"ugly fights usually increase" - Now there's a quantifiable, scientific answer. Kinda like a "Definite maybe". I believe they "usually" increase with immature parents. Parents who were not ready or responsible enough to have kids in the first place. If I remember correctly, one of the number one causes of arguments in a marriage is financial matters.
Actually, a scientific answer is never absolute. Nothing can be proven, only shown. Since every person, and thus every couple, is different, expecting the exact same results would be asinine. Statistical trends are all one can expect from science. As far as "maturity" goes, the literature indicates that it really does not play into the issue here, regardless of your opinion.
sleep deprivation? Most of the younger generation I see today would rather be up until 2:00 am - 4:00 am anyway. All of a sudden it's bad if the cause is a child instead of partying? I lived with more sleep deprivation in the military than my wife and I did raising our children.
You're using anecdotal evidence - just because you believe the "younger generation" is all the same, e.g. staying up all night partying, doesn't mean it's universally true.
little time for oneself? I would say that statement depends on the parents and whether they are both mature enough to raise the child. My wife and I did not suffer this problem. We also did not suffer from the "trapped at home" syndrome either. You're generally more limited on what you can do, where you can go and for how long you can be gone due to having pets more than children.
Again, anecdotal, but furthermore you bring "maturity" into account. If one would rather have more free time than a child, the mature thing to do would be
not to have a child. As far as pets being more limiting than children, this is a highly subjective statement; it all depends on what kind of pet you are referring to. I would argue that an adult housedog is much less limiting than a constantly screaming, pooping x-month old baby.
Yes, it's a challenge. It's not impossible. Life in general is a challenge. With the current state of the economy, it can be said that both partners having to work full time to make ends meet can be a challenge to find time to be together in ways that foster romance.
I agree with you there, although I think you're supporting my point. As you said earlier, money is a huge source of arguments. However, as studies have shown, parents end up spending approximately $117,000-250,000
per child from birth until age seventeen, not including any college fees. Not having children allows a couple to accumulate more money than a couple working the same jobs in the same economic situation, and thus gives more time for romance.
...my wife and I budgeted our money and lived within our means so only I had to work.
As I've said, I mean no disrespect toward those who want children. However, my own personal priorities (and my own definition of personal happiness) is quite the opposite from "[living] within [my] means." I want to take that extra $200,000 and buy a Ferrari.
Finally, I realize the "Stuck on the Mummy Track" article was written in Britain. As I'm sure you're aware, x10 has members from all different nations and walks of life - being childfree in Britain also deals with the added detail of discrimination in the workplace. Again, though, it all boils down to cold, hard statistics: childfree British women make more money than British mothers.
That being said, I truly appreciate you taking the time to read the articles. I should have plenty more in the near future, but if you don't mind, maybe you could post some research from your side of the fence to even it out? I'd like to read some of the "benefits" of having children so I can strengthen my own position.
