My wife and I are expecting a daughter in June, and it amazes me how much political and spiritual capital people have invested in their own choices when it comes to parenting.

What I love about this book is that it seems to talk more about the fact that we have choices, and to celebrate the fact that they are, just that, choices.

The choices we're making on how to live with a child are so heavily shaped by the particulars of our lives that I would never presume to think other people ought to emulate us.

Although this book won't be 100% relevant to my life for awhile (I'm a college student), I imagined both my mother and I would find it interesting in relation to how she and my father raised me and my brother.
Although my mother and father raised both me and my brother consciously to be feminists, there was still a gendered division of labor. I would say that the reason my mother did most of the housework and my father the repairs, car maintenance, and yard work is that it honestly is what they both prefer, it's very interesting to me whether it was also social conditioning (and I'm sure that played a role). However, in my opinion, the most important thing is raising the kids with feminist values- not necessarily your own division of labor. For me at least, cooking with my mother and fishing with mostly my father (and my brother doing both activities as well) was more important than actually seeing both my parents do both activities.

That was a long comment...

Sounds cool!

Except for Ann trying to decide what to do with other women's bodies.

"We don't want to have to depend on what seem to be wildly expensive, emotionally draining technologies in the way some of our older sisters and aunts have."

OK, great for you, but don't turn that into a judgment on people who do use "expensive,emotionally draining" methods to have a child.

Thank you for posting this. The book is tops on my list of things to read after the semester is over. Well, after a couple of Doctor Who novels.

I commented in another thread that I've really been struggling to find a feminist parenting community that really values parenting as rewarding work. I understand that there needed to be a strong assertion that women might want more/other things than solely parenting, but the result was a kind of undertone that devalues parenting. I can find plenty of feminist support for continuing to work. Finding feminist community for also wanting to put time and energy into raising my daughter has been more challenging.

PS As someone who went through those grueling technologies, I do tend to advise women who can have babies a bit younger than I did to at least think about it. Fertility treatments aren't fun.

irishgirl1983, as much as I have sometimes wanted to bang my head at the way fertility treatments (and adoption) are discussed on this blog and others, I didn't read Ann's remarks that way. I can't imagine anyone watching me go through what I did to conceive and not wanting to avoid that if at all possible. And my experience was far from the worst I know of.

Er, Amy's remarks. Sorry. Having a day.

I can't wait to read Amy Richards's book (yay Barnard grads!) but until then I have a few questions.

Does she address the environmental impact of parenting at all? I am so grateful women have all the choices about parenting and family life that they have today, and I hope our choices become even more accepted in the near future. But really, I wonder where the idea came from that we have a right to have biological children. Why, exactly, is it so important to pump our bodies full of chemicals (in the case of fertility treatments) to have our own baby, when there are so many children already born who need families? Not to mention the fact that the world is already overpopulated.

I really don't mean to insult women (and men) who really want their own child. These are just some things I'm wondering about. How do feminists reconcile their reproductive choices with environmentalism? I hope Richards addresses this, and I'm eager to read and find out.

I've got to agree with Lucy when it comes to fertility treatments. Yes, they're a wonderful advance that changes the options a woman has, but they're also expensive, often painful, and not always effective. And even if they work, they still result in a high-risk pregnancy, which means more medical intervention throughout the pregnancy.

Talking about both sides is part of giving women a fully informed choice.

And, of course, there are government policies like paid family leave and daycare subsidies that could make it easier for young women to choose to have kids without it completely derailing their career ambitions.

"That applies to feminists in lots of interesting ways...if you have one, do you pay your nanny a living wage? Do you send your child to a school that has a diversity of students and mirrors your feminist values? Do you model self care and compassionate communication for your kids on a daily basis?"

I think it's important to keep in mind that having choices is often correlated with having money. I'm about to have a baby and the nanny wage issue will never be part of my reality. I'm also pretty certain that I won't have much choice with respect to where I send my kid to school. I strongly believe in teaching by example (and I very much hope to) but lets not forget that not all feminists have the resources necessary always realize their principles. I think modeling "self care and compassionate communication" on a daily basis is and important goal and that's what I'm going to strive for.

I agree: parenting has not been recognized for the work that it is. A feminist woman I knew once commented to me that she didn't understand how women could waste their minds and their degrees by staying home with kids.
Parenting, particularly feminist parenting, is like any other job: you can use all your education, mind and creativity to do the best job you can, or you can kick back and coast. Trouble is, there's no recognition at the end because in our society we really don't value parenting.
For those women who list how awful and thankless the work of parenting is, I am working now and my husband is at home and as an employee, I do work everyday that I don't want to do, paperwork that I don't enjoy, I have to write notices my boss wants me to that I wouldn't choose, where I work I have no paid sick days, so we all come to work when we are sick and too tired to read whats on our computer screen. The reality is most women aren't in wonderful, flexible, supportive jobs: so work can suck too, although as in parenting, there are rewarding aspects, financial rewards not the least of them.
The issue is one of respect for the work at home and one of being able to balance home life, to give the stay-at-home mother time to get away from the 24-hour-a-day job that can swallow the rest of her life because we don't recognize she should have any other life.
Ironically, the couples in the situation in which I am in, where the father stays home with the kids at least for a bit, are the most respectful of the stay at home role. I have noticed that stay at home moms get very little opportunity to have extra-curricular activities, while the stay at home dads are given a lot of opportunity because the working moms are more anxious/willing to take over the kids when they get home and the stay at home dads get more respect that their work was hard and they deserve a break...

irishgirl1983, I don't think anyone is trying to decide how other women use their bodies. I thought the sentence you're referring to was pretty clearly presented at the opinions that Courtney and her friends hold: "I've been thinking and talking about this a lot with my friends in their late 20s." The word "we" here refers to Courtney and her friends, not all women.

newyorkred, I can only say this:

1. At one child, my spouse and I did not even replace ourselves. I therefore cannot get too worked up about any contribution I might have made to overpopulation. Some degree of replacement population is needed for a society to continue to function. And while the stories of couples having many children through fertility treatments make big news, they're not the norm.

2. I assume you're advocating adoption, and as an adoptee, I am all for it. However, I have to say that there is something a bit unfair about advocating that in the same communities where adoption is often critiqued as exploitation (particularly of women of color) and colonialism. I'm not saying these critiques don't have some basis. However, there's a fair amount of talking out of both sides of our mouths that goes on in any discussion of infertility.

But really, I wonder where the idea came from that we have a right to have biological children. Why, exactly, is it so important to pump our bodies full of chemicals (in the case of fertility treatments) to have our own baby, when there are so many children already born who need families? Not to mention the fact that the world is already overpopulated.

I see this question a *lot*. I'm beginning to think there's actually a difference between the people who ask it and the people who just know the answer, similar to the difference between people who are straight and gay.

I mean, I understand you mean no malice, and you're just trying to understand. But *every* time I hear "Why do people really need to have their *own* children? Why can't they just adopt?" it sounds just like "But why do people really need to have sex with their own gender? Why can't they just fall in love with a nice person of the opposite sex?"

The desire to have children is a biological drive. It is pretty basic in that it's hardwired into humans at a very deep level, but it does not exist in all humans -- just as the desire to have sex does not exist in all humans, although most humans consider it a fundamental need. And you cannot explain to a person who doesn't have the need *why* you have the need. try explaining what's so great about sex to an asexual. Try explaining what's so great about men's bodies and penises to a lesbian. Or, if you're a lesbian, try explaining what's so wonderful about women's bodies and vaginas and clitorises to a straight woman. You can wax eloquent but while they might come to understand intellectually they'll never really "get" it.

