The Baby Trap

by Ellen Peck

Published in 1971 - This was one of the earliest books to advocate that being childfree was a valid option for a woman. Of course, back in 1971 there was no such word as childfree - she calls it being 'voluntary childless'. Some of her reasons include overpopulation, available resources for babies and children, and the state of marriage. But being written back then also means lots of stereotypes that would be considered sexist today. For example, one advantage of being childless is having more time for "pleasing your husband."

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Womens, Self Help

Paperback

First published April 1, 1971

About the author

American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist who with Shirley Radl in 1972 founded The National Organization for Non-Parents (N.O.N) in Palo Alto, CA, to advance the notion that men and women could choose not to have children – to be childfree. The organization later changed its name to The National Alliance for Optional Parenthood.

Reviews

[Carla JFCL · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is over 30 years old, and I read it about two years after it was published. I knew even then that I never wanted to have children, but I truly felt like I was the only woman in the world who felt that way; at least, I was the only woman I personally KNEW who felt that way. And, at that time, the pressure on married women to have children was relentless. This book was like a breath of fresh air for me, as it was literally the first time I knew there was at least one other woman out there in the world like me.

Now, of course, I know there were LOTS of women who felt the same way I did and many of us actually DID manage to resist the pressure and make it through menopause without giving birth. Hooray for us! Although this situation has changed to some extent, I think there is still a lot of pressure on women to reproduce ... and these days being married isn't even necessarily a prerequisite.

Anyway, I thought the book was well written, very interesting, and it brought some new concepts and arguments to me that proved very useful as I went through my childbearing years without bearing children.

[Gabrielė Bužinskaitė · Rating 2 out of 5]

Radical, deeply controversial, yet outdated book on how having children ruins women's lives.

The author focuses purely on the negative aspects of motherhood because, according to her, the media shows only the positive ones. So, sort of balancing it out. She is open about not including happy or hard-but-worth-it stories. I appreciate the honesty.

So how do babies trap women? Quite literally, inside at home. They can no longer travel, go out, or take time on their own unless someone takes the baby. Moreover, it traps them by limiting most, if not all, their daily activities around the baby. There is little to no time (or energy) left for creativity, intellectual growth, and hobbies.

The author's most controversial and distasteful point is that mothers become unattractive after birth. They lose their youthfulness, gain weight, and morph into messy, angry, torn-out creatures. Their husbands stop finding them attractive. So they cheat, leave, or stay out of pity.

It's funny to notice that despite being childless, youthful and fun, the author still didn't "keep" her husband. A few years after the book, they divorced. She never remarried, either.

Anyway, there were some valid points. Women who had little love during their childhoods may buy into the idea that having a child will fill their inner void and make up for the loss of affection in their lives. It often doesn't. As she says:

"Since in our culture, motherhood is widely believed to be the ultimate fulfilment, an unhappy girl is driven in that direction."

Fulfilment is different for everyone. Some mothers are deeply unfulfilled and hate every living hour of their lives because they are surrounded by screaming children, a house that is always messy, and never-ending domestic tasks on their shoulders with no rest. Often, mental issues are on top of it too. They aren't abnormal—not every woman is built to see it as rewarding. We can’t expect every woman to be a mother, or at least a happy one.

[Julene · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the books that changed my life. It was the book that made me think clearly about a woman's choice to have a child or not. After reading this book I made the decision not to have children in this lifetime.

[Sharon Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book shortly after it was published and it reinforced my decision not to have children. Fifty years later I am still glad I made that choice. Thank you, Ellen Peck!

[MrJimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This changed my life for the best outcome. Short of suicide, life in prison, going blind or into a wheelchair forever, having children will alter your life more than any other decision you will ever make. Going through that door will close so many many other doors in your life timeline. Forever.

