The decision to have a child with a romantic partner isn't one most adults take lightly. There's usually quite a bit of discussion involved, and generally both parties have to be into the idea of procreating before they try to conceive together. However, a Daily Mail article published this week suggests that in many cases, one partner -- the driven career woman, specifically -- is making the decision for both people involved, and she's deciding to deprive her husband of the joy of fatherhood.
The piece, titled, "The broody men left bereft by wives with high-flying careers who refuse to have babies," isn't completely devoid of merit. Women are having fewer children these days in the U.S. and the U.K., and they often delay having those children until later in life. Those trends absolutely impact men, and a better version of the article might have prompted a conversation around what the Daily Mail calls "the taboo of male childlessness," which one of the men interviewed for the story, Philip Reed, 45, spoke to directly: "It didn't feel 'normal' to tell people that I was the one in the relationship who wanted children,'" he told the Daily Mail. "I only confided in a couple of friends."
The idea that men might feel less empowered than women to voice their desire to be parents deserves our attention. However, the Daily Mail piece frames the issue in a completely unproductive way -- blaming "career women" for "denying" their partners children.
Most of the article focuses on Philip and his significant other, Sophie Thomas, 42, describing their situation:
If his inability to become a father was due to fertility problems, he would receive sympathy. But the real reason is something no amount of medical intervention can remedy: His partner Sophie Reed's unwillingness to have children. An ambitious career woman, Sophie, 42, is adamant that motherhood holds no place in her life, and no amount of pleading from Philip has been able to persuade her otherwise.
The Mail later quotes Philip saying that he was "confused" by Sophie's lack of interest in motherhood because children "gravitated towards her" at family gatherings. (Note: Liking to play with children does not mean you want to birth them.) Yet he also acknowledged to the Mail that Sophie explicitly stated early on in their relationship that she never wanted children:
"I was taken aback, but parenthood was an abstract idea for me at that stage and I assumed at some point her biological clock would tick and she would change her mind."
I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a committed couple to disagree on something as fundamental as having kids. However, if they don't agree, that doesn't make the person who doesn't want kids the villain, especially if she never hid her feelings on the subject. Insinuating that women are to "blame" for not wanting children perpetuates the myth that women who don't want children are somehow defective females.
HuffPost Comedy editor Carol Hartsell recently wrote about her own experience of forgoing motherhood and her frustration with the rhetoric often directed toward "childless" women:
Just because a lot of us can have babies, doesn't mean we should; it also doesn't mean we should feel like we should. To suggest otherwise is to teach young girls a pernicious lesson: yes, you can have a career, but it's even more rewarding to have a baby.
The decision to become a parent -- or not -- is already complex and loaded. No woman needs the Daily Mail guilting her for her choices.
Follow Emma Gray on Twitter: www.twitter.com/emmaladyrose
Wait a minute. A common theme among women is complaining about men who don't want kids.
It usually goes like this:
"Insinuating that men are to "blame" for not wanting children perpetuates the myth that men who don't want children are somehow immature males."
I thought we set up society to you know, survive as a species. Oh silly me.
I didn't see any that said, "I'm choosing not to have kids because of X,Y and Z."
All I see is a bunch of women saying that they are being controlled by men if they have kids. Which I find funny because I have bright and successful women that I work with that have children; and they don't consider themselves being controlled.
Should we all go home and try to help our mother escape the tyranny of giving us life? While we're there we can press charges on our fathers for suppressing our mothers right?
Let me know when you'd like to get started.
I have several friends that married gorgeous (inside and out) foreign women.
These women are spoiled rotten. These women are treated well because their husbands are equally treated well. Everyone is happy.
American men are finally waking up to the truth. Feminists lead American men into believing their wives should be a constant problem in their live, this is WRONG. Men are starting to accept relationships as a continuous uphill battle.
American men reading books about 107 things a man must do to make sure his woman is happy. Seriously?
American men have been guinea pigs in feminists marriage experiments.
Men are slowly waking up.
IF you want to become a mother, you do not take a job that leaves you gone l4 hours a day. What is the purpose of having a child if you do not intend to mother that child?
I have two stay at home fathers in my 'hood who are excellent dads. The wives are an airline pilot and the other a doctor. Both dads are friendly, well organized and (I would assume) good husbands because these couples have been married for l5 and 20 years, respectively.
You had BETTER know what your soon to be spouse wants out of the marriage BEFORE you marry. People do not make sea changes in their lives unless something vitally important is involved.
I think it's absolutely fantastic that men WANT to become fathers. Great news. A great leap forward for mankind in this country.
As to being judgemental, I'm 59, been around the block many times and have met every kind of parent there is. I base my opinions on facts, not heresay.
I will not thank you for the slur as to my being judgemental beyond belief. Believe me, I'm way more judgemental than that.
As in, if you want to be a PARENT, both PARENTS can't be in a job that requires long hours.
And as in, if you and your partner want to be PARENTS, BOTH of you must be 100% invested in parenting. Whether that means flex hours, working shifts so that one PARENT is at home with small children, networking with other PARENTS to come up with flexible child care arrangements, etc.
It's getting better nowadays, but even 15-20 years ago when most of my friends started their families, when the male parent was tasked with tending the children, it was called "babysitting", as in, "My husband's babysitting the kids this weekend so I can attend a seminar". It's NOT "babysitting" and he DOESN'T get the "Dad Of The Year" award for... doing the SAME thing the female partner is doing in being a PARENT. I am glad to see more men stepping up to the plate to be involved parents.
In the past, because men realized this was the one power they could never have, they organized society around controlling women and making sure they had no freedom about when or if or how to become mothers. Now the playing field has been leveled. If a man wants a woman to bear his children, he will have to prove he is worthy of the sacrifices and efforts she will have to put into it. If a man is unworthy, he can howl at the moon all he wants. It will make exactly zero difference.
Would he?
Huh? For one) alimony is not common anymore, two) judges do not collect child support, three) avg child support payment is $280/mo, four) more women are paying child support and alimony these days (see below). Once again, you simply dont know what you are talking about.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-lawandlife-idUS161896085520120517
To non-Brits reading this, the DM is one of the worst rags in Britain, and very anti-woman. The following is a brilliant take off of the DM rubbish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
The DM is a joke.
Unless you are willing to say she should be forced to carry his child if she said she would beforehand...
If you think that a woman is so untrustworthy as to not be honest about this very important, make-or-break topic, then you shouldn't even be intimate with her in any way, much less be contemplating marriage. It's that simple.
If she says she doesn't want kids BEFORE...will you make her abort after? No.
If she says she does want kids BEFORE...will you force her to carry a child? No.
So, yes, it's 100% disingenous to sit there and say, "well, they should have talked about it beforehand" when that would not change one thing.
And YOU are the one who has explained over and over, that no matter what she says or does, he is still responsible for the outcome of his actions, even is she lies to him...therefore is YOU...and your feminist hypocrisy....who have said that men SHOULD not trust their wives.