COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

CHILDLESS MARRIAGES
Definition of Childlessness
- State of not having children
- Either by choice or circumstance
- TYPES:
- Involuntary
- Natural Sterility
- Social Sterility
- By Circumstance
- Voluntary
- By Choice
Early Views on Childlessness
1960s
● Social upheavals
● Emergence of counter-cultures = increasing pluralism of nontraditional family forms
(Macklin, 1980)
○ Puritanical restrictions on sexuality were modified/ignored
○ Conventional definitions of marriage were put into question
○ Traditional assumptions about sex roles were challenged
● Redefinition of nature and meaning of parenthood
● After centuries of pronatalism, the motherhood mandate could be successfully
challenged
● The separation of sex from procreation, made possible by birth control revolution, led to
the increased possibility of a separation of marriage from procreation

​Early 1970s
● Deliberate rejection of parenthood visibly became an alternative
● Neglect by social scientists of the study about voluntary childlessness reflected not only
their own biases, but also its lack of visibility and subsequent lack of public concern
(Veevers, 1973a)
● Before this, if its possibility were to be considered then it was assumed to be an atypical
pathology that affected only a few people
1970s
● Voluntary childlessness received increasing attention
● Appearing in national magazines
● Attention expanded concerning women's issues
● National Alliance for Optional Parenthood (NAOP) mounted a vigorous campaign for
childlessness as a viable alternative to conventional family life
● Voluntary childlessness emerged and appears now as a topic for debate and viable
alternative lifestyle

10-20 never have children

COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

Among women born at the turn of the century, Childlessness rates were remarkably high,
especially among Blacks
● Usually attributed to subfecundity
1920s and 1930s
● Low parity was facilitated by widespread use of contraception and abortion (Davis, 1979)
1950s and 1960s
● Childlessness reached an all time low (Mattessich, 1979)
● Incidence of childlessness = est. 5% of all married couples (Veevers, 1979)
● Declining fertility = increasing childlessness, certain to continue (Schapiro, 1980)
● Differentials in childlessness - mainly to choice rather than fertility problems (Freshknock
and Cutright, 1978)
● Den Bandt (1980)​ - all marriages contracted in
○ Netherlands 20% = childless
○ USA 18% (young single women) expect to remain childless

● Voluntary childlessness will continue to increase with increased contraceptive

sophistication and permissiveness
○ Millennium of pronatalism + continuing cultural endorsement of social
significance of parenthood = most people are unwilling to relinquish parenthood
as a life goal (Blake, 1979)
○ Benson's prediction: in the medium-range future, % of intentionally childless
couples will not likely go below 6% or above 17% of all married couples

1979 Marriage and Family Review

● 200+ articles on voluntary childlessness

1. What additional evidence has been forthcoming

2. How does this evidence suggest that the meaning of childlessness may be changing?

Deciding to be Childless
- Some decided before marriage
- Early articulators of anti natalist ideology
- ⅓ of all couple to ½ or more (Houseknecht, 1979a)
- Started marriage intending to have children but changed their minds
- Postponers
- Reasons for wanting to avoid parenthood are difficult to document = respondents cant
verbalize their motivations
- Initial reasons for deciding to postpone parenthood may be quite different from the
reasons for continuing to postpone it
- Recurrent themes:
- Children as costly in terms of their impact on the wife’s career and standard of
living
- Intolerance for debt (Polonko, 1980)
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

- Appreciation for the relative affluence of the two-income household

- Financial themes are often secondary to concern with freedom, independence
and pursuit of an adult-centered lifestyle = preclude na interest in children or
involvement of childish things
- Persons who value dyadic intensity of marriages may be reluctant to have it
diluted by the presence of children (Inazu, 1979; Levine, 1978; Polonko, 1980)
- Houseknecht (1979): decision process and factors may be different for early articulators
and postponers - former being more distant from parents and more achievement
oriented
Synthesis: Deciding to be Childless
- Some couple decide before marriage to be childless and some intended to have but
changed their minds
- Some are also postponers
- There are no consistent patterns when it comes to deciding to be childless but there are
recurrent themes
-Houseknecht (1979): decision process and factors may be different for early articulators
and postponers

Childlessness and Adjustment

- Beneficial or Deleterious effects of having/not having children
- Insufficient comparative data to formulate conclusions on the effects of parenthood or its
absence on psychological and social adjustment
1. Mental Health
○ Desire to avoid parenthood = psychological maladjustment and prodromal
indicator of various pathologies
○ Labeling theory: experience of being considered deviant SHOULD have negative
effects
■ No difference in the general adjustment of childless persons compared
with parents (Feldman, 1981; Jones, 1979; Levine, 1979; Magarick and
Brown, 1981)
○ Tiecholz (1998:1865) - popular and professional opinions holding voluntary
childlessness to be associated with:
■ Poor social adjustment
■ Poor mental health
■ Lack of appropriate sexual identity
- Do not receive support
- Persons opting for childlessness appear to be MORE
INDEPENDENT than others and generally well defended
against disapproval
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