I read it as a young person, when it was about the only book that made the case for not having a child. I already felt at sixteen, in a house with a new baby nephew, why in the world would I want to do this myself. I thought puppies, kittens, and baby monkeys were cute but not human babies with crap in the diapers, crying in the middle of the night, and all the other joys they bring. And I realized that the world did not need another child. National Geographic had an issue on overpopulation later that pointed out how having too many people on the planet already was at the root of so many problems we face. And I noticed that of family and family friends who were women, and had chosen to not have children, there was a common happiness to them, a spark, which almost all of the women who had had children did not. It was gone. Same in the men. And none regretted their decision. Marriage alone over the years can do the same thing to people, grind them down as it were. In short, I decided long ago to get a vasectomy and continue my interesting and varied life, and look back on it now, as a single elderly person, and say "Thank you." I was married, had several long relationships with women and loves, but refused to give in an be another man falling for "Nature's Grand Trick, which it plays upon every generation, via the male and female." It is probably the most powerful trick of all, because through thousands of years of evolution, each of us alive now is the product of a direct line, with no unbroken links such as myself, of a 100% chain of those who spawned children who lived and perpetrated the trick again.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a fascinating read, as it is a seminal work in the childfree movement. Some points that continue to be relevant: the environmental impact of reproduction, the disproportionate toll of childcare on female partners, the social isolation of stay at home mothers, and financial impacts of children. What I was not prepared for is that the underlying argument of this book is that you shouldn't have children because it will harm your heterosexual marriage. Saying "your husband will find you more interesting if you go get a job instead of staying home with some kids, so don't have kids" is a wild argument for anyone who isn't insanely privileged, and I'm sure it was even at the time. It in no way acknowledges the impact of child rearing on single parents, parents in queer relationships, or unmarried couples, or makes any argument as to why those individuals might benefit from not having children. I guess at the time, it was assumed that these people were not and should not be (there were literally laws against adoption by some of these individuals) parents. What's absent is what I think drives a lot of women in the contemporary childfree movement to opt out of child rearing - the disproportionate share of childcare that is the responsibility of female partners, the lack of affordable childcare resources, lack of paid parental leave, and living in a society that is not structured to help parents of young children to raise them. This book is implicitly geared to an audience of straight, white, educated, middle class women, and the reality of life for this cohort seems to be very different in 2020 than it was in 1971.

I think it's interesting that she included a chapter on what your birth control options are and how to obtain them - that is the main place I saw the influence of second wave feminism in play.

As a relationship guide, I do think advice about effective communication, finding common interests, and giving your partner your full attention are all valuable advice that resonates today. I think some of the Madonna-Whore dichotomy that she discusses (essentially, don't become the Madonna so that your husband will still think you're hot and won't cheat on you with his secretary) are better explored in Ester Perel's Mating in Captivity.

[Paula Dembeck · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a controversial best seller published in the early seventies at a time of great social change. The women’s movement was flourishing, more effective birth control methods were available and in many areas abortion was legal. In the past, having children had always limited a women’s careers, but that was no longer true. Women had more choices in life and a successful and long term career was now one of them.

The central point of the book was to convince women to make an informed choice about whether to start a family and not to follow the crowd and have children because that was what women were expected to do. She identifies all the cultural and societal pressures that push women in that direction and argues that now that the world has become increasingly overpopulated and lifestyles are so much more hectic and stressful, having children may not be the best choice. She also identifies the financial pressure having children puts on a family who may not have the resources to support them. And some couples may simply choose to spend the money they have another way.

Peck clearly voices the unspeakable and what is not socially acceptable to say out loud -- not everyone wants to be a parent. And she argues that this choice is not something bad that makes them something less than a “good person”. Women should not be criticized for making the choice to be childless.

A good read, especially for those who think they need children to have a happy life.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very little factual info, but if you're a hardcore childfree by choice person like me it's a fun read.

[Michelle Paulson-Jacobs · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful read on the childless by choice movement with, what would now be considered, historical perspectives some of which are outdated and some of which ring true 50+ years later. Ellen’s arguments against child-bearing are well thought out, complete, and, to some, offensive. One thing is for sure, if you find yourself upset after reading this…you’ve probably taken away your choice to be childless before you realized it was that, a choice.

[JH · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little problematic and dated? Sure! But also filled with good points and hilarious observations!

[Aster · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm glad I managed to read this book despite the negative reviews. Ellen Peck doesn't have a patriarchal agenda in this book like they express. It feels to me more like “Men aren’t encouraged to think about responsibility in the same way, so women have to guide them by pleasing them, which is much harder while raising a baby.” But I do wish she believed in men’s agency more.

Now that that's out of the way, the author sounded genuinely concerned for the environment. It makes sense when thinking about how society insists on ignoring our instincts, concerns, thoughts, responsibilities and opinions when it comes to having children.

Some of the reasons they only show parents on shows helped me see them in a new way, not just in terms of desire for conditioning but profit.

The conversations she imagined with pronatalists and childfree people were a bit triggering for me personally, but I pushed through. I found this quote the most eye-opening of all, showing how the world conditioned people into ignoring problems that adults face if there are children needing an extra disposable toy:

Everybody works for children; everybody accepts that the purpose of adults is to serve children, that if something is good for children, we will ask no questions of its effects on us.