This book is organized chiefly around the causes of childlessness among contemporary American women. Cain identifies ten categories: those who rarely doubt their decision; the “religiously childless”, e.g. nuns; environmentalists committed to zero population growth; lesbians; the medically impaired; the infertile; women whose husbands do not want children; single women who choose not to raise children on their own; women whose upbringings “nullified their desire for mothering”; and women who “find their lives so fulfilling… there is simply no need for a child”. In addition Cain alludes to those who can’t afford children and to those who feel they have no energy to raise children. She might also mention procrastinators and those who wish to avoid the weight gain, pain, and health risks associated with pregnancy/childbirth.

Cain’s prose is clear, but her analytic framework is open to many challenges. For example, referring to women with “nullified desires” implies that women innately desire to mother. It would be less tendentious to refer simply to those without the desire.

An alternative sort of analysis would focus on the causes of having children rather than not. (Indeed, not having children is the default status — everyone starts off that way, and it is only by actively doing something that one thereby acquires children.) Reproductive categories might include the following: breeders, who have children as an unintended consequence of having sex; aesthetes, who enjoy the bodily sensations of nursing or of touching and looking at children; conformists, who have children in order to satisfy spousal/parental/societal expectations; manipulators, who wish to trap a husband; romantics, who wish to share in a creative project with their mate; procreators, who observe religious imperatives; replicators, who seek to pass on their names/genes/values, or to relive their own childhood by creating a “mini-me”; the lonely and bored, who see childcare as an easy way to occupy themselves; nurturers, who derive pleasure in caring for the helpless; investors, who seek to obligate others to care for them in old age; those who feel more masculine/feminine, more potent, or even more godlike by creating and controlling others; and the curious, who simply wonder what having a child is like.

Cain’s work belongs to the genre of literary case studies. As she explains each reason for being childless, she describes and quotes subjects she has interviewed. This makes for a lively read, but it invites criticism. First — typical of the entire genre — it is statistically flawed. For example, Cain reports that “most” of her childless subjects are happy. But to evaluate the significance of this claim we need to know exactly how Cain’s figure compares against the baseline rate of parents who are happy. Instead Cain writes irrelevantly, as when she introduces one of her subjects: A tiny woman, Eva sits cross-legged in a chair, taut like a spring. Even her curly hair and lively eyes give the feeling she might bounce up at any moment. Her hands, which seem to reinforce her thoughts, are in constant motion. [98] Relatedly, Cain neglects to specify her data pool other than to say that it’s based on “more than” 100 interviews with pseudonymous women. How did she find her subjects? What interview protocol did she follow? What is the demographic break-down of the subjects, e.g. age, ethnicity, religion, income? I get the impression that Cain’s subjects are all white-collar — which restricts the interest of her findings, as does the fact that the subjects are all women.

Cain’s work does cite some interesting information. One example is a (self-selecting) survey taken by Ann Landers in 1975: “If you had to do it over again, would you have children?” 70% of the respondents replied no!

In the last substantive chapter, Cain reports on the consequences and politics of being childless. Benefits include: the latitude to develop their careers fully; the intimacy they share with their mates; the lack of financial, emotional, and time pressures; the freedom from fear of being a bad mother or having a difficult child; the spiritual growth that takes place thanks to the availability of unfettered time; the relief of not having to raise a loved one in a world some view as too violent or too selfish. [142] Surprisingly, the idea that the childless are lonelier in old age than parents “is negated by every study ever done” (143)… As for disadvantages, childless employees receive fewer benefits (154), their employers often expect them to take up the slack of those with children (155), they must pay taxes for “schools they will never utilize”, they subsidize income tax credits given for children (158), and those who wish to live in quiet neighborhoods are generally forbidden by federal law from renting in adult-only complexes (160). Cain might add that many businesses charge more for adults than for children even when it’s for the same goods/services.

Cain sometimes exaggerates and is careless with figures. For example, she claims that 41% of women age 46 have never had a child (103), 42% of all women are childless (141), and 53% of all married couples in 1996 were childless (113); but these figures are not realistically consistent.

Cain, a mother, is sympathetic to every viewpoint she reports, be it pro-natalist or anti-natalist, and as a consequence it is easy for the reader to like her. Her book is easy to read, it reports real voices of childless women, and it provides a useful and extensive bibliography. Unfortunately it is not as thoughtful or as careful as any of the books in her bibliography that I have looked at.

© Paul Saka 2001

(Further information on childlessness can be found at the ChildFree web site.) Paul Saka is currently a professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York; starting in fall of 2001 he will be at the University of Houston. You might say he has one child: his inner child.

Categories: General