I read this article this morning on the front page of NPR this morning:
'Selfish Reasons' For Parents to Enjoy Having Kids
Even though I am not a parent, I have an interest in parenting articles. My friends have kids. My sister has a kid. I have an early childhood education education and background. I feel like I have a pretty good base knowledge of what good parenting looks like, sans children of my own womb. So this article by economist Bryan
Caplan seemed like something I would be interested in.
However, after reading the actual article, I couldn't tell if
Caplan was an economist, a geneticist, or a complete idiot. I really don't understand his point. He says that people are afraid of having more kids because they think it will be more work. (How can it NOT be more work?)
I think there are some
benefits of having multiple children for many economic and practical reasons, a few being:
- They have built in companions for playtime, keeping each other entertained and letting you off the hook a little bit. I remember playing with my sister in our room or outside for lengthy chunks of time, with parents intervening only if someone (me) was being too bossy or if we got in a fight. With an only child, especially if they are extroverted, there is more of a need for parents to entertain and interact with them.
- Older siblings are built in babysitters, tutors, and role models for the younger ones. Therefore, younger children are looked after and older children learn responsibility.
- More benefits: tax deductions, hand me downs, and buying in bulk actually seems worth it.
However, there are a couple of major drawbacks to having a large family in our society. For instance:
- Cost. Sure, you can get tax deductions, reuse all the cute baby clothes you got for your first child, share toys, and take your children to the "kids eat free" nights at all the unhealthy restaurants that offer that sort of thing. However, you need more of all the disposable items like food, diapers, and health care. You go on vacation? You're buying more plane tickets, more theme park tickets, more lunches at McDonald's... it adds up! And what if you are not happy with your local public school options? What if both parents work? Does this author realize how expensive private school or daycare is for multiple children? You also need a bigger home and more furniture to accommodate all of those little bodies. I remember what a challenge (read: impossible) it was to find housing for a Somali family of 11 that I was working with. There are no apartments that will rent a 2 or 3 bedroom (all they could afford) to two parents with nine kids (one disabled and in a wheelchair) on one income. This author seems to assume that parents of multiple children are middle or upper class with ample means to support and house all of these children they should be having.
- Time. Becoming a parent is risky for many reasons. Your child may not be content with video games and little attention from their parents, as this article implies they should be. What if your child has a learning disability, ADHD, Autism, or Down's Syndrome? You may have a child with special needs that demands more of your time in their childhood and even into their adult life. Your child may have physical or mental health circumstances in which they will never be able to live on their own, making you a guardian for life. Your child may have children they can't care for, giving you more parental and financial obligations when you may not have planned on them.
- Burden. Many of us don't have grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins all living in the same area. We don't have the built-in support system that our ancestors may have had, or that cultures around the world have. You have a lot of kids and you don't have other trusted adults in your community to talk to or provide childcare when you need to run to the store or just have a day off? You are outnumbered, Mom and Dad, and you're on your own.
Now, the comments above only address a couple financial and social pros and cons. Caplan also seems to think that he can lace his economic book with some nature vs. nurture studies. He seems to think that kids are solely a product of their parents' genes, an argument that is extreme and outdated. Most researchers have come to the conclusion that we are a product of a combination of our genes and our environment. Again, Caplan is assuming that you're dealing with a set of genes that is not "flawed" in any way. For example, how are you going to help them deal with and adapt to issues that may be in their genes, like depression or diabetes? Maybe your kids might turn out okay if you just leave them alone and allow them to make their own decisions. But common sense says that your parents DO influence you and your ability to be a fully-functioning, happy adult. Mr. Caplan says we shouldn't think of children as lumps of clay but as pieces of plastic that will snap back to their original form once the pressure ceases to be applied. First of all, his issues may be with his parenting style of reacting rather than proactively teaching. (Does he really think the "naughty corner" is going to sufficiently address his children's misbehavior?) Should you just say, "I'm not going to teach my kids how to handle money, because it's in their genes and they'll do what they want when they're grown up anyway?" Or, "I won't push healthy foods on my kids because they probably won't like it and would be much happier eating McDonald's all the time?" How absurd! As a parent, you have an obligation to teach and mold your child so they can learn healthy habits. That's just common sense. Sitting back and thinking, "They won't hang on to this lesson when they're an adult anyway, so I just won't teach/remind/nag them in the first place," really is selfish and lazy. Keeping with Caplan's analogy of plastic, maybe parents can apply not just pressure, but form-altering heat that can permanently mold and change the way an individual exists.
One final note: Caplan asserts that the average family should not necessarily have lots of kids, they should just have more than they're currently having. WHY? My husband and I do not have children. We share a rental home with two roommates, are aggressively paying off debt (aka -- we're broke), both work (can't afford childcare or the loss of an income), are uninsured, and can barely afford to keep up with our dog's medications and shots. When Caplan says we're selfish to not have more (or any) kids - heck yeah we are! I don't want to bring a child into our financial and living situation. I don't want to stop working. I don't want to be responsible for supervising and interacting with one or multiple children when I get home from work right now. I don't want to hire a babysitter every time I want to leave the house. I see little incentive for us to have children at this point.
I feel like my arguments here are disjointed, but it is because I am responding to the reasons Caplan has listed for having more children, which are all over the place with little cohesion. I understand he's trying to defend parents' "rights" to have their own lives and interests even after having children, but the truth is, having children is a selfless act and a huge responsibility. Hopefully the general populous will take his arguments lightly and not become lazier and more selfish parents as a result of his bizarre perspective.