○ Some theorists hold that: being deprived of responsibility for children and
interaction with them DETRACTS from the development of MATURATION of
adult personality
■ Heath (1978) - no difference in adolescence
- Difference on 11% of measures of adult personality
- fathers were more physically and psychologically
healthy, more mature, more competent
- However, heath did not differentiate men on marital status
- # of childless men was small, no distinction between
deliberate and biological childlessness
2. Androgynous Sex Roles
● Positive attitudes toward childlessness appear to be associated with
nontraditional sex role attitudes (Feldman, 1981; Polonko, 1980; Strong, 1978)
● Childless dyad facilitates the enactment of egalitarian roles
● However, childless couples are not clearly more egalitarian than parents
(Feldman, 1981)
● Some studies suggest childless women are more androgynous (Tiecholtz, 1978)
BUT failed to document a difference (Jones, 1979; Levine, 1979)
3. Divorce
● Whether or not marriages with children are intrinsically less prone to divorce than
those that are childless
● Little difference in the levels of infertility of divorced and still-married couples
(Gibson, 1980: 125)

4. Marital Morale
● Relationship of marital adjustment and parenthood remain contradictory
● Fail to find any systematic differences between parents and childless couples
● Study of fathers reported them more satisfied with their marriages and their
sexual relations than were non fathers (Health, 1978)
● Canadian study reported childless persons (esp childless wives) more likely than
parents to report their marriages to be very happy (Lupri and Friederes, 1981)
● Another Study found voluntarily childless wives have higher overall marital
adjustments scores than mothers = the relationship between childlessness and
enhanced marital adjustment satisfaction found by earlier investigators is not
spurious (Houseknecht, 1979b: 264)
5. Occupational Success
● Childless women have a competitive advantage over mothers = better educated
and more committed to their careers, continuous rather than interrupted
employment histories
● Absence of child care demands = relative surplus of time and energy - increased
productivity and recognition
● Childless are more productive (Hagens et al., 1978)
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

● Most clearly manifested at the upper levels of the most prestigious occupations
where virtuoso performance involves both exceptional demands and exceptional
rewards
6. Senescence
● Impact upon happiness and well-being in old age
● Singh and Williams (1981)
○ Childlessness among old persons = negative reports of satisfaction with
family life esp among women and persons over 70
○ Unclear if low satisfaction with family life is necessarily associated with
general dissatisfaction with one’s circumstances
● Beckman and Houser (1982)
○ While widowed, childless, older women had lower psychological
well-being than widowed mothers
○ Among married older women childlessness had no significant effects on
well-being
● Bachrach (1980)
○ Childless were more likely to live alone
● Kivett and Learner (1980)
○ Little association with the presence or absence of children and loneliness,
health or general quality of life for old persons
○ Although children are a sustaining force for many old persons = they are
not irreplaceable sources for everyone
○ Many elderly childless persons appear to manage effectively in isolated
situations or find alternative sources of interaction and support
○ Unfortunately, none of the studies of senescence have differentiated the
childless from the subfecund

Social Meanings of Childlessness: Assessing Pronatalism

● Early discussions
○ American society was pronatalist
○ Replete with evidence illustrating pejorative views of non-parenthood
○ Deliberately childless = maladjusted, immature, unhappy, unfulfilled, lonely, etc.
● Gallup polls reveal: Virtual Unanimity of opinion that ​childlessness is disadvantageous
especially for men (Blake, 1979: 249)
○ Explicit rejection of non-parenthood = allows more interesting, glamorous and
personally satisfying experience
○ Indirect costs of children are viewed as unimportant (Blake and del Pinal, 1981)
○ 11% adults consider that direct costs outweigh the benefits (Blake and del Pinas,
1981)
● Project techniques (Peterson, 1975, 1977) or on Surveys (Bierkens et al., 1978) -
negative image of childless persons
○ Those who opt out of parenthood are perceived to experience negative pressures
and rejection = likely to change their minds
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

○ Stereotype of childless women = less sensitive and loving, less typical of

American women, more active in women's liberation, less happy, less well
adjusted, less likely to get along with her parents and less likely to be happy and
satisfied at age 65
○ Childless men = more unfavorable than those of women
○ Contravention of the expected double standard
○ Comparing images of voluntary and involuntary childlessness (Calhoun and
Seby, 1980):
○ Deliberately childless wives = less well liked, less well adjusted
■ Women are judged in terms of the reasons for their actions
○ Deliberately childless husbands = less psychologically disturbed than non fathers
■ Men are judged in terms of effects of their actions
○ Calhoun and Selby did not find childlessness perceived as related to divorce
● Results must be treated with caution, both are based on small groups of undergraduates

