The rise of the DINKs
Somewhere we got to thinking having kids was a burden.
I was born as the second child of three - all boys, my poor mom - at the tail end of the Baby Boom. The youngest of us turn sixty this year, which says a lot about the impact of the outsized generation we’re placed into. (However, I personally ID much more with Gen X, which began a few months later, in attitude.)
My eight-year-old mind obviously couldn’t fathom this, but in January, 1973 the Supreme Court decided abortion was the law of the land, and that women could terminate a pregnancy they deemed inconvenient to them. Sometimes they were pressured to by the baby daddy, who didn’t want the burden of a child, but the ultimate decision and procedure affected the would-be mother.
So that was a big difference in life, although I didn’t understand it at the time because most of my playmates were also part of a larger family - as we did, they had siblings that sometimes ignored us and wanted us to go away (the older ones) or wanted to butt in and be pests (the younger ones.) Oftentimes the mom of the house (who was generally home while the dad worked) made us include the baby brother or sister, much to our chagrin. But there were plenty of us around to play ball at the park, be the local Cub Scout pack, or just hang out to “go out and get the stink blown off ya” as my dad would say on the Saturdays he was home. (Sundays we went to my grandparents’ house.)
Yet as I grew to adulthood, I began to encounter couples in my peer group and thereabouts who didn’t have children, for various reasons. In most cases, thanks to the advent of birth control, they were simply waiting for a more economically advantageous time to do so, like when they bought their first starter home. Eventually they would start a family and have a child or two, which seemed to be the new ideal.
But there were some among us who just said to themselves, “the heck with having a kid.” They were too busy starting their careers and didn’t want to sacrifice those to be parents (this was particularly true of the women who were finally getting a management foothold in the working world), or they just had been turned off on the idea of having crumbcrunchers altogether because it would “save the planet” or “we don’t want to subject a child to this cruel world.” Eventually the sociologists or whoever comes up with these things gave this group a name: DINKs, which is an acronym for “double income, no kids.” Gone were the days when having a large family was a necessity because the family farm or business needed helpers; the advent of labor-saving devices meant fewer mouths to feed and raise were required.
And it’s true that having no kids and banking serious coin is advantageous for several things: you can buy a bigger, nicer house and better grade of cars, and have all the electronics and gadgets you want. You have more free time to go on exotic vacations, and instead of kids, your “children” are the cats and dogs you can dote upon but leave in a kennel while you go enjoy the experience of life.
But while those generations of yore who took the advice of Genesis 1:28 were able to be supported in their old age by the children who had taken over the family farm or business, hanging on as wizened advisors who could no longer do the arduous labor required with their broken-down bodies, those DINKs are now getting old and realizing they have no legacy or support system. They also now realize too late that you can’t take “stuff” with you as they allowed their fruitfulness to wither in the name of career advancement or freedom from parental responsibility.
Perhaps the advent of birth control, either by contraception or abortion, and the worship of “stuff” is to blame, but the developed world has an ongoing problem: there aren’t enough being born here to replace us. In much of the developed world, the birthrate is about 1.5 children, well below the replacement rate of 2.3 births per mother. Right now we’re filling in the gap with migration of “excess” children from undeveloped parts of the world (where birthrates can exceed 6 children per mother) to our areas. (The U.S. is at 1.7, meaning our population is growing from immigration and not birthrate.) But as contraception and the Western mindset of curtailing population growth to save Mother Gaia takes hold there, their birthrates will begin to fall as well.
Fortunately, there are people who get it and now don’t mind having larger families. I look at our church, where there are a number of young couples who are towing three or four kids to Sunday services: sure, they may have a good support system of parents willing to watch the grandkids while they work and have more modest houses and cars, but they are watching their kids make memories that the latest in electronics just can’t match. And the worst thing to those on the Left: they’re scrimping and saving to send their children to a private, Christian school where they’re not indoctrinated with the latest secular trend, such as Pride Month. (Genesis 9:13-17 tells us what the rainbow is really about - and it’s not the Rainbow Mafia.)
This isn’t meant to impugn those who had one or no kids because their bodies wouldn’t allow for more (or any): I’m very familiar with that circumstance. Sometimes those who try cannot be rewarded, and don’t have the means to get that sort of help. Given the propensity of certain states to even deny the opportunity to be foster parents unless you believe the lie that gender is fluid, the state seems to be encouraging this low birthrate trend, too.
But just as we worked to get Roe v. Wade overturned, we can also turn hearts away from the secular and toward the sacred for our upcoming generations by encouraging larger families and creating the conditions by which they can thrive.
Late edit: An interesting poll from Pew Research done in April shows a political split in the numbers. Maybe that’s why Democrats want unfettered immigration?
In the meantime, though, you can Buy Me a Coffee, since I have a page there now. You can also like and restack this piece so others can enjoy it.
I have spent many years trying to figure out what went wrong with families. My own family is a fitting example of children being a burden, both my parents were victims of neglect, physical and emotional abuse and incest and sexual abuse. They carried a huge load of pain and rage and made every effort to empty that bottomless pit onto their children. Two suicides and three childless siblings later; the damage done but not over. My childhood peers were children of young men and women who survived World War and concentration camps. Did they do the best they could? I cannot judge that. What I have observed is that they continued to strive. As humans we have forgotten the face of our heavenly Father but he is persistant