What do you think?
Rate this book
What Are Children For?: On Ambivalence and Choice
This program features multicast narration.
A modern argument, grounded in philosophy and cultural criticism, about childbearing ambivalence and how to overcome it
Becoming a parent, once the expected outcome of adulthood, is increasingly viewed as a potential threat to the most basic goals and aspirations of modern life. We seek self-fulfillment; we want to liberate women to find meaning and self-worth outside the home; and we wish to protect the planet from the ravages of climate change. Weighing the pros and cons of having children, millennials and zoomers are finding it increasingly difficult to judge in its favor.
With lucid argument and passionate prose, Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman offer the guidance necessary to move beyond uncertainty. The decision whether or not to have children, they argue, is not just a women’s issue but a basic human one. And at a time when climate change worries threaten the very legitimacy of human reproduction, Berg and Wiseman conclude that neither our personal nor collective failures ought to prevent us from embracing the fundamental goodness of human life—not only in the present but, in choosing to have children, in the future.
A Macmillan Audio production from St. Martin’s Press.
A modern argument, grounded in philosophy and cultural criticism, about childbearing ambivalence and how to overcome it
Becoming a parent, once the expected outcome of adulthood, is increasingly viewed as a potential threat to the most basic goals and aspirations of modern life. We seek self-fulfillment; we want to liberate women to find meaning and self-worth outside the home; and we wish to protect the planet from the ravages of climate change. Weighing the pros and cons of having children, millennials and zoomers are finding it increasingly difficult to judge in its favor.
With lucid argument and passionate prose, Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman offer the guidance necessary to move beyond uncertainty. The decision whether or not to have children, they argue, is not just a women’s issue but a basic human one. And at a time when climate change worries threaten the very legitimacy of human reproduction, Berg and Wiseman conclude that neither our personal nor collective failures ought to prevent us from embracing the fundamental goodness of human life—not only in the present but, in choosing to have children, in the future.
A Macmillan Audio production from St. Martin’s Press.
9 pages, Audible Audio
Published June 10, 2024
103 people are currently reading
4966 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
August 3, 2024
1) I don't think Berg & Wiseman are nearly as "ambivalent" as the title seems. Reading as someone who probably wants children, this book has a pretty transparent tilt—to rebut common arguments against having children. I don't think they're secret pronatalists in disguise, but the book feels driven by the authors' frustration with the contemporary antinatalist turn. (Fine, but readers will be happier adjusting their expectations.)
2) Still, I was compelled by some of their arguments—in particular, that a hyper-individualistic, self-conscious society takes a stressful and unhelpful approach to the "motherhood decision." I was reminded of Agnes Callard's Aspiration, where she explains motherhood not as making a rational decision under one's current values framework, but deciding to pursue a new identity and value-set altogether, even if that experience remains unavoidably opaque to the present self.
3) I really loved the sections analyzing motherhood literature as a genre (especially Chapter 3), e.g. from 19th-century comedies of manners to 21st century "motherhood ambivalence" autofiction (which I was glad to see them critique). From Ferrante's "The Lost Daughter" to Heti's "Motherhood" to Peters's "Detransition, Baby," Berg & Wiseman track literary representations of ambivalent mothers alongside shifts in the status of women broadly. You can really drive yourself crazy ruminating over artistic identity in a room of one's own.
4) Chapters 1 and 2 felt less novel. Their survey work seemed to bias heavily toward highly educated, "professional class" women, and the "feminism through the ages" review was pretty basic. I also didn't especially understand their handling of climate doomers (which I find silly as a reason against kids anyway)—the value of everyday activities like activism, art appreciation, and friendship somehow requires the continuation of future generations?
5) The book ends on a personal note rather than a philosophical one. Berg's concluding essay on her own motherhood experience is heartfelt, witty, loving, and real—her sudden, welcome shift in tone completely supplanted the impression of everything before it. Ah, so this is what you really wanted to say all along! I remember thinking. Never mind the theory: faith and feeling is where these decisions lie.
2) Still, I was compelled by some of their arguments—in particular, that a hyper-individualistic, self-conscious society takes a stressful and unhelpful approach to the "motherhood decision." I was reminded of Agnes Callard's Aspiration, where she explains motherhood not as making a rational decision under one's current values framework, but deciding to pursue a new identity and value-set altogether, even if that experience remains unavoidably opaque to the present self.