Existence of pronatalism as a cultural theme

● What are the social characteristics that are associated with being more or less
pronatalistic in one's views?
= perception that costs of children exceed the benefits is more likely among nonparents, no
religion and live in large cities (Blake and del Pinas, 1981)
= data do not vary significantly according to the major social and demographic characteristics
= young women are more concerned with the costs of children than young men
= 25-34, men are more antinatalist
= men and women may be "out of sync" because male support for non parenthood has been
related to anti establishment ideology - becoming more conservative
= female support has been related to feminism w/c is accelerating

● Assessment of the costs and benefits of parenthood seems more closely related to sex
role attitudes and anxieties
● Major component of anti natalist views:
○ Suspicion that parenthood is a potent force for inducing conventional sex roles in
marriage (B&dP)
Synthesis: Social Meanings of Childlessness: Assessing Pronatalism
- Early discussions on the subject of childlessness began with the assumption that
American society was basically pronatalist
- Gallup polls reveals a “virtual unanimity” of opinion about childlessness (Blake, 1979:
249)
- Studies based on projective techniques (Peterson, 1975, 1977) or on surveys (Bierkens
et al., 1978) establish a negative image of childless persons but these results must be
treated with caution because both are based on small groups of undergraduates
Existence of pronatalism as a cultural theme
- What are the social characteristics that are associated with being more or less
pronatalistic in one’s views?
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

● Perception about the costs of children whereas men are being more
conservative while feminism is rising for the sake of women

Demographic Correlates of Childlessness

● Characteristics of voluntarily childless couples are similar to persons who have only one
or two children
● Childless couples are more likely to live in large urban areas
● Childlessness
○ Strongly associated with relatively late age at first marriage
○ Childless wives tend to have above-average education (often university degrees)
○ Associated with low religiosity, measured by self-designation as an atheist or
agnostic , absence of religious affiliation or irregular church attendance
○ Willingness to stay childless - relation to parental rejection and dissatisfaction
(Strong, 1978)
1. Childless come from conventional family backgrounds without distinctive
traits (Feldman, 1981; Levine, 1979; Magarick and Brown, 1981)
2. Common among only children (Baum and Cope, 1980; Deven and Last,
1980)
● Small family of origin: associated with low fertility aspirations, controlling for this variable
may mitigate the effects of birth order (Stokes and Johnson, 1979)
● Childless women are 2-3 times as likely to be gainfully employed (Grindstaff et al., 1981:
344)
○ Tend to show above average career commitment
○ High-status occupations in management and the professions
○ Earn relatively high incomes
○ Total family income is especially high
○ Some don't want children in order to:
1. Pursue a career
2. Involved in career but don’t desire for parenthood
● Key to predicting future trends in childlessness may be the labor force opportunities that
become available (Freshknock and Cutright, 1978), especially prestigious, well-paid jobs
(Knox, 1980: 148)
● However, there are still women that neither work nor have children (Mattessich, 1979)
● Increase in women’s labor force participation = General decline in fertility
● In the foreseeable future, fertility in general is expected to remain low, and childlessness
is expected to become an increasingly acceptable option. Which implies that the
demographic profile of the voluntarily childless will become less distinctly different from
the profile of married couples who plan to have small families
Synthesis: Demographic Correlates of Childlessness
- Similar to persons who have only one or two children and are more likely to live in large
urban areas
- Age
- Education
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

- Religion
- Employment
Childlessness and Social Policy
● Pronatalism
○ Important not to become hypersensitive to it
● Platitudes and policies supporting explicitly anti natalist are as inappropriate as
pronatalist manifestos
● What is desired is a situation that would maximize individual options by outlining pros
and cons of parenthood and leaving couples to their own decisions in light of their other
priorities
● Increasingly laissez-faire attitude toward parenthood -> achieved as childless marriages
become more acceptable (den Bandt, 1989; Knox, 1980)
○ Lay self-help books offer guidance for the couple considering remaining childless
(Bombardieri, 1971; Burgwyn, 1981; Harper, 1980; Shealy and Shealy, 1981)
○ Educators are beginning to present childlessness as a legitimate choice
(Patterson and Defrain, 1981)
○ Advocating the formation of support groups (Prochaska and Coyle, 1979)
○ Medical profession - becoming more cognizant of its role in facilitating the
childless option = special attention being directed toward the right of childless
men and women, married or not, to elect to be sterilized (Rosenthal, 1989)
● Barnett: appropriateness of child exclusion policies in housing
○ Considerations in the promotion of adults-only apartments and condominiums as
protection of the childfree lifestyle, concomitant increase in individual freedom
and creativity and promotion of population control
● Although pronatalist pressures still exist = increasing sympathy for the idea that
parenthood should be the result of conscious planning rather than of sexual
happenstance
● Childfree Movement
○ Began as nascent social movements with the upper middle class
○ General decline in fertility, disparaging concern with childlessness is less
vehement and pejorative than it once was
○ Once free choice is offered, it is inevitable that the number of persons opting for it
will increase
○ What began as an option for elite career women may filter down to become a
viable option at all socioeconomic levels