So I'm not going to wax eloquent. The reason people need to have their own biological children if they possibly can is that they need it. I mean, that's what it boils down to. They may be able to partially fill the need with an adopted child, and there have been gay women who managed to fall in love with men, but their lives would still have been better if they'd had a gay woman to love. if you want your own child, then that's what you want.

And given that anyone who takes on the raising of a child is taking on an enormous, gigantic burden which can be soul-crushing for those who didn't choose it, WHY DOES ANYONE HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THIS? I'm sorry. I don't mean to go off on you. But *everyone* asks this question, and really, I want to know, why is it different from the Nice Guy(tm) question, "Why do you women always fall in love with guys who aren't me? I'm a nice guy! Don't I deserve love?" I mean, we all acknowledge that that's a bullshit question, right? You love who you love. No one is entitled to love, not even cute babies whose parents died. So why are you suggesting that people who want children should love the children you think deserve it, rather than the children they want to love?

"The world is overpopulated" is a strawman. It is, but the reason it is overpopulated is that women all over the world are denied the right to control their own reproduction and the right to do anything with their lives that isn't make babies. If we waved our magic feminist wand today and gave all women in the world the rights we have in the US -- which, we all know, are far from perfect equality either -- the Earth's population would stabilize *overnight*. The *entire* reason for overpopulation is the devaluation of girl children, the use of women as breeding machines for men and nothing else, the lack of women's power, rights, equality, our very *humanity* as individuals instead of property. When a culture gives women the choice to do something with their lives that isn't have kids, the *aggregate* choice of all women in that culture put together is to have zero population growth. The one middle-aged woman who wants to spend a ton of money on fertility treatments so she can have one baby is balanced out by a childfree person; the Earth mamma hippie who has five or six kids is balanced out by five or six women who each choose to have only one kid; and the *average* works out to be slightly negative, most of the time.

The very fact that *feminists* are *constantly* questioning why anyone really desperately wants to have her own kids, and why does she have to spend all that money, and isn't the world overpopulated enough, and aren't there plenty of children with no parents who deserve love... I would get it if this was always coming from male liberals who are clueless about feminism, but it comes so often from feminists. Why do you think you have the right to single out a particular group of women and demand they explain their life choices to you? I mean, you're certainly not as bad as the anti-abortion assholes, because none of you are trying to *ban* fertility treatments, but... ask yourself, if it's so great to adopt a baby, why don't you want to do it? "Because I don't want kids?" Okay, great. Now why do you think that "my own biological kids" is synonymous with "children who don't look like me, have a health and genetic history I know nothing about, may have suffered abuse I know nothing about, and could possibly be taken away from me should the birth parents pop up and change their minds?" If I want "my own biological kids", why do you think "not my own biological kids" would suffice if there was an alternative?

Let me be clear, I do not oppose adoption. I think adoption is a fantastic option for children whose parents cannot or should not raise them (by should not I mean "they are abusive", not "they are teenage girls omg!") I have two children who are not biologically mine, and two children who are. I love all my children equally. I feel incredibly honored and loved that my stepchildren (who I don't call that unless I *have* to distinguish between them and the biokids, like in this post -- normally they are "my kids") have adopted *me*, that they have embraced me as their mother and they love me. They didn't have to. They have a biological mother -- admittedly one who forgets they exist every few years, but they have one. They chose to love me, they chose to call me "Mom." I feel so full of love and pride for them. But every so often I look at my biokids, after five years of raising kids who weren't biologically mine, and go, "Oh, that's right! You *do* have my genes! I *am* biologically related to you!" And I melt inside because I feel like I belong to them, I'm part of them. I'm connected genetically, not just emotionally, to the next generation. it is not a *greater* love, but it is to some extent a *different* love. Or no. I should say, the love is no different, but the attendant emotions that are not the love are; I don't feel honored that my babies chose me for their mom, because *they* didn't get a choice. But I do feel a sense of connection to them that I don't feel to my older children. It's more like the difference between loving your brother and loving your husband, although without any sexual element. You love your husband because of *who* he is; you love your brother because of *what* he is. I fell in love with my older children; the younger two, I had no choice. They were there, I made them, boom I loved them.

So I am in a position to really know and understand why the desire for your biological children cannot be fully fulfilled by adoptive children. If you just want *children* and you really don't care about the bio-connection, then adoption would be a great decision, particularly because PREGNANCY IS HELL and if a woman doesn't strongly want a biological connection with her child I highly advise her to NEVER EVER GET PREGNANT. But at the same time, adoption is kind of dependent on someone else's misery. Someone has to have a kid she doesn't want, or have a tragedy occur where she can't raise the child she wanted to have, or turn out to be a bad parent who makes her kid miserable, or she has to die... *something* unhappy happened. No one gives up a baby out of altruism except to their best friends and sisters. So *given* that a tragedy occurred, adoption is often the best way to resolve the tragedy, but at the same time isn't it a little uncomfortable putting people in a position where to fulfill their great dream they must depend on someone else being unhappy? I mean it's kind of like needing an organ donated. Except, of course, that organs "wasted" and not donated don't suffer, they just die with the body; children who aren't adopted in situations where they should be *do* suffer. So I do support adoption, I do think it's a good choice for people who either cannot have their own biokids, or who don't feel compelled to try, but who do want children. But I'd like to work toward living in the world where almost no children are ever available for adoption because born children are always wanted and wanted children can almost always be safely raised by their parents.

Odd..Most of the moms I know have done a total 180 in the healthy direction when they became moms. I'm more like a 90 degree turn.

As someone who does blog about the intersection of motherhood & feminism on a regular basis, I'd love to connect with more feminist moms online and off.

It's also quite fun to see my husband's feminism blossom as our daughter encounters more and more of the patriarchy.

As for when to have kids...as a 33yo with an almost 5yo, have 'em young if you can. It's tiring!!

I don't know what I'm advocating... I'm just thinking out loud, I guess. It occurred to me, what if all the Western women who really want babies but for whatever reason can't have one, adopted all the unwanted babies from everywhere in the world, thereby saving them from hunger and exploitation and imposing their ideals and education on them? Population stability! Reduced crisis! Triumph of the West!

....No.

I don't think "population replacement" should be a goal, though, as the population may already be environmentally unsustainable as it is. I guess the answer is the same old one, of improving public health all over the world, educating people about their bodies, providing contraception, etc. And in this way, choice is still a central part of the process.

But for now, it does seem a little irresponsible to keep reproducing. I mean, if every American couple who had only one child, adopted instead (colonial implications aside), that would make a pretty big difference, I think.
But I think the onus should be on corporations who bear the brunt of the responsibility for environment trashing, and also on education so we don't consume so much and yet can still make the choices we want to have happy family lives (which I do think everyone has a right to).

I don't in any way want to reduce anyone's reproductive choice. I guess I'm trying to figure out how to get them, on a global level, to choose "better"... gah, there are so many problems with this whole thing.

It's also quite fun to see my husband's feminism blossom as our daughter encounters more and more of the patriarchy.

Isn't that awesome? Sadly, I've found that this only really happens if the guy pretty much leaned that way in the first place, but it's great to see.

