Assumptions

After reading this infuriating article earlier, I was thinking about the various cultural assumptions that are made in it.  Our cultural assumptions influence the questions we ask, as well as our preconceived ideas of how things should be.  In fact, reading through the article reminded me of an article written by James McKenna, who mentioned that researchers never question whether it's safe for an infant to sleep alone in a crib, because our cultural assumption is that solitary sleep is the norm, even though it isn't the norm for much of the world, or for much of history.

So, what are the assumptions made in this article?  The first one that comes to mind is the assumption that children are necessarily expensive and a drain on resources.  I'm sure this assumption is true, if parents also buy into the cultural assumptions/expectations about what is needed for a child.  In having children, I've found that the majority of "must-have" items aren't actually necessary at all.  For example, that Moses basket? Didn't need it.  The crib? It was used for storing laundry and/or a cat bed (Firebert quite enjoyed sleeping there).  The cot-top changer?  Not actually necessary; we used it with Kieran, but not really with Charlotte, opting instead to just change her on the floor. Speaking of changing, cloth diapers save a lot, and going with EC would save even more.  I just haven't quite decided if I'm crunchy enough for that step yet, though I keep thinking about it.  Bottles?  Who needs them - breastfeeding is free.  Baby food?  Why not just give the baby the food you're eating?  Stroller?  It can come in handy, I suppose, but babywearing works, too.  eBay and Freecycle are great places to find clothes and toys, and they don't really need many toys anyway.  My kids quite enjoy the boxes in which toys come, sometimes more than they enjoy the actual toys.  Even more than that, children can teach us to live in a more economical and "greener" manner.

The other major assumption made is that parents aren't as happy as child-free people.  I think the larger assumption here is that we should be able to do what we want, when we want, without worrying about others.  Indeed, this is what society tells us so often, that it's about us, and we need the newest things, or to go to the best parties, or whatever, in order to be truly happy.  Poppycock.  While it may seem paradoxical, and it goes against societal expectations, sacrificing our own wishes to care for another is profoundly rewarding.  True, there are times when parenting can be infuriating, such as when one child is throwing a tantrum and another is teething or ill, but those days don't last forever, and they're very much outweighed by the hugs and kisses and "I love you"s.

This leads to another problem with the article's analysis of happiness: how do you define and quantify happiness?  I'd venture to say that parents and child-free couples might have different definitions.  This doesn't mean parents aren't as happy, though.

Finally, perhaps some of this comes from the expectations that are put on parents in our society.  In the US, mothers are expected to return to work around 6-8 weeks postnatal, a stress I cannot fathom (yes, I returned to my PhD and part-time job at that time, but I was able to bring my son with me; I ended up having a panic attack anyway from the stress of my required tasks competing with my desires to be a SAHM).  Mothers are expected to be able to juggle a promising career and childcare and caring for the household.  Furthermore, parents are expected to do all these things without the benefit of extended family.  I can well imagine how all these expectations, in addition to the unrealistic expectations of what our children should be doing and when (such as when they should sleep through the night) and what each child should have, can lead to depression.  Again, I don't think this indicates that being a parent causes depression, but perhaps societal/cultural expectations for parents contribute to that.