate, the waste the child created, the natural resources it consumed were all damaging to our earth. Of course, if you follow that, then wouldn't the same individual who made that remark also be considered to be an ecological disaster. And if not having children was for the planet, then the non-existence of this same individual also be for the benefit of this planet?
There was a study done where people ranked "taking care of kids" as one of least pleasant tasks one could partake in. It ranked only slightly higher than housework, and way below napping, eating or watching television. I would counter that with how was "taking care of kids" defined? Taking care of kids is often viewed as chore-based. I whole-heartedly agree that napping is way more pleasurable than disciplining a mouthy pre-schooler, or changing a very disgusting poopy diaper. But there is no way that watching television could rank higher than listening to the bubbly happy giggles of your toddler, or hearing your child say "I love you" while hugging you tightly, or feeling of contentment as a child falls asleep in your arms. Too often, parenting is often defined as disciplining, but it is way more than that. Parenting is the whole realm of it, the good, the bad and the ugly.
As for the argument that parenting ruins marriages, and that childless couples report more happiness than those with kids, I'd wonder when in the parenting cycle these questions were asked. Having been there, and being in it, I can understand how children are taxing on a couple's relationship. When you're sleep deprived, fresh out of ideas for a kid-friendly meal that's also budget friendly, trying to get some control over the expanding laundry pile, while wrestling with an overactive toddler to change said toddler's diaper, and running to wipe up some sticky spill, it's hard (if not impossible) to find energy to nurture the relationship with the partner. That being said, if both partners are mature enough and cognizant enough to understand that this craziness will not last forever, and to appreciate and savour the brief moments of calm when they occur, then that relationship will not suffer but will thrive. I'll bet that couples whose children are grown will report higher levels of satisfaction and happiness with their relationship and will also report that their marriage was strengthened as a result of those kids.
And are kids costly? Sure they are. But again, that's only looking at half the equation. What about the returns of having children? Can you really put a monetary value on the love, satisfaction, happiness, contentment and fulfillment that your children bring to your lives?
No comments:
Post a Comment