Though I am currently childless, I find the complaints of the "childless" community about favors and accomodations being tilted toward those with children rather odd. Every single person here was once a child, so every one here has benefited from the "unfair" contributions of childless people in the past. It seems rather ungrateful to me, not to pass on that gift to future generations.

I wonder, though, if there's more to the "unhappiness" of the childless. I frequently hear childless people complaining that those with kids look down on their lifestyle, though I can't say that I've ever noticed a parent make any such comment. Frankly, a lot of parents I know occasionally wish out loud that they had the freedom they used to have.

There seems to me to be an almost instinctive defensiveness among the childless. I can speak to this from personal experience, because my wife just became pregnant. When we told several of our friends (childless couples), their FIRST response was something along the lines of "Better you than me" or "Don't expect us to help with the babysitting." THEN they congratulated us. This sort of defensiveness took me aback particularly since we've never really asked or expected favors from these people in the past. Why would they assume we'd be asking now?

Could it be that those who choose to be childless these days aren't quite sure that their choice isn't selfish? I don't mean this as an insult of said choice at all.

Instead, the point I'm trying to make is that this grown-up generation is really the first where there isn't an assumption that if you're getting married, you're going to have kids. In the past, people often looked on couples without kids with pity, as if it was unfair fate that they weren't able to sire offspring. The generally accepted rule was that families would have kids. All options outside that "norm" were considered unusual.

Since, say the 60s, that norm has been breaking down, with the "traditional" family among the last to go. That leaves people who choose to be childless in the uncomfortable position of being the pioneers of a new lifestyle--this time chosen rather than being assumed to be a product of fate. It's tough to be the first people who choose something new, which means it's hardly surprising that said people might be defensive.

And, when you see a society that is still tilted toward the traditional family with children, it isn't surprising that one might rebel against that. But, at the same time, having been a product of that culture, it's equally likely that one might feel a little "guilty" about that rebellion.

After all, most kids can probably look back at the sacrifices their parents made for them and think they were a good thing. Now, though, they're choosing a lifestyle that doesn't require them to make such sacrifices. One can see the possibilities for cognitive dissonance.

Personally, I don't really care much what other people choose to do. I'm not inclined to get into a pissing contest with anyone over whether they got special treatment and I didn't. It's simply a waste of my time and I've got better things to do with it.

Has anyone considered that one reason those benefits were created in the first place was to compensate parents for the earnings and work that their children could no longer contribute to the home once it became a requirement that children go to school rather than work? Once upon a time in America, my friends, children (and I mean CHILDREN, not teenagers) in working families were expected to bring home the bacon every bit as much as their parents did, if not in actual money then in household chores designed to help support the family (cleaning house, cooking, chopping wood, etc while parents worked). The support system that exists in our tax and legal codes is there for a reason: because when working-class children were sent to school rather than put to work (whether in the home or out), parents no longer had access to the child's financial or household contributions, which could be absolutely crucial to the family's ability to function. For example, having an older child available to watch over a younger one is every bit as valuable to a working parent as having that child work--sometimes more, since it frees the parent to perform more complex (and possibly higher-paying) tasks. In our affluent, urban society that is accustomed to having kids spend 12 years of their lives in school rather than harvesting crops, we forget sometimes that there have been times and places where parents have children as much to help with the workload as for any other reason. Just ask the migrant farmworkers in this country, particularly the illegals, how important child labor can be to a poor family's survival. This is not, of course, why I had my two sons—but that doesn't mean there haven't been plenty of times here on my farm where I've vainly wished the school day ended earlier so I had a little help with the livestock at a particularly difficult moment. So if you think about the fact that many of the benefits are designed as compensation for loss of the practical impact children have as family "employees", so to speak (we call it "earning their keep" here on the farm), then it's pretty clear that non-parents DON'T deserve these benefits.

So now I'm guessing that a bunch of "left-wingers" out there are going to start attacking me as a neo-con bonehead who wants to bring back the days when children were whipped with belts if they sassed their parents. Truth is, I'm a card carrying liberal myself, but I'm also quite practical about some things. I love my children, but that's no reason to let them lie about the house eating ice cream and watching videos while I work my tail off to support them. In fact, loving my children is exactly WHY I expect them to help out on the farm as their age and ability allows and have no tolerance for laziness (hello, obesity epidemic--where do you think the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes in children comes from??). I want my kids to grow up knowing how to work and to take pleasure from obtaining the fruits of their own labor. They'll be better, more productive people for it. And that IS my contribution to society.

BTW for those non-parents who feel their contributions to society are ignored, check with a tax lawyer or accountant--in some instances volunteering your time and money CAN be compensated with tax deductions, y'know. There are all sorts of incentives to do good things for society, if only more people knew about them.