It's all about knowing what you're getting into, owning your choices, being able to trust in an agreement.

"It's ALL about knowing"...? I think that sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.

It seems to imply that women who find themselves in impossible situations just didn't think it out, or just don't own their choices or all sorts of bootstrap nonsense that makes it easy to separate yourself from the mommy's with problems and contributes to this mommy wars nonsense.

As someone who once believed as you do let me say, it's about accepting that you can never completely "know" what you're getting into, that your choices will be greatly limited and impact more than just you and that even if you had clear agreements made in good faith that life may present unforeseen situations and challenges that will undermine those agreements and lead to new (and less optimal agreements) being made.

You swear you'll do one thing and then you start to visit daycares and see infants spending their days in a row of cribs, you cling to your job but for the second time in two months you miss four days in a row because your child has strep throat and there's no one else to care for them and your boss and coworkers start to turn on you, you swear you're going back after a nice home birth and six weeks leave but instead you get gestational diabetes (despite you excellent health) or premature rupture of membranes and end up with a hospital birth and stitches that are still healing after six weeks of agony, or your husband swears it'll be 50/50 but soon he's asked to travel or lose his job or his boss tells him in a not so subtle way that there are plenty of single guys willing to work harder if he wants to step aside. These are all things that happened to myself or friends who thought we had this shit under control only to have to face tough choices that couldn't be planned for.

AlaraJRogers, thank you for writing that post. You said a lot of things that I've wanted to express but didn't know how or didn't have the perspective you have. Thanks.

Thanks for responding so thoroughly, Alara. I really don't know what I think and you made a lot of really thought-provoking points that are helping me in this dialogue with myself.

I do not think reproduction is parallel to sexuality. I have a biological desire to eat, too, but that does *not* mean I have the right to eat delicious quarter pound steak imported from Australia every day. The resources this would use are astounding, and even if I were "balanced out" by a couple of vegetarians and a vegan, this does not mean I somehow "have the right." Even if the steak fulfills some deep desire within me.

Sexuality, on the other hand, does not entail the using of resources in the same way, and is thus a more private matter.

I can understand your frustration with feminists who are asking the question I did, though. Thanks for helping me clarify that. It's like we are getting angry with you, who have just made your own choices in the best way you could, rather than getting angry at the systems and history which have made the world unsustainable and which have robbed women of choice everywhere.

I do think it is important to question every aspect of our existence, though, including "why exactly is it that I want kids?" whether they be biological or adoptive or in the form of a cute spaniel puppy. Even if the answer is simply a need to have someone to love.

Anyway, now that I have asked the question, I won't ask it again. And I do plan on adopting, not just seemingly criticizing women who want biological babies :) Or at least on trying to improve public health structures, and like you said, work toward a world where children are wanted and can be raised in a safe, environmentally healthy way (and where parents' jobs are acknowledged as being just as important as "regular" jobs!).

OOps. Extra ' in mommys...bad edit.

K: yes, maternity means losing control, and anything can happen.

Although it's so much better to have your children young, sometimes waiting a little means having more money - and that _does_ help! You can pay a nanny a living wage, and send your child to a decent daycare center. Of course not everybody can get a reasonably paid job that they like (or even one they don't like) but I had a chance and used it, delaying maternity to my early thirties. This way (so was my planning) I could try for a couple of years and then adopt if it didn't work : my pain threshold is too low for artificial techniques.

I was lucky, so far: I got pregnant fast, had easy pregnancies, and my kids have until now been reasonably healthy.

Maybe any parenting book should start with a big statement "Do your best, and be as lucky as possible."

newyorkred, I take the onus on myself to make the best choices I can, but I think part of granting other people sovereignty is recognizing that other people will make different choices. The best we can do is expose them to more information so their choices are informed. But I don't think you're going to get people to stop reproducing. The process is too much fun, for one thing, and accidents happen.

Veronica brings up an interesting point about fathers of daughters becoming more feminist (I know it's happening to me). I think that also happens sometimes with parents and environmentalism. The future of this planet is much more concrete to my wife and I now that she's pregnant, and that's reflected in the environmental choices we're making now that she's pregnant.

As far as owning your choices, I think you have to do that while also admitting how little control we have over so much of our lives. If I choose to take a route home from work that lands me in a car accident, my choice led to that outcome, but it isn't entirely my "fault", either. My wife chose not to go back on birth control after she was diagnosed infertile, but that doesn't mean we chose to get pregnant (although we're ecstatic). Sometimes the only choice we have is the choice of how to react.

Oh, and I have to get in a plug for gdiapers as an option for environmentally conscious parents.

I actually got an advanced copy and I tore through it in 2 days. A great and thought provoking read. I highly recommend it, but not lending my copy out, because I'm going to re-read it.

But I felt compelled to comment on some things I saw here in this comment list. Four years ago, my partner and I decided to start "trying". The ensuing struggle with infertility left me a reborn feminist. I saw firsthand how the reproductive rights pendulum swung the other way. I actually had a doctor tell me that I had no right to have my own child and it was my body's way of letting me know not to contribute to the world's overpopulation. I was castigated for being a selfish person. On the flip side, I had doctors prescribing me medications without taking any bloodwork first. I never took them. And how old was I going through all of this? 27-29. Prime time in the world of fertility. The experience made me own my medical and reproductive reality in a way I hadn't before. Just so you know there's a happy ending, I was finally properly diagnosed with polycystic ovaries and after taking 2 months of Metformin, a diabetes drug, I conceived my ridiculously healthy son. (And to the commenter who said that pregnancy is hell-I had a fantastic pregnancy. I never felt better. And I found delivery to be a fulfilling and yes-even fun experience. And that's coming from someone who had minimal drug/painkiller intervention. I'm not saying it didn't hurt at times, but it was all a great experience.) And if my infertility made me a new feminist, well, motherhood has now put me on a tear. If we are really going to back reproductive rights, we need to support women who make the decision to undergo fertility treatments. It's not only about having a choice to have a baby or not, it's also about having a choice about how you have a baby. And yes, a lot of that is caught up in who has money to have those choices.... which is why I'm passionate about helping people get greater access to fertility treatments and working towards insurance companies covering treatments.

"...But *everyone* asks this question, and really, I want to know, why is it different from the Nice Guy(tm) question, 'Why do you women always fall in love with guys who aren't me? I'm a nice guy! Don't I deserve love?' I mean, we all acknowledge that that's a bullshit question, right?"

Very apt comparison - and it can apply to *both* sides. She who doesn't want to date him can say "You love you who love," and he who she doesn't want to date can say "I have a biological drive and a fundamental need."

"'The world is overpopulated' is a strawman. It is, but the reason it is overpopulated is that women all over the world are denied the right to control their own reproduction and the right to do anything with their lives that isn't make babies."

Exactly!

"But every so often I look at my biokids, after five years of raising kids who weren't biologically mine, and go, 'Oh, that's right! You *do* have my genes! I *am* biologically related to you!'"

That reaction is so much better than going "Oh, that's right! I need to wax you and put you on a diet and sign you up for plastic surgery!" when one see the traits one passed on. Don't you wish everyone else was as reasonable?

"So *given* that a tragedy occurred, adoption is often the best way to resolve the tragedy...But I'd like to work toward living in the world where almost no children are ever available for adoption because born children are always wanted and wanted children can almost always be safely raised by their parents."

