Two is Enough: A Couple's Guide to Living Childless by Choice Review

I found an interview on aol.com with Laura S. Scott about couples who choose not to have children. My husband and I are one of those couples. From the short interview on the website, it seemed like she had a good perspective and had a good head on her shoulders, but still... I was reluctant to read the book.

I have found that many of these books about the subject of not having children are written almost entirely from an emotional perspective, and geared toward women only. They are usually about a) women who postponed childbearing too long and regretted it, or b) childless people who view themselves as a slighted minority, and are mad at society for it.

When I got this book, and started reading the introduction, I was pleased I bought it, and I knew it would be different from the other literature I had seen on the subject. This book was based on actual research, and while the author (who is herself childfree) does talk in numbers she freely admits that it is not devoid of emotional baggage. She started The Childless by Choice Project to better determine the reasons and ramifications of being childless by choice, whether single, in a partnership, or marriage. It did not include those that had intended to be parents, but due to circumstances outside of their control, could not, or those who did not feel they had free choice in their decisions to become parents.

There were 171 participants who were self-identified as voluntarily childless, from the ages of twenty-two to sixty-six, 71 per cent female and 29 per cent male. She was assured by a statistician that although this was not a big enough sampling to represent all people who are childless by choice, it was enough for a statistical analysis. I felt a lot better about reading a book with that kind of an introduction. I felt it was going to focus on the reasons behind voluntarily remaining childless without bashing people who decide to become parents. That's a really big issue for me: trying to be understood without valuing one choice over another. When I talk to people about my decision not to have children, I try to take the "different, not better" tack. As a note: that hardly ever works with people who don't know you well. 

I wanted to see if others were experiencing the societal implications that I was by being married and choosing not to have children. Two is Enough: A Couple's Guide to Living Childless by Choice made me feel better about my decision. I believe that not only will it help parents understand those who choose not to have children, but that it is an excellent tool to use if you are deciding whether to take the parent route or not. For the purposes of this book, there are four ways in which people become childless by choice. They are:

1. "Early Articulators" who are those who make the decision early in their lives that they will remain childless. ("Early" can mean from youth to the age of around twenty-five.) This made up the main body of the study.

2. "Postponers" who delayed having a family and remain childless. They were third in number.

3. "Acquiescers" who made the decision to remain childless because their partner did not want children. These were the second largest component of the group.

4. "Undecided" which were the smallest sample.

About the language used in the book... the terms "childless," and "childfree" are used interchangeably by the author, who does admit there are certain connotations associated with both terms. Personally, I do not use either of those terms. To me, the word "childless" seems like a woeful state. I really don't care for the term "childfree" at all. Maybe because I am an American, I associate freedom to be the opposite of oppression, and a state of being which all should aspire to. Declaring that I was childfree, would seem like a dig on those who chose to have children. I just say "we (or they) don't have children." The author and many of the participants don't feel that way, so they used that language, which I found to be acceptable. To make this more succinct, I will use those terms also.

There was another term I did not care for in here: "natocentric (also natocentrism)." Which would mean a culture centered on raising children and traditional model of the family unit. I prefer "family-centered" or pronatalist (also used in the text) which I guess would be the bubblegum versions of natocentric. While I feel there is certainly a social stigma involved with choosing a childless life, I do not feel that there is an active prejudice involving the childless by choice. I feel the term "natocentrism" elevates what is a choice to the level of words such as racism, or ageism, which are conditions that cannot be controlled. Some would argue that the choice was inevitable, but I think you know it's not the same as racism. That's a little melodramatic, as are some opinions here and there, but the bulk of it is solid.

Now for the good stuff. This book made me realize I was not alone, and that the experiences I have had and the road I traveled to get to the choice of not having children have been experienced by many others who made this choice. I saw my situation in almost every page.  There were interviews with some of the couples in this book. They were from different cultures, countries (all in North America), and upbringings. Even some of the results of this research surprised the author.

The research was over four years At the beginning, Tara and Patrick were undecided and Tara had even authored a paper about the childfree rationale and defended her choice not to have children. By the end of the book, we were celebrating Tara and Patrick's baby boy's first birthday. Carefully thinking about their choices ultimately landed them in the "we know that we are ready to take it on" camp.

When I got married, the first question was always "when are you going to have children?" Then "you'll change your mind." To "why didn't you change your mind?" Society does expect couples to want to have children. If you say you are choosing not to have children, people do think it's a little strange. The question in the sound bite is the first line in the book. Even after four years of research and being on the verge of writing a book and getting a documentary together, the question: "So, why did you get married if you didn't want kids?" still startled the author, and knocked her off her game a little. It isn't an easy question to answer (obviously if you need to write a book about it), and when it was asked to me, I have to say I did take offense at the implication that the only reason two people would get married would be to raise a family. "Well, then what do you two do then?" is another good one.

Parents may find the chapter entitled "Marginal and Misunderstood: The Myths and Realities of Living Childfree" chapter especially helpful. This whole book helps mitigate the number one reaction people get when they tell other people they don't want children - "you're selfish." Parents who have a curiosity about the voluntarily childless should really take a look at this book. Trust me... trying to explain why you don't want children to someone who has them is tricky. Everything everyone says seems like it has some sort of judgment attached to it. On this subject, both parties do seem to be instantly on the defensive. It's such a sensitive subject. I avoid it at all costs.

This book explores the motives for choosing childlessness, whether some people have a paternal/maternal instinct, the challenges in navigating a pronatalist world, the social isolation, the pressure from family, and other situations that make the choice not only difficult to make, but difficult to live with in some ways.

This book does not have a militant "anti-children" stance. It's pretty open and honest about all things, including the kinds of "regrets" felt by those who choose to be childless. 

My husband and I are in group #3 - the postponers, which I actually thought would rank up there higher. When we got married, we always had the idea we would have kids, then it was "Not now. Not now. Not now. Never." We realized we were always ambivalent about having children. I was always less inclined toward it, but we felt it was expected of us. My husband saw having a child as a sign of virility and keeping the family name going. As our circumstances changed, and his brother had a child, those didn't seem like such good reasons to have a child anymore.  We agonized over the decision and it took years to come to it, but it has been made. My "regret" is more of a curiosity and wondering what it would have been like. Our story (figuratively) is in there with tens of others.

I think this could spur on more couples to have the "do both of us want children?" talk that, shockingly enough, many couples do not have prior to marriage. Two is Enough is a tool, a salvation, and a comfort. Five stars.