There seems to me to be an almost instinctive defensiveness among the childless.

I don't know why you would think this. Some folks just don't want kids.

There was a time when having children was seen as the natural point of marriage. But today I think child-rearing has taken on some other kind of role; it's now as much about satisfying the emotional needs of parents as anything else. The society we live in is decidedly obsessed with youth. When I was a kid, that was great; now that I'm in my 30's, I don't think it's irrational to admit that I sometimes resent it, and perhaps others do, too.

I'm a teacher and I work with teenagers every day, and I love what I do. Many of the parents I meet aren't really parents; they're more like buddies to their kids. Speaking for myself, I think that's part of the problem: people don't want children, they want drinking buddies in their old age. But hey, it's a free country.

To the bitching childless:

You recieved many subsidies from society as a child. How is it at all unfair for society to tax you in various ways to subsidize those who come after you? And how is it unfair for future children to receive the same subsidies you did?

Thank you Freddie, for your post.

I have two children (both young, under the age of 4), but have been married for almost 12 years. What this means, is that for the majority of my married life I was without children. I strongly believe that having children is a choice. Nobody forces anyone to have them. However, many personal choices have both positive (and negative consequences) for those around us.

A person who chooses to be a doctor, a public servant, or a teacher (as my wife is), are sacrificing and living their lives in service to others to some degree. These people should be rewarded. Now onto the issue at hand.

A good parent, one who will raise a child who is a positive contributor to society should be rewarded to some degree; how they are to be awarded is a matter for discussion. A childless person, who is contributing to society through the time that they have free (in contrast to the parent) should be rewarded as well. I think that parents should get some consideration for child care responsibilities, but at a sacrifice to their career advancement. I am (and have been) willing to sacrifice my career to a degree because I want to be a good father. That means that I may not be able to take on the duties that require more flexibility on my part. Childless (and even those with older children) are more able to take on these duties and should be compensated accordingly. Likewise, a childless person should get time to do what they want to contribute (with the same understanding, that they might limit their advancement by their choice). As for tax breaks, I think these stem from a few facts: 1.) Children are needed or society cannot continue. Pure and simple, for every person, their needs to be one child. (This is the weaker argument, as population has had a net growth for a number of years) 2. Children are the "pool" of talent, intelligence, etc that society will have to draw on in the future to solve problems. 3.)Children used to be a significant work force in most homes, and thus were encouraged to promote economic growth.

Am I, purely by choosing my role as a parent "contributing to society". Possibly. But we need to be careful by just tying this to whether a person will be a net plus or minus on society, as that could lead to some unforseen consequences. (Should poor people not get the tax break, because their children are more likely to cost society? What about people who have children with physical handicaps or mental retardation?) Obviously, we cant make the benefits tied purely to outcomes.

Is a person who chooses to stay childlesss "contributing to society". Possibly. If they are earning more money and increasing tax revenue or spending their free time helping the disadvantaged they are. But once again should we tie any benefit to the outcomes? How do we know what people are going to do during their free time? Are they going to volunteer or play xbox all night? The only thing that we can do is that is comparable is to give tax breaks for contributing time, money and materials to helping non-profits and the like. We don't know that the organization they volunteer for doesn't actually encourage people to stay on drugs or assistance by propping them up, just like we don't know whether someone who has a child will ultimately raise a bum.

Heck no! Not enough!

<link>

The US has the same Maternity/Paternity Leave as Swaziland. (Where the hell is Swaziland??)

I do think we should do as much as we can for parents/kids. If our kids are unhappy, uneducated, unhealthy, etc, it has lasting consequence for every facet of our society - crime rates, economy, science, everything.

Speaking as one of the (apparently) whining, defensive childless singles out here, I don't think that most of us begrudge the benefits and accomodations that our co-worker parents have available to them. What we do begrudge is the expectation of some employers (and some, but not all, of those parent co-workers) that because we're single with no kids that we have nothing better to do than to dedicate all our waking time to work. Just because I don't have children doesn't mean I can overtime every day (uncompensated, by the way, because I'm exempt from overtime pay) or travel half way across the country at the drop of a hat for a meeting. I may not have kids yet, but I do have obligations, commitments and activities outside of work (a.k.a. "a life"). I don't think it's too much to expect that employers respect that boundary for non-parent employees the same way they do for parent employees.

BPGJG07:

What we do begrudge is the expectation of some employers (and some, but not all, of those parent co-workers) that because we're single with no kids that we have nothing better to do than to dedicate all our waking time to work ... I don't think it's too much to expect that employers respect that boundary for non-parent employees the same way they do for parent employees.

