McKibben writes if we averaged 1.5 children per woman,  not just about 2 which is what it is now, and we reduce immigration somewhat, in 2050 the U.S. population would be 230 million, which is what it was when Ronald Reagan was elected.  He argues that it would make a difference in reducing environmental damage if more people would stop at one child.

But it’s best for a child to have a sibling, right? McKibben says wrong.

The bias against only children began in the late 1800’s with psychologist Stanley Hall.  He was the Victorian era’s “Dr. Spock.” He did a study of “peculiar and exceptional children” with 1045 child subjects. “Peculiar and exceptional” was loosely defined, from psychical to physical reasons. 46 (about 4%) out of the 1045 were only children, according to him, a “number entirely out of proportion to children generally,” therefore he concluded an only child is very likely to be peculiar and exceptional.  Upon closer inspection, his studies have been criticized for reflecting his own beliefs based on his boyhood experiences, which not so surprisingly included siblings. 

Even though studies after this would largely not stand up to the rigors of good research, the idea stuck, and the conventional wisdom to this day is that it is not good to have an only child.

Better studies to date say otherwise–in fact they have shown that there are advantages to being the only child. Only children tend to have higher IQs than their peers with siblings, they tend to have more internal locus of control, and score higher on achievement motivation measures.

They are no more likely to be lonely, shy or unpopular with their peers than kids with siblings.  McKibben says the idea that only children are more likely to be spoiled or pampered is also a myth. In the 70s psychologist Toni Falbo researched this idea and found onlies were no different from kids with siblings on this score. 

But they do experience some bennies that those of us with siblings do not get to experience: no sibling rivalry, which can make an impact on a person’s life, and they are not subject to “differential affection” – they do not have to compete for their parents’ attention.

While the myth still looms, McKibben argues that onlies “aren’t different from anyone else,” and that “single kid families can work and are necessary” to help us ensure we do not exceed “planet capacity,” which means the population that the earth can support.

The perils of only children need to be demystified so people can feel it’s alright to have an only child. They need to be demystified on behalf of the children who are already here so they are more likely to live in a sustainable world. 

And parents need to look harder at why they want more than one.  Is it because they want a boy and a girl and will keep having them until they do? Is it because they want the experience of having a baby again? More parents need to think beyond their own desires and the impact of their actions on our world (and their kids who are already in it).

What do you see out there with single child families? Does it support or not support McKibben’s premise?

In 1965, she was the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine, decided to test the constitutionality of the Connecticut law banning contraception (in place since 1879), by …

..opening a birth control clinic. They were tried and found guilty, and the conviction was upheld in Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Griswold appealed her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it concluded that 1879 Connecticut Statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy.” Evan Wolfson states in Why Marriage Matters, this decision meant that “The Court recognized <in Griswold> the right not to procreate in marriage.”

Griswold was an instrumental force in helping women gain control over their reproductive lives. Keeping this control, to me, remains part of the meaning of feminism. To Bernstein and Aronowitz, being feminists is “being conscious of and angry about gender injustice” and “being conscious of how your gender affects your life and how it affects our laws and social norms.” I think their predecessors would have agreed with them. 

On their road trip they learned there are a lot of misconceptions out there, even “among smart, irreverent and socially aware women.”  It surprised them that women were bogged down by negative associations they have with feminism and what they think it means academically. They also found that in economically depressed areas, young women saw feminism as “elitist.” But of Southern women in conservative states, they found they were the most “forward thinking..had fresh and fierce ideas, and weren’t stuck in the same feminist boxes.”  Griswold would have loved that for sure!

For childfree women, gender identity issues remain a part of feminism that needs further exploration and definition. The question, “What does it mean to be a woman if you do not become a mother?” has not really been answered. Mardy Ireland, in Reconceiving Women takes it on in for the first time in1993.  Maybe it is time to take this question on the road to childfree women!

Childfree women – we are examples of women who have separated motherhood from female identity..but how would you characterize our female identity?  Love to hear your thoughts!

One thing I hear a lot from childfree singles and couples is the challenge of finding like minds to befriend and socialize with.  No Kidding!’s annual convention is one place to do just that.  No Kidding! is a non-profit social and activity group for childfree and childless singles and couples. It has over 40 chapters in 5 countries, and once a year they gather to have all sorts of fun.

This year it is April 22-25 in Houston, and on the morning of Saturday April 24th, I will be speaking at the conference.  Here is what else will be happening — the conference schedule includes:

Thursday, April 22, 2010 

Registration 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

Meet-and-Greet/Cocktail Hour in hotel bar or lobby lounge from 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

Dinner. Location to be announced at 6:30 p.m.

Murder Mystery game at hotel (Western theme) at 9:00 p.m.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Day:

Tours, sightseeing*, shopping

International Fest all day www.ifest.org

Evening:

International Fest registration 4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Dine-around Dinners from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

9:00p.m. Talk and Book-Signing by Laura Scott, author of “Two is Enough: A Couple’s Guide to Living Childless by Choice”.

Cookies and coffee/tea in hospitality suite at 10:00 p.m.

Singles club and bar crawl at 10:00 p.m.