Right on!

It's also quite fun to see my husband's feminism blossom as our daughter encounters more and more of the patriarchy.

Isn't that awesome? Sadly, I've found that this only really happens if the guy pretty much leaned that way in the first place, but it's great to see.

One of the challenges that many of us find in imparting feminist values is how the little buggers pick up counter values outside our influence. My wife was well on her successful path as a lawyer when she pointed out to our 5 or 6 year old daughter the airplane flying overhead, telling her that she could fly one of those one day. "Oh mommy, girls can't be pilots!" Arrrgh! We still tease our now 25 year old about that one.

Er, having children is not a biological drive; it is driven by emotion: fear of death, love of small cute things, ego need to replace yourself and thought: do I want to bring a child into this world, can I afford it, how will I raise it. Those are higher brain functions rather than biological drive.

The questions about the environement are not unapplicable here. What do you mean when you claim that overpopulationg is a strawman? How? What model are you using? I understand that Malthusian models no longer work, but where are you coming from?

Why is that decision (having children) off the table for discussion when we keep most others on? No-one is advocating a law against procreation (that I can tell), but merely asking for some answers and self-evaluation. We all do that all the time as feminists. Don't we?

I agree that pregnancy is hell. After I had my son, I told everyone that my next child (if ever) will come ALREADY MADE! My pregnancy was covered by medicaid, no questions asked. But my research into adoption shows that I have to have all aspects of my life scrutanized by an social worker, just to adopt an child, even if the state would cover most costs (in the case of a "special needs" child, which is anything other than a healthy white infant). I find it sad that I could irresponsibly pop one out at any time, and no one would bat an eye, but if I try to adopt a "special needs" child (i.e. older, colored, or with siblings) I have to "prove" I deserve one. That "proof", among other things, includes my biological ability to reproduce! That's right: if I have the ability to pop out another kid, I'm pushed down the waiting list! I don't think my ability to have a child should make my willingness to open my heart to another worth any less.

And to all you non-mothers out there considering preganancy, be warned: you will never get 8 consecutive hours of sleep again, from the moment you first feel the baby move inside you.

That being said, I'm glad I have my son. I'm glad I have a husband who will stay home and take care of him, so that I can work. I wouldn't take it back for anything.

mirm, exactly how well do you think it would go over if I came into a feminist community and said, "Well, I'm not suggesting we outlaw abortion or birth control, but I don't think it's really responsible of women to use abortion as a method of birth control, and I wish more of them would think about the environmental issues of using artificial hormones"? Should be put a woman's reasons for not having children "on the table?"

Because I, personally, don't think we should, but it sure sounds like you do.

Mirm, the discussion is not off the table, but your post is a very good example of what Alara was writing so well about. Since you lack that biological drive, either now or for always, you assume it doesn't exist and must be a mental construct.

You just don't get it (but it's probably not your fault).

Actually, those [questioning not to have children] are always already on the table. Funny how the decision that affects no one but you is on the table, and the one that affects everyone around you is off. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

I only brought up outlawing because Alara's first response to newyorkred was so over-the-top in comparing those questions in a comment thread to gay people and their trials (there are actual laws involved for them).

It makes me feel better to think people might use higher brain function to decide about a child, because you need them to raise one. Don't take away my delusion and persuade me that parents are all mindless drones. Please.

Little kids are such gender cops. When my nephew, whose mom is an engineer, was six, he said he didn't want to become an engineer because "That's what girls do!"

Oh, and it isn't about ME and my biological drives or lack thereof for goodness sake. Newyorked's question was about what is best for ethical living in a feminist context (I thought).

Actually, those [questioning not to have children] are always already on the table.

Yes, but last time I checked, feminism was arguing that they shouldn't be. Do you think they should?

L.G. You ignored who those different decisions affect quite cannily.

Of course, I think people should get off everyone's else's uterus. I merely (again) thought newyorkred's question was thought-provoking rather than the attack Alara (and obviously you) took it to be.

"I find it sad that I could irresponsibly pop one out at any time, and no one would bat an eye, but if I try to adopt a 'special needs' child (i.e. older, colored, or with siblings) I have to 'prove' I deserve one."

Wouldn't it be sad if the new mothers considering adoption, foster care agencies, etc. handed over the children who are in their custody to just anyone without asking for any "proof" that these children would be raised well?

The decision to have a baby is driven by emotion... what I'm reading behind that is internalized misogyny: "that's right, because women are all emotional beings who make whimsical decisions and love small things."

It seems like a lot of subtext I'm seeing is that to have a child is a selfish act-from whether or not it's a biological drive to a drain on our already in peril planet. I choose to see it as a valid reproductive choice that needs support.

and THOUGHT! I said thought too. And I used the term PARENTS, not mothers. I think that women think a lot more about this decision than men, who can be very emotional about it. For christ's sake, read what I wrote!

I was arguing that higher brain function is what is going on, Sheesh!

If abortion did, in some sense, harm society, or birth control caused serious environmental issues, those would be on the table as well. As it is, they don't, so they aren't. At least, not usually, to my knowledge.

Now, as it happens, history shows that the best means of reducing birth rates is industrialization and progressive social policy, so that's the position I'd argue for. But, we wouldn't know that if we weren't willing to discuss it to begin with, right?

However, that's all from a macro-perspective. Yes, extra children will stop being a problem eventually if we industrialized and liberalized all of humanity. By the same token, the inevitable heat-death of the universe will wipe all life from reality forever, which will also eliminate all human suffering. That doesn't stop some kid someone from not having a home for this decade, though, does it? I don't think that any of us actually owe starving kids anything, but accepting for a moment that helping children is at least a good idea, I do think that "progressive social change will solve child suffering a hundred years from now" is a pretty poor excuse for not helping the suffering children we have around now.

Alara, I love you.

This is a question to anyone who has actually read this book. I'm a bit of an older college student. I'm 24, and by the time I have my B.A. I'll be almost 27. Then I want to go on to grad school and get my Ph.D. so I can become a professor. I'm 100% sure I've found the guy I want to marry and procreate with, and he has no problem with me being the breadwinner and him staying home with the kids. My main worry is how I'm going to have two kids without running the risk of losing a job. I know universities are usually fairly liberal places, but I'm still worried about it. Does the book address any of these issues?

mirm, I think part of why this is an emotional issue for a lot of parents and parents to be is that we already get should on by so many people. Just look at a single issue like bedtime and you'll find parents arguing loudly for why they chose what they chose and that anyone who chooses differently is abusive. The "should"ers are a vocal minority, but, oh my, are they vocal. Sleep-deprived as we are, we mis-hear your inquiry for yet another set of shoulds.

But I'll treat it as an honest inquiry and tell you a bit about the process my wife and I went through in deciding to become parents.

She was on birth control since before we met, and we talked about kids, but didn't really make a decision. We flagged our first anniversary as roughly the time to start talking about whether we wanted to try and have our own, adopt, or go without.

We jumped the gun and started talking early. We decided that we wanted kids more than we didn't, and we started looking at adoption, and decided to also try to get pregnant, just to see. Partly this was because getting pregnant is, for more people, easier than adopting. Certainly there's less paperwork, and nobody comes to your house and evaluates your worthiness, which neither of us were excited about. She went off birth control.