Do those boundaries really exist any more for ANY worker? My wife leaves at 7am and gets home around 8:30pm (30 min train commute). This year has been a light travel year, but last year she spent 2 weeks in India, a week in London and another couple of weeks spread out in NY, San Diego and Portland.

Corporations have decided that they can turn a profit by getting workers to work longer hours for the same (or less) money. At least in our case, it doesn't seem to matter a bit that we have a 3 year old at home.

BPGJG07:

What we do begrudge is the expectation of some employers (and some, but not all, of those parent co-workers) that because we're single with no kids that we have nothing better to do than to dedicate all our waking time to work.

I have commented on this myself. I don't have any problem with giving parents tax breaks or other such considerations. But when it comes to work, why should a parent get special consideration? As my ex-girlfriend has argued, she decided to make her career her top priority; she's willing to work long hours, weekends, whatever she needs to do to achieve her long-term goals. She has chosen something other than motherhood; doesn't she deserve that promotion over the new mother who has to take off early or take extra time for her kids? It's not an unfair question.

differnetEllen:

military service too. So, what's your point? We are all in this together. No one required that you serve. You enlisted on your own; same as I did. I'm somewhat embarrassed every time someone thanks me for my service. I'm the one who was priveledged to serve my country. I'm the one who was thrilled that I could live up to my ideals. I do have to say the work I'm doing as a parent seems to me a heck of a lot more important now, than my time in the US Army. But that may be part of the biological changes that happen in a brain when you give birth.

You're right and that is my point although you don't get it. No one asked me to serve and I didn't ask Saletan, or you, to have kids. I too, don't need people to thank me for my service. I loved my job and don't need thanks. But we ALL contribute. We just don't ALL get tax breaks for it. You could say by not having children I saved resources for your children. Give me a tax break for that.

I'm very happy your work as a parent is more important to you. It's not to a great many people. But it's still your choice to have kids. If right-wingers (and I know many who say this) say it's a choice to live in New Orleans or a choice not to get an education or a choice to be poor and no one owes people anything for making those choices then no one owes you for making your choice.

So you are surely a great American. You may be embarrassed by people thanking you but you have no problem tooting your own self-rigtheous horn here.

P.S. Why did you ASSume I was enlisted?

Raising children is an investment. It costs something now and pays back later. Unfortunately, the payback accrues largely to someone other than the original investor.

Tax breaks for parents are a crude attempt to make the payback on this investment more fair. Other societal mechanisms are designed to promote investment in productive equipment and education, but the single largest category of investment is child-raising. Relative to other investments, it is less subsidized.

Regarding employer's policies and practices for parents vs. non-parents, the job market is quite free and those who are unhappy can find an employer that suits their needs relatively easily.

ILooney wrote: f you have a child, the law says that you are responsible for another human life; employers and the government should make all reasonable accomodation to ensure that that responsibility is well executed."

Then you need to pay a lot more in taxes to support those who aren't Yuppies and will never be upwardly mobile and won't have the resources to raise Yuppie quality children. Resonable is relative.

If we are all in this together then let me decide how much to give you of my income to raise your own children. By taking my taxes and giving you a break on yours the decision is not mine and therefore we are NOT all in this equally.

EWilson wrote:I wonder, though, if there's more to the "unhappiness" of the childless. I frequently hear childless people complaining that those with kids look down on their lifestyle, though I can't say that I've ever noticed a parent make any such comment. Frankly, a lot of parents I know occasionally wish out loud that they had the freedom they used to have.

That is such a condesending paragraph that it explains why the childless complain. I believe there are several posts here who refer to the sacred duty to society that the childless have abandoned.

I am not in denial. I chose to look after myself rather than take on the responsiblity of a child. You should be thankful I did. I would have been an terrible parent.

And here's a hint. You just wasted your time fueling the pissing contest.

Adrasteia:

P.S. Why did you ASSume I was enlisted?

I'm just guessing, but probably because we haven't had a draft since 1973. If you weren't drafted, you enlisted.

That doesn't mean, however, that you were of enlisted rank.

BlueEyes_Austin:

To the bitching childless:

You recieved many subsidies from society as a child. How is it at all unfair for society to tax you in various ways to subsidize those who come after you? And how is it unfair for future children to receive the same subsidies you did?

1. I can't go back and change the benefits MY PARENTS recieved by having children.

2. It was a person with a child who started this by bitching.

3. As I childless person I have paid my taxes my entire working life. I never tried to get out of it. I paid for schools and tax breaks and did it with good will. I just don't feel the need to celebrate the sacred charge those who have children have undertaken.

4. Everyone contributes to society. Everyone has a sacred charge. They don't all get tax breaks for it.