Kerry Howley

Bryan writes:

Kerry may be right that explicit advocacy of childlessness was higher in the ’70’s; I don’t know. But the Current Population Survey definitely shows a sharp rise in the fraction of women aged 40-44 who have zero children. That percentage was 10.2% in 1976, versus 19.3% in 2004. That doesn’t directly contradict Kerry’s 6% figure, but I’d say that my number is a better measure of the popularity of the “childless by choice” lifestyle. (In fact, since fertility treatments have made it a lot easier to get pregnant than it was in 1976, my figures understate the rise in the popularity of voluntary childlessness).

I think the discrepancy between the ever-married voluntary childless and the actual childless figures is important, but I don’t think Bryan’s number is obviously a better measure. (I’d like to see a number that includes both never-married and ever-married women who report being voluntarily childless.)

This study, though not ideal for various reasons, points out that the most commonly reported reason for childlessness among never married women is… never being married. I imagine (though I can’t be sure) that Bryan’s number captures a lot of women who would have liked to have children had they found a suitable partner while they were still of childbearing age, but did not. That will include women who married late, women in a series of unstable partnerships, etc.

Now Bryan might argue that those women are voluntarily childless, and were they aware of the benefits of breeding, they’d drop everything and sprint to the nearest sperm bank. Bryan doesn’t need to convince these women that children are worth having; he needs to convince them that children are worth having alone. I’m open to that, but it’s going to be a hard sell given that a lot of single women simply won’t be able to support themselves while taking months off of work. (I’d be the last person to criticize a single woman for having a child–I love sperm banks! But I do think we need to acknowledge that the calculus changes significantly when you subtract a partner.)

Two more quick points: Bryan remains convinced that women are hyper-cognizant of the arguments against having kids, but I’m skeptical that most women understand how severely having children will affect their future earnings. Everyone knows about the gender wage gap; how many people know that the gap between mothers and non-mothers is greater? Having children is such a strong default position that I suspect many of the arguments against pregnancy get short shrift.

My point about Shiloh and Suri (happy birthday, Suri!) was not simply that “some celebrities have children,” but that celebrity culture is positively dripping with pro-natalist messaging. E! News, which I obviously watch all the time, has a “baby boom” segment involving protracted fawning over celebrity issue. Pregnancy is glamorous! Baby bumps are sexy! We won’t need baby bonuses in this country for as long as we have Angelina Jolie.