A year and a half later, we decided to see a fertility specialist to find out if there was an easy-to-fix reason why she wasn't getting pregnant. After the diagnosis, we had another choice to face of taking extreme measures to get pregnant or not. In the end, after much soul-searching, we decided not. Next decision was adoption or no kids. Emotionally exhausted from years of hard decisions, we decided to put that decision off for at least six months, maybe a year.

Five months later, Christie's handing me a positive pregnancy test.

On the kids or no kids question, it came down to our hopes and desires for the future. We're both relatively optimistic for the future, but think that if the world is going to keep getting better, the world needs curious, engaged human beings in it. Yes, humans have been rough on the planet, but I think we can do better, and that we're going to solve our current energy problems if we work at it. I think Christie's going to make a great mom, and she thinks I'll be a great dad, and so we thought we should try it. And from a purely selfish perspective, being a parent is one element in the human experience that I have no experience with, and I'd like to have that experience. But that was a minor consideration.

Ultimately, our kids don't belong to us, they belong to the future, and we thought we owed it to the future to try and nurture good kids. Is that an ego thing? No more than cleaning up a riverbank, or planting a tree. Raising good kids is one element of making the world a better place, and we thought it was an area we were qualified for more than, say, developing alternative energy sources.

Adopting vs. biological is a harder question, and one we struggled over for much, much longer. If we decide to have a second, we'll probably adopt, and we're not the only people I know who feel that way. But there are serious issues that come along with adoption, including attachment disorder, malnutrition, genetic disorders, cultural appropriation, babies literally stolen from third world families, religion (many domestic agencies are religiously based, and I'm not willing to fake religious belief to get on their list), adoption agencies connected to crisis pregnancy centers, etc., etc. And the world of adoption mirrors the larger economic realities of this nation in that obstacles adoptive parents face go down as the amount of money they're willing to spend goes up. Priviledge, much?

It's not that I'm anti-adoption, it's just that choosing to adopt is often just as much of a karmic minefield as any other choice in life. It's complicated.

Which is why those of us who've struggled with these decisions through many sleepless nights sometimes bristle.

wow, so obviously a lot has been said on the adoption vs. biological issue, but I'm hoping my perspective will clarify both sides I've seen in this thread.

Ok so there IS a biological drive to reproduce, however as humans we do have the ability to use "our higher brain function" and think about those biological drives and resist them. We are animals, and like every other animal in this world we have the NEED to reproduce, period. It's ingrained, it's not emotionally based. But we have the ability to analyze, judge, and inhibit our actions, thats the big difference between us and animals (some of course have those abilities too but not to our extent). For some people it is just impossible to get over that drive, and that is understandable - they have a stronger drive than some people may have. But I think a problem that hasn't been addressed is society's push for people to have biological children. I do think that some people are so attached to the idea of having their "own" children is because of society. I mean look at the wording that's often used, a child that is adopted isn't that person's "own" or "real" child? Why do genes play a role in that? Aren't they *your* children because you raised them & love them? I think what some people are arguing is trying to get people to just question that biological drive more often. Yes adoption is tough, there are issues that come with it, you may not know the genetic history of the parents - but isn't parenting a biological child just as tough? there's a chance your child could be born with a disease no one in your family has ever had before - knowing your health history isn't going to prepare you for that.

So to try and sum up a comment that wasn't suppose to be this long - some people have an inborn drive to have biological children, some people have the ability to overcome this drive, some don't - but we also need to question where else does that drive come from? and people in general need to be more accepting to the idea of adoption.

"Yes adoption is tough, there are issues that come with it, you may not know the genetic history of the parents - but isn't parenting a biological child just as tough? there's a chance your child could be born with a disease no one in your family has ever had before - knowing your health history isn't going to prepare you for that."

Now I wonder, how many of the disabled kids waiting to be adopted ended up that way for that reason (her or his first parents going "we don't want to adopt because we can't handle a disability" then "we can't handle the disability of this child we just had, we'll give [her or him] up for adoption")? o_O

"knowing your health history isn't going to prepare you for that."

It can lower the odds of problems if one does have that knowledge and acts on it (such as choosing to not conceive with one's double cousin), though.

What makes you think your desire for babies is genetic? Yes, most humans desire sex. Yes, most humans think things with large eyes are cute. But this includes cats, mice, teddy bears, and so on. So I think you'll have to find some actual evidence that humans desire genetic children. Otherwise we can file this under "Science for Choads".

Couple things. First, I too grew up with the idea that you should wait and have kids (if you wanted) after you had established a career, preferable in your mid-thirties. I didn't follow that plan (had my child at 26). In my mid-thirties, I watched as 5 women in my department all tried to conceive. No one talks about the intense emotional pain of multiple miscarriages and infertility. I'm not saying anyone should rush out and have kids, but we are biological creatures, and there are constraints. Just like we plan for retirement, for our careers, we need to plan a family life as well (if we want one).

The ambivalence of whether or not to be a mother was explored by another Third Wave founder Rebecca Walker in "Baby Love." I didn't see it mentioned in the lit above, which kinda makes me wonder once again about why it is that the experience of women of color isn't deemed as relevant, and is not included, or dismissed entirely.

This is important as we're sitting here discussing the idea of adopting (particularly all those third world children). In
my own experience as an adoptee in a multi-racial family, I can tell you that continued disregard of racism (that didn't end with the Civil Rights movement)is not going to lead to some utopic family where everyone feels equally loved and appreciated.

What about those of us who have children because we got knocked up on accident and consider raising our children to be the responsible consequence of our actions- not a right or a genetic predisposition?

Since no one else seems to have, I'm going to second what Alexandra said. A lot of people will never have any choice in many of the particulars of raising their children, something that this whole "opting out/in" debate rarely seems to acknowledge. Rather than talking about a small subset of the population that actually has more choices than most, we should be talking about how to make parenting better/easier for everyone.

"Rather than talking about a small subset of the population that actually has more choices than most, we should be talking about how to make parenting better/easier for everyone."

It seems as though "if you have one, do you pay your nanny a living wage?" is on both sides of that. On one hand, only a small subset of the population has the option of hiring nannies. OTOH, wouldn't having higher wages make parenting better and easier for nannies who are parents themselves?

This discussion is sort of odd/relevant for me because I am asexual, or hyposexual, so the whole 'not getting sexual desire' thing is something I well understand. I never wanted children as a young person, nor as an adult in my twenties. I began to want to adopt in my late twenties, because I wanted a child, but was well aware I felt no biological connection. My friends did not have children - we're a relatively anarchic subculture of goths and punks - and they were not part of my day to day life.

Then, in my early thirties, the hormones turned on. It went directly from associating pregnancy only with horror (what an awful concept! I don't particularly like being 'female' anyway, and pregnancy was an appalling thing to think about) to desperately wanting my own child. And from want to need. Need. Need. Need. Need. I wanted to hold babies that coworkers brought in, I thought about children whether I wanted to or not. It was upsetting, startling, and annoying. But I wanted my own, specifically. Adoption was something to consider but no longer felt ideal - in the fantasy world, of course, because I'm still not placed financially for a child and possibly never will be. The thing I found associating that sudden, punch-to-the-chest need with was sex, though - it seemed an appropriate analogy.

I imagine that in many places, a nanny is cheaper than daycare for X kids, even if you pay them quite well. Particularly if you include room and board.