*Possible Sightseeing Activities: Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of Natural Science, Houston Zoo, Memorial Park, Bayou Bend and Hogg Mansion, Howard Hughes grave site, Chinatown tour, Fictional Ghost Tour, shopping at the Galleria or Harwin/Hillcroft, Beer Can House, Art Car Museum and Orange Show, Astros game (baseball), Rockets game (basketball) or Dynamo game (soccer), Downtown tunnel tour, Menil Collection, Rothko Chapel, etc.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Day:

9:30 a.m. Breakfast and talk by Laura Carroll, author of “Families of Two.”  

International Fest tours, sightseeing*, shopping

Evening:

Gala Dinner Banquet 7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

Buffet dinner, cash bar, belly dance show, DJ/dancing from 11:00 p.m. – ?

*Possible Sightseeing Activities: Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of Natural Science, Houston Zoo, Memorial Park, Bayou Bend and Hogg Mansion, Howard Hughes grave site, Chinatown tour, Fictional Ghost Tour, shopping at the Galleria or Harwin/Hillcroft, Beer Can House, Art Car Museum and Orange Show, Astros game (baseball), Rockets game (basketball) or Dynamo game (soccer), Downtown tunnel tour, Menil Collection, Rothko Chapel, etc.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Day:

Farewell breakfast in hotel restaurant

International Fest tours, sightseeing*, shopping

Organized Sightseeing options:

Special Day Trip to the Bay Area/Gulf Coast for those who are staying an extra day

San Jacinto Battleground and Battleship Texas

Tour of NASA Johnson Space Center

Waterfront Lunch and Drinks at Kemah Boardwalk or San Leon/Bacliff

Tour of Railean Rum Distillery

Return to hotel by 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m., with possible drop-off at Hobby Airport

Evening:

Dinner TBA

*Other sightseeing: Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of Natural Science, Houston Zoo, Memorial Park, Bayou Bend and Hogg Mansion, Howard Hughes grave site, Chinatown tour, Fictional Ghost Tour, shopping at the Galleria or Harwin/Hillcroft, Beer Can House, Art Car Museum and Orange Show, Astros game (baseball), Rockets game (basketball) or Dynamo game (soccer), Downtown tunnel tour, Menil Collection, Rothko Chapel, etc.

If you are looking for a great chance to be with and socialize with childfree folks from all over, this is your chance–Join us!

As you might expect,  she got an array of comments, from criticizing her for admitting this, to “of course you need a break from the kids!,” to speculating she regrets having kids, and more, some sympathetic, some harsh.  

She speaks to how the book, Bluebird: Women And The New Psychology of Happiness confirms she is not alone.  When author Ariel Gore asked mothers to keep track of their moments of genuine bliss, they mostly had to do with…. 

My own reaction to Lucy’s piece is that she seems to be content being a mom, but just needs more time for herself and needs to let more parts of herself live.  Unfortunately, womanhood is  still so often seen as synonymous with motherhood.  But as many of us know, mothers and not, being a mother is just part of who we are.  Lucy may be an example of a mother who needs to explore more of who she is in addition to being a mother.

Speculating about Lucy aside, I like seeing pieces like this.  Society needs to quit buying into the pronatalistic notion that having children is the thing that makes us fulfilled and happy. Buying into it is what creates the parental guilt for feeling children are not what make them happy, and for admitting that this is true.  Children may make some of us happy but it sure is not the ticket for lots of us. More moms and dads need to talk more openly about what’s not so great about parenthood.  It helps those trying to make their own decision be more realistic about whether is something they really want to do. 

Being open and real about parenthood  makes for better parenthood decisions, and for those who decide to have kids, makes for better parents.  When anonymously asked more than  half of parents (from a Dr. Phil survey and others) would say if they had to do it over again they would Not become parents. To reduce the number of people who think they made the wrong decision, we need to stop glorifying the role of parenthood, and like Lucy, talk candidly about the parent experience.

Parents and not–what is your reaction to Lucy’s piece?

..1 in 10 women aged 40-44 did not have children, and by 1999 when it had doubled to 1 in 5.

Collins talks of women in the 1980s and says, “while there was a spurt of antichild sentiment among women who were getting tired of being asked when they were going to get down to the business of producing the next generation, for most, the expectation that sooner or later a baby would come never really changed.”

Later on the timeline in the new millennium she talks about how unlike like people in other developed countries in dealing with the stresses of the recent economic meltdown, “American were not, (italics mine) in general, responding to work stress by opting not to have children.”

But research tells us that as of 2006, about 1 out of 5 women aged 40-44 were still opting not to have children. We may be a minority, but deserve mention that took off with the advent of the pill, women becoming more educated, waiting longer to have children, to name just a few reasons.  More relatively current information is out there and worthy of ponder.

 AnaMaria Wilson’s piece, “Baby Blues,” in Harper’s Bazaar writes about how the pressure to procreate has reached what feels like a “fever pitch.” According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the number of births in 2006 increased 3 percent from 2005 — the largest single-year rise since 1989 and the largest number of births since 1961. Wilson writes, “it’s as if we’ve circled back half a century.” Stephanie Coontz, a professor, author, and the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families says that in the 50s and 60s, “There was really extraordinary social pressure. The pressures were so great, in fact, people gave in to them.”   How is this impacting the number of childfree I wonder–might it point to a decline for the first time in many years?

Hopefully the 2010 census and reports will give us some answers. In any case, it’s time that birth rate trends of women who voluntarily have no births at all are included in books that chronicle women’s history.

Have you seen or read women’s history books that include this kind of discussion? If so, share them with us!