Childlessness in the Philippines

- (2000 Census) 51% of women belonged to the reproductive age group (15-49)
- Voluntary childlessness in PH is rare
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

- On average, Filipino women give birth to less than one child in their early 20s
- Why Filipinos do not resort to childless marriages
- Pressure from older family members
- It is considered a stage in life to build a family and have kids
- Life is more fulfilling with kids
- Having kids will bring you happiness
- Your kids will take care of you when you get old
- It’s a wife’s duty to produce offsprings for her husband
- Men are considered weak if they can’t impregnate their wives
- Santos (2016)
- Economic: Some feel they do not have enough financial capacity to properly
raise children.
- Emotional preparedness: Raising children requires a high level of maturity,
alongside certain skill sets, and not everyone has these.
- Priorities: People's priorities differ. Some may prioritize their careers, education,
travel, or advocacies, leaving little to no time to raise children. While priorities
may shift through time, the decision not to have kids belongs to that person and
no one else.
- Not wanting to add to the 100 million population of the Philippines: Which is why
some would also prefer to adopt kids rather than have their own.
- For any other reason the individual or the couple may have.
- Caguindangan, Medijar and Tagalog (2017)
- They see themselves as family
- Childfree couples already consider their relationship as a family and their
definition of family is different. For them a family is the people they
choose to be with.
- Having children is not a necessity in marriages.
- Having no children does not make marriage as less worthy
- They feel they are enough for each other
- See themselves as a family of 2
- Negative perception on pregnancy and parenting
- They don’t want to experience pregnancy and parenting
- See it as too risky and costly / expensive
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

- Too much time and effort

- Birth of baby is also the birth of responsibilities - they see from their
parents and people around them
- See children as burden
- Children will block you from doing things
- They still want the freedom to do things they want
- Means having more time for each other
- Means extra budget for them
- They can prioritize their relationship and self-growth
- Seeing the Philippines as unsuitable place for having a child
- Not enough jobs that pay well, and they have to be financially able to
raise a child
- Our educational system is not that good - good schools / universities are
expensive and there are no allowances
- They think of the struggles they are experiencing in this country
- Isla (2016) - Pregnancy-childbirth costs
- Normal pregnancy: 26k-124k
- C-section: 91k-194k
- King (2010) - people who do not have children are more successful

Implications for Future Research

● The distinction between voluntary and involuntary childlessness is of paramount
importance and must be scrupulously incorporated into every research design
● Choice may well be one of the most significant determinants of satisfaction with a
particular lifestyle
● Couple who initially intended to postpone childbearing may find that they have become
subfecund or even sterile
● Conclusive studies of voluntary childlessness should compare persons who elected to
stay childless with those who planned to have children (Feldman, 1981; Jones, 1979;
Levine, 1979)
● Broaden the base of inquiry to include husbands
● Addressing the issue of fertility should not be based on the individual rather on the
couple which could prove the most relevant unit of analysis (Insazu, 1979)
● It would also be desirable to extend the study of childlessness to include persons, whose
decision to not may or may not interface with their decision not to procreate
● Distinguish among kinds of couples:
○ Childless wives in dual-career marriages vs with working mothers (Houseknecht,
1979b; Jones, 1979)
○ Houseknecht’s Typology (1979a): compare persons who are early articulators
with persons who are postponers
● Deliberate childlessness still clearly violates the dominant family and fertility mores of our
culture, and persons opting for it are still stereotyped and sanctioned for their unusual
preferences
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

● Voluntary childlessness has increased both in prevalence and in visibility, and it is clear
that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, perhaps to s maximum rate of 15
or 20 percent of all married couples

References:
https://psa.gov.ph/content/women-15-49-years-old
https://www.academia.edu/36096261/We_are_Not_Kidding_A_Qualitative_Study_on_Married_
Couples_Decision_to_Remain_Childfree
King, K. (2010). The Generativity and Mental Health of Childless Adults
Isla, R. (2016, June 28). Costs of Having a Baby in the Philippines.
https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/gender-issues/93347-podcast-women-no-kids
COVAR, LEE, PEPITO

HANDOUT