Yes, that's only likely if both parents are relatively high-earners, but I not that high. If you have three kids, for example, your choices are daycare for three, which could easily exceed $3,000 a month, or the lower wage earner staying home, or a nanny. If the lower wage earner in the couple makes more than you'd pay a nanny, it makes economic sense to hire a nanny.

I only say this to point out that even the choices of the relatively privileged are often as driven by economics as the choices of the rest of us.

Hold on, some of you actually agree that the crap that parents go through is in any way analogous to what homosexuals go through? Talk among yourselves while I laugh hysterically at your hubris and corresponding ignorance.

In the first place, unlike homosexuals, parents have a CHOICE. In the second, unlike children, homosexuality affects no one but the homosexual (except gay-bashers who are apparently filled with great pain at the idea of anyone being the least little bit different.)

Comparing the trials and tribulations of being a parent to the problems facing homosexuals on all parts of the LGBT spectrum is ludicrous and just plain sad.

Asking people why they choose to have children is a valid question and one I am interested in hearing to the answer to.

Biological drive? Are you not a sentient creature who can think for yourself?

I need it/want it? What are you, five?

The future? What about the present?

Whether or not people choose to have children is really no concern of mine, but when that choice begins to interfere with my own choices,I - along with everyone else - have a right to say something about it. (Yup, I'm a selfish person as well.) Just because you don't want to face the wide-reaching consequences of your choice doesn't mean you get to close down the discussion.

As a side note, those who can't articulate why they want children, try talking to a childfree/childless by choice person sometimes about why *they* have chosen to not breed. Most of us have well thought out reasons. To be fair, many of us are fairly angry as well. You may think your decision to have children effects only you, but it doesn't.

The book sounds really interesting, and I know I should not let the cover art turn me off as much as it does, but seeing bottles everywhere to sign “baby� is so annoying, it continues to normalize an artificial, unhealthy and patriartical feeding method. I’m sorry I really don’t want to start a fight with anyone the very first time I post here, I just wonder why they can’t come up with something better than a tired old bottle for a book about motherhood.

The book sounds really interesting, and I know I should not let the cover art turn me off as much as it does, but seeing bottles everywhere to sign “baby� is so annoying, it continues to normalize an artificial, unhealthy and patriartical feeding method. I’m sorry I really don’t want to start a fight with anyone the very first time I post here, I just wonder why they can’t come up with something better than a tired old bottle for a book about motherhood.

Mirm is right, I was merely asking about ethical living in a feminist context. I did not mean to attack anyone's choices. And I think it's important for both parents and child-free people to question their choices. I specifically asked about parents in this post, because Amy Richards's book is about parenting.

But I also think it's important to reduce the number of abortions, in a way that does not judge women who do make the choice to have abortions. I also think it's very important to think about the environmental impact of contraceptive choices. Condoms add to waste (is latex biodegradable? somehow I don't think so). And Alice, there actually have been studies suggesting that hormonal birth control isn't great for the environment--residues can end up in the water supply, and thus can be ingested by animals and humans. Some people think the added amount of estrogen in water might be partly responsible for earlier onset of puberty. This impact is not nearly as great as adding another person to the earth, though, but it's still really important to remember that misogyny and pollution have often been parallel structures.

Also, I really wonder about the parents on here who insist that reproduction is a biological need. I really appreciate reading the comments and of course I don't think we should stop having kids. MikeT made an excellent point, that raising responsible and aware kids that will lead our planet in the next generation is super crucial.

But this biological argument sounds dangerously close to, well, the argument that men "need" sex and if they don't have it baaaad things will happen to them and their poor manly testicles, and so women need to submit to their every sexual desire. Of course that idea is bullshit.

And as a final point, I also wonder how much of your perception that it is a biological need, is actually a social construct. I know the response to this is going to be that I will just never understand, and I really don't mean to devalue the personal experiences that have been shared in these comments. I am just questioning these decisions and feelings and how they work in a feminist, socially aware context. Are there studies about this that I'm just not aware of?

"...If you have three kids, for example, your choices are daycare for three, which could easily exceed $3,000 a month, or the lower wage earner staying home, or a nanny. If the lower wage earner in the couple makes more than you'd pay a nanny, it makes economic sense to hire a nanny..."

This reminds me of the BBC News piece "Photo journal: Filipino nanny":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/asia_pac_filipino_nanny/html/1.stm

"Millions of Filipinos have left their country to earn more money abroad. Josie Pingkihan describes how she left her own children behind to look after others in Hong Kong."

"I had a good job at home, but the salary wasn’t enough to feed my family. So I had to leave and come here..."

"...When I met my employer, I felt so lucky I cried. She is very sympathetic to my situation. After all, she doesn’t see her child much either, as she works all the time..."

"...I also employ a helper. It’s so ironic that I take care of another child here, while somebody else is taking care of my children back home..."

"In the first place, unlike homosexuals, parents have a CHOICE."

That depends on how much access to birth control they had. Even in the First World, some people end up forced to give birth.

"Biological drive? Are you not a sentient creature who can think for yourself?

"I need it/want it? What are you, five?...

"...Whether or not people choose to have children is really no concern of mine, but when that choice begins to interfere with my own choices"

Likewise, remember how sometimes some guy uses "biological drive" and "I need it/want it" arguments against someone else's choice to not have sex with him, as in
h t t p : / / feministing . c o m /archives/006305 . h t m l #comment-61038 and
h t t p : / /w w w . feministing . c o m /archives/008329 . h t m l #comment-123596 ?

[spaces added so the comment won't get automatically blocked for having too many URLs]

"But this biological argument sounds dangerously close to, well, the argument that men 'need' sex and if they don't have it baaaad things will happen to them and their poor manly testicles, and so women need to submit to their every sexual desire. Of course that idea is bullshit."

Exactly. Then there are the cases of men "needing" more children vs. the women and girls they got pregnant who try to abort...

I don't understand why some posters are having such a hard time with the idea that having children is a biological drive the same as the desire for sex. Obviously, they're linked. We're all animals, and procreating is a basic drive for animals. I've had the desire for a child since I was a teenager, but since I am a reasoning being, I put it off until I felt ready and had a stable partner I thought would be a good father. (I never wanted to be a single parent by choice, it's very difficult. I admire single mothers, but I'm too much of a chicken to do it myself on purpose!) I realize not everyone feels the drive to have a child--but it definitely exists.

Anyway, I might have adopted if I couldn't get pregnant--which, BTW, happened the very first month we tried, even though I'm 41 years old, not all older women have fertility problems--but adopting is fraught with difficulties. It's wonderful to give a child a home, but it can take years, it's expensive, you need to be exhaustively investigated, and if you try to go for an overseas adoption, you have to worry about colonialism and baby trafficking, if you can even get a baby, as more and more countries are being closed to Western adoptions. It's easier to get pregnant a lot of the time.

Having a child or adopting is all about choice. And as feminists, aren't we here to protect each other's choices? Someone needs to raise the next generation of feminists, both male and female. Whether we decide to do it through childbirth or adoption is no one's business. Just be glad that the new wave is coming twenty-odd years down the pike! I'm working on my own little feminist right now, with a due date in September. :)

I don't think the confusion, at least on my part, is so much over whether reproduction is a biological drive. Of course I can see that humans have a drive in them to reproduce and this is what makes the continuation of our species possible.

