Karen Fettell
The issue of declining birth rates is a hot topic in many western nations and has led many authors to search for cause, effect and remedy. In her book, What, no baby?, Leslie Cannold argues that women are not reluctant to have children but have simply 'lost the freedom to mother'. Her argument rests on the idea that many women deemed to have exercised their 'choice' to remain childless have actually been thwarted in their parenting plans by uncooperative partners (or the lack of a partner), employers and a society lacking adequate resources and support. While espousing many ideas that would typically be considered feminist (such as that men should play an equal role in the care of offspring), Cannold denies that circumstantial childlessness is a feminist issue, declaring that it should be solved by a new movement she terms the 'parents movement'.
Cannold begins her argument by differentiating between those women she sees as actually having chosen to remain childless, those who have been thwarted in their plans and those who have simply decided to play it by ear. This idea that women without children may not have chosen to be so is quite controversial. It challenges the assumption generally held by society that women who want children will have them and hence any woman who remains childless has chosen to be so. Cannold outlines the three fertility problems she believes have been responsible for loss of the freedom to mother and the solutions she feels would be most successful. She also highlights an issue confronting many men and women who favour rationality above emotion--who, after a rational consideration of the cost, effort involved and detriment to career and independence, would decide to have children? This question has its own answer in the last chapter, which is dedicated to explaining that the choice to raise children need not be explained in a rational way, nor should it be considered a selfish choice.
The first fertility issue discussed is a myth that Cannold seeks to debunk. The myth that 'good mother', who is 'at home by 3:30 to meet their little angels after school… and to never, ever lose their temper no matter what the little angels do or say' (133) is thought by Cannold to have a large impact on the decision by many 'waiters and watchers' (those who decide to play it by ear) not to have children. Much is made of the continuing belief in this myth and Cannold points to her interviews with a group of women (the reader never learns the size, full age range of the group or a list of questions asked) as evidence. However she provides no evidence that the next generation of women who may produce children believe in this idea of the 'good' mother, and as most of this next generation grew up with working parents, it is likely that they do not.
Cannold also relies on Marxist ideas of class when dismissing the idea that women should be stay-at-home mums and men be the breadwinning fathers. She points to the Howard Government’s approval of a report which supported the middle class women who could afford to be full time mothers while 'defining single women with school age children as dole bludgers' as indication that idea that all women have the choice to be stay-at-home mums is 'classist waffle' (167).
The book then moves on to 'The Trouble with Men', where Cannold’s feminist ideals come to the forefront. She seeks to ensure that men are held to account for declining birth rates, writing that 'if fertile women are to blame for their unwanted childlessness, then fertile men are just as responsible' (236). The chapter reproaches men for their reluctance to commit to a relationship and parenthood (or at least to do it within a time which fits in with a woman's biological clock) yet applauds them for refusing to follow the stereotype of breadwinner. Cannold clearly wishes to demonstrate that the reluctance of men to play an equal role in parenthood is a major cause of the declining birth rate.
The final issue addressed by Cannold seems the most relevant and in its discussion men receive their best treatment. She feels that the oppression of working mums and dads makes it too difficult for couples to have children or to have as many as they would wish. One of her major arguments (which she admits is controversial) is that the existence of 'traditional' families (where the mother stays home to care for the children) prevents widespread change within society towards family friendly policies and practices. This is where Cannold acknowledges that many men who wish to be more involved in parenting are prevented from doing so. One of her major criticisms of the 'traditional' family is that it ties the male into a role that 'precludes him from participating in… the life of his own family' (264). Her puzzling position on men can be summed up by one of the headings: 'men are the problem, but they've got problems, too' (290). Cannold argues that the continuing expectations on workers to 'put the company first' will only contribute further to circumstantial childlessness and that practical solutions are required to reverse the trend.
In discussing the measures she feels would be most successful in preventing circumstantial childlessness, Cannold first states that 'real solutions are radical' (298), a reflection of the controversial ideas in the book. Her solution has its foundations in the introduction of a 30 hour working week. This idea is supported with evidence from France (where a 35 hour week was introduced in 2001) which indicates an improvement in quality of life. Cannold implies that such a system would persuade the 'waiters and watchers' that parenthood is a possibility and not a problem. Cannold feels that the shorter working week should be just one element of the solution, calling for tax and special employment benefits for parents. While these ideas may be successful, the majority are unfortunately so far removed from traditional conservative ideas that it is likely they will never be seriously considered by current Australian policy makers.
Due to the recency of the concept of circumstantial childlessness, the author obviously felt she needed to focus on establishing that it does exist and explaining its causes rather than suggesting solutions to it. This is a major deficiency of the piece as it appears that the book is simply a way for the author to lay blame. However the majority of her points are valid and raise questions as to whether Australia will succeed in reversing the current birth trend.
While its feminist overtones and controversial ideas may discourage some readers, What, no Baby? raises legitimate questions about the sustainability of our population and the stereotypes that remain about childless women. Despite its seemingly hostile perspective towards men, the book deserves recognition for attempting to challenge some of the core ideals of modern society.