What I'm confused, and concerned, about is the description by some people of this biological function as a "need," and their unwillingness to question this. It feels like a closeminded way to end a discussion, and it also seems to be dangerous territory. Considering all the laws that are meant to "protect" women from themselves, if it can be argued that some women "need" to have babies then can't this argument be used against reproductive choice? And it indeed has.
I don't think any of the posters in this forum are against choice, and if you want a baby (if you need a baby, perhaps), then make an informed decision about it and luckily it is our right to have the kinds of families we want to have. I just think that as conscious beings we should be able to rise above "need" and consider the societal and environmental implications of our actions. What happens if someone "needs" seven children? I think it's already been answered that the solution is education and modernization; someone pointed out that this leads to population stabilization rather than rampant "needing" of huge families... But it's still a tough issue, I think.

We're here to protect each other's choices, but this obviously has to stop at a certain level. As a society we have to decide what choices are acceptable.

I'm so uncomfortable with that statement, but, well, isn't it true?

Another point that I should clarify is that my suggestions are pertinent only to fairly wealthy women who are blessed with choice, freedom of movement, money to follow through with those choices, and so on. Women who have many children due to abusive partners, inaccessibility of contraception, or just plain accidents don't really apply... and the whole point is to make it so that women have information and safe spaces, so that abusive partners aren't in the picture, contraception is accessible, and accidents (even happy ones) don't happen so much.

"and if you try to go for an overseas adoption, you have to worry about colonialism and baby trafficking, if you can even get a baby, as more and more countries are being closed to Western adoptions"

Curious nitpick: how much do the colonialism and baby trafficking concerns apply when one adopts a child from a Western nation overseas (like when Europeans adopt Americans)?

"What happens if someone 'needs' seven children?"

...and how would acting on that choice affect the children she or he already has? For example, what about someone's "need" to have more kids vs. her or his oldest 2 children's "need" to spend time with her or him on homework help, when enough socioeconomic and technological changes to make both 100% compatible won't be available in time?

That's a way more consideration than how having 7 kids would affect the parent's coworkers!

"Another point that I should clarify is that my suggestions are pertinent only to fairly wealthy women who are blessed with choice, freedom of movement, money to follow through with those choices, and so on. Women who have many children due to abusive partners, inaccessibility of contraception, or just plain accidents don't really apply... and the whole point is to make it so that women have information and safe spaces, so that abusive partners aren't in the picture, contraception is accessible, and accidents (even happy ones) don't happen so much."

Thanks for the clarification!

Oops, typo. >_

Oops, typo. >_O That should be "That's a way more *important* consideration than..."

First off, I think very few of us would compare the crap homosexuals have to put up with from bigots to the occasional rude comment that a parent might overhear from that extremely small minority that thinks it's bad to have kids. In fact, I can't find a single comment on this thread that does so. Alara did compare the biological drives, but that's a separate issue.

And from what I can find, latex does biodegrade fairly well. Polyurethane condoms, not so much.

Oddly enough, I happened across this book yesterday afternoon by an ecologist grappling with parenthood:
http://www.amazon.com/Having-Faith-Sandra-Steingraber/dp/0425189996/

I don't know, however, if she gets into the environmental impact of having kids itself, as much as the impact of environmental pollution on those kids.

Look, if you are a heterosexual woman, you may "need" a loving relationship with a man that includes sex. That doesn't mean you're going to get one. That doesn't mean you're going to die if you don't get one. That doesn't mean you're entitled to one, or that any random man *has* to love you just because you need to be loved. But it does mean that if that need is never fulfilled, you will have a significantly less happy life than if it was.

Another woman may not have that need at all. She may think that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. She may have no desire for sex, or she may have no desire for romantic love (that is, love of a person you are also having sex with.) So she may say to her friend, the first woman, "Why do you 'need' a man? You're just fooling yourself. The patriarchy has brainwashed you! Come on, recognize that actually you have no need for a man to love you at all. Don't you realize you're a human being, with higher thoughts and feelings than primitive biological drives?"

And hearing this from her friend may make the woman who needs a man feel guilty about her need. It may lead her to try to squash it. It may lead her to feel bad about herself. But it *won't* lead her to stop having that need.

I have already explained why overpopulation is a strawman. Basically, in the West, we have negative population growth from reproduction. In America, the pop. growth is slightly positive when you add in immigration; other countries, it's completely negative. So Western women *are reproducing below replacement rate.* We are already doing our part. The reason the world is massively overpopulated is that women all over the world are not granted the rights we have, the right to use birth control, get an education, have a job, do something that isn't produce babies. Also, in the two countries with the world's biggest populations, daughters are *dirt*. They are worthless, because the custom of dowry and the patriarchal concept that women are property of the men they marry and the social safety net depending on children caring for the elderly means that when you raise a son, he marries a woman who brings money into the family and then he takes care of you in your old age. When you raise a daughter, she drains money from the family as you give her in marriage and then she does nothing for you because she's helping her in-laws in their old age. The worthlessness of daughters, but the fact that they are 50% of all children conceived, means that in areas where they *don't* practice sex-selective abortion, women will have twice as many children as they and their husbands actually want, because all they want are sons.

There is no sense in which questioning the reproductive choices made by a tiny, tiny number of rich, educated Western women will have any impact on this problem whatsoever. In a post I wrote yesterday that vanished into the ether, I think because my browser ate my registration, I likened it to complaining that your partner bought a 50 cent magazine this month and that will bankrupt you, because you have a $7,000 mortgage payment to make each month. Even *if* that 50 cents is a problem, why is it even worth tackling before you address the issue of how to lower your mortgage payment?

The techniques that bring about zero population growth in the West boil down to: trust women. let women do what they want with their own bodies. It will all work out in the end. And in the West it *does* all work out in the end. People get to have kids if they want, not have kids if they want, and they are generally basically happy about their choice, *and* we get zero population growth. If we had the power to apply the same technique to the rest of the world, it would all work out in the end. So *why* does anyone think that contravening this technique, by saying that women should feel guilty over choosing to reproduce, would have good results?

Imagine a room full of 6th graders. 10 of them are quiet and peacefully doing their work. 20 of them are screaming, throwing spitballs and carrying on. Because you don't actually have the power to stop the 20, you go rap the knuckles of the 10 and tell them to shut the hell up. Except they have *already* shut the hell up. What are they supposed to do, turn pages more quietly? The problem is caused by the 20 screaming kids, not the 10 quiet kids. The world overpopulation problem is caused by the societies of the world that grant women no rights or control over their own bodies, and there actually *is* a little bit we as Westerners can do about this -- by electing politicians (if we're American) who'll overturn the Global Gag Rule to restore American aid to charities that perform abortions, to give money to charities that educate women or give them birth control, by investing in microlending, almost all of which goes to women and empowers them. The percentage of rich infertile women who can afford fertility treatments is microscopic in comparison. About 2 billion people live in the societies where everyone is trying to have a boy! Even if 10 million Western women were undergoing fertility treatment, could that possibly compare to 2 billion people having twice as many kids as they actually want because their societies force them to throw half their children away?

This is also why newyorkred's suggestion that it might make a big difference if all Americans adopted instead of having their own kids doesn't work. Let's say this happened. All Americans go overseas to adopt deserving children instead of having their own. What happens is, India and China give us all their extra baby girls, and then the parents, no longer burdened with a girl and morally off the hook (no one *wants* to commit infanticide, and if you've committed to raising that girl, she takes resources you could have given to a boy instead), all try again so they can have a boy, whereas if they had kept their girls at least some of them would not have tried for another child. Net sum population decline = 0. Except that now 120 million children do not know who their genetic parents are, and may feel like those parents abandoned them.

The reason I say that questioning -- which always comes across as attacking, even when it's polite -- the decision of Western women to have infertility treatments and try to have a genetic baby on the grounds of "world overpopulation" is anti-feminist is that it hurts women and has no benefit. No benefit to world population, anyway. Some individual children might have happier lives. Certainly I feel great sorrow for Chinese girls in orphanages, and if I am still healthy enough to raise children once my own are grown (and by "my own" I mean my two biologicals and my two nonbiologicals, thank you very much), I might very well want to adopt a girl from a country where she has essentially been thrown away by her parents because they wanted a boy. But this is a systemic problem that we cannot fix by looking to the individual charity of people who want kids being willing to adopt them. These countries need to fix this problem in their own culture, and to be fair, they are trying pretty hard. The great white American women cannot swoop in and save the world overpopulation crisis just by choosing to adopt the poor brown babies instead of having their own spawn. it is absolutely unfair to ask us to do so, or try to make us feel guilty because we want our own kids.

The philosophy that creating a human being is the same as eating a steak, again suggested by newyorkred, is one I find misanthropic and nihilistic. It suggests that humans are a net sum negative to the world in general, that producing a new human will invariably do more damage than it does good. I am not so despairing of the value of humanity, and if I was, I wouldn't care about world overpopulation, because sooner or later we will overpopulate to the point where we all starve and then we'll all be dead and yay, no more humans. There's a basic illogic in saying "I want to preserve the life and health of the human race by preventing overpopulation; therefore I think any new human born is a bad idea." Who are you protecting? I want the maximum number of humans to have the maximal quality of life. You don't get this by overbreeding beyond carrying capacity, certainly, but you also don't get this by making the people who are already doing the right thing feel miserable and guilty about their choices. Humans are not a steak; we are not a net drain on *humanity*. We give to our fellow humans as well as take.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that the problem of overpopulation is caused by all those poor brown women breeding like rabbits, and we rich white people are beyond reproach. I am saying that globally, the problem of overpopulation is caused by the *exact* problem feminism exists to fight: women denied agency, denied choice, denied control.

Women with agency, choice and control generally behave responsibly with it. If that is our philosophy, then tsk-tsking because a woman chooses to spend a lot of money to have her own biological baby is wrong. It's her choice, she lives in a society that grants her that choice, women being granted that choice is why that society is not overpopulated. Personally, maybe you wouldn't make that choice. But suggesting that she's making it because she's selfish is tantamount to saying you're selfish because you live in the West and eat three meals a day. Why don't you give all your money to charity and go live on a subsistence farm in the Third World? You choose to take advantage of the fact that you live in a place where you have choices, even though other people in the world don't have choices and even though you consume more than they do through your choices. So does she. Only she's a reproducing woman, so she's fair game to criticize.

We all know that *every* reproducing woman belongs to the entire human race, and all of her decisions must be made in light of the entire human race, not her personal happiness. You, a non-reproducing woman, can do what you want to make your life better, but she's a reproducing woman, so she has to do what society or what you think is best for the world. Except, of course, that society telling reproducing women to ignore their own happiness and do what's best for other people is *why* our world is in this mess.

Do people "need" their own biological child? As someone who had two children and still felt that need, I say yes, it does exist. And yes, it probably is a biological thing at least to a certain extent, because while humans are evolved to take care of other people's children *much* better than many other species and even better than some primates (I think of infanticidal gorillas, for instance), it still makes sense that investing in the care of a biological child will ensure that your genes pass on, and investing in the care of a nonbiological child won't, so genes that lead people to prefer their own children would probably tend to survive better... plus, statistics show that children do in fact tend to do better with bio-parents rather than step-parents. Does this reduce every human being to such a genetic tendency? No. If there were no biological drive to care for our children the species would have died out and yet people can beat their babies to death. If all people exclusively wanted only their biological children, adoption wouldn't exist in every human culture. And just because something is a biological drive doesn't mean it has to be fulfilled. You don't get to have sex with other people whenever you want just because there's a biological drive involved, and I would support certain limits on your right to reproduce -- such as women who raped a 12-year-old boy losing their parental rights to a child they bore that way.

But you would need to prove to me a *lot* more harm to humanity as a whole being caused by infertile women trying to have their own kids instead of adopting before I would favor getting up in women's faces and telling them, yet AGAIN, "you should feel guilty about doing what you want with your own body! you should love who *I* think you should love, not who you want to love! I have the right to question every choice you make as a mother, including the choice you make to be one!" Because the flip side of telling women "you can't be a mother when you want" is "you must be a mother when we want", and *that*'s what causes overpopulation in the first place. You are trying to fight fire by pouring gasoline on it.

AlaraJRogers, you really need to write a book about this! Every single point you make is valid and compelling; and you put it so much more clearly than I could have.

On the whole biology/intellect aspect, I really think that with human beings it's BOTH, and to different degrees with different women (men too!). My choice to have a biological child was more intellectual, but I must say that after he was born...wow. I had almost no control over my emotions, I was so awash in love and fierce protectiveness...and it wasn't just the postpartum hormones (though those certainly added to it!) -- because I feel just the same about him now that he's three. Not all women feel that way about their babies; just adding that I do think it's a little of both: intellect and hormones/biology.

While I'm enjoying this lively debate, the book doesn't really deal with the "should I/shouldn't I" aspect of having children, rather it's looking at feminism's relationship with motherhood-both good and bad. Amy Richards is trying to show that feminism is supportive of motherhood, despite a very long and complicated relationship. She does delve into the issue that women seem to think they can be fertile until their 40s. Unfortunately, women get their first "fertility knock" at around 27, then again at 32-35. After age 37, the ability to get pregnant drops dramatically.

Another part of hte book that I found really interesting is parenting with true equality-and what that means to couples.

AlaraJRogers, I second banana44: Write a book. You are my hero for today.

I'm amazed at how long this discussion has gone on about such an emotional subject with people still being mostly civil. Don't you people know this is the internet? Where's the flame war? Should we be comparing each other to Hitler by now?

"I have already explained why overpopulation is a strawman."

Yes, the issue of overpopulating the planet as a whole is a strawman.

Meanwhile, maybe the question of whether it's better for one's teenage daughter to

(a) give her one's time and attention
or
(b) give her a few baby and toddler siblings to raise while one spends one's own time and attention on her siblings age 7-10 instead

could be considered an issue of overpopulating the household.

"Also, in the two countries with the world's biggest populations, daughters are *dirt*."

Hey, that's in *some subcultures* of those two countries. What about the many parents in India and China who do love their daughters and raise them to thrive instead of just to clean up after in-laws?

"You don't get to have sex with other people whenever you want just because there's a biological drive involved, and I would support certain limits on your right to reproduce -- such as women who raped a 12-year-old boy losing their parental rights to a child they bore that way."

Very good points!

OK, I still want to read this book, but again with the privileged/white women's issues, like what to pay the nanny and being choosy about schools. Can we get some insight on how to actually be a feminist parent instead of just how to make feminist selections of outside parenting institutions? A lot of us don't have those options to begin with.

MiriamCT, thank you for saying that re: cover art. I had the same reaction. Haven't read the book but the bottle is NOT the international symbol for baby.