3) I really loved the sections analyzing motherhood literature as a genre (especially Chapter 3), e.g. from 19th-century comedies of manners to 21st century "motherhood ambivalence" autofiction (which I was glad to see them critique). From Ferrante's "The Lost Daughter" to Heti's "Motherhood" to Peters's "Detransition, Baby," Berg & Wiseman track literary representations of ambivalent mothers alongside shifts in the status of women broadly. You can really drive yourself crazy ruminating over artistic identity in a room of one's own.
4) Chapters 1 and 2 felt less novel. Their survey work seemed to bias heavily toward highly educated, "professional class" women, and the "feminism through the ages" review was pretty basic. I also didn't especially understand their handling of climate doomers (which I find silly as a reason against kids anyway)—the value of everyday activities like activism, art appreciation, and friendship somehow requires the continuation of future generations?
5) The book ends on a personal note rather than a philosophical one. Berg's concluding essay on her own motherhood experience is heartfelt, witty, loving, and real—her sudden, welcome shift in tone completely supplanted the impression of everything before it. Ah, so this is what you really wanted to say all along! I remember thinking. Never mind the theory: faith and feeling is where these decisions lie.
August 14, 2024
If you aren't sure about this book, I'll save you some time: the gist is basically "People say they don't want kids for concrete reasons like financial insecurity/lack of childcare/climate change, but those are all BS excuses for more amorphous ambivalence. Also, people have written lots of books about this!" Seriously, two full chapters are just summaries of other books about parenthood.
Like most popular or mainstream nonfiction, this book talks a wide circle around the topic it's purported to be about but never really seems interested in answering the question it asks in the marketing copy. I've always wanted children but haven't ever really tried to articulate why, and I am no closer to being able to do that than I was before I picked up this book. They don't engage with anti-natalist arguments with any real integrity, they just claim that people aren't being genuine about not wanting kids for specific environmental reasons but are using it as a "gotcha" moral argument behind which no actual ideology resides. Anyone on the street can tell you that that isn't universally true, but it supports their argument so they went with it.
They also heavily prioritize straight, white women and clearly expect to be speaking exclusively to a straight, white, cis female audience. They act like HBO's Girls is, like, the pinnacle of millenial television and write about the work of Sheila Heti and Rachel Cusk like obviously everyone is reading those authors. They talk about Black motherhood in one chapter, sure, but they just connect it right back to white womanhood and what white women can take from thinkers like Audre Lorde. It's a narrow and alienating perspective.
Like most popular or mainstream nonfiction, this book talks a wide circle around the topic it's purported to be about but never really seems interested in answering the question it asks in the marketing copy. I've always wanted children but haven't ever really tried to articulate why, and I am no closer to being able to do that than I was before I picked up this book. They don't engage with anti-natalist arguments with any real integrity, they just claim that people aren't being genuine about not wanting kids for specific environmental reasons but are using it as a "gotcha" moral argument behind which no actual ideology resides. Anyone on the street can tell you that that isn't universally true, but it supports their argument so they went with it.
They also heavily prioritize straight, white women and clearly expect to be speaking exclusively to a straight, white, cis female audience. They act like HBO's Girls is, like, the pinnacle of millenial television and write about the work of Sheila Heti and Rachel Cusk like obviously everyone is reading those authors. They talk about Black motherhood in one chapter, sure, but they just connect it right back to white womanhood and what white women can take from thinkers like Audre Lorde. It's a narrow and alienating perspective.
July 3, 2024
I kept thinking while I read the first few chapters of this book on how ambivalent I felt about this book on ambivalence. As I read on, that ambivalence changed into annoyance and anger.
I'll start with the saving grace of that book that keeps it out of my rare club of one-star reviews: the authors can write well. Despite feeling a bit disorganized at times, the one thing I can't knock it on is not being well written. There are times when this book is good. I appreciate the parts where they were able to take a neutral stance between natalism and antinatalism. Those sections almost read as a pro-con list, which I think could be fitting for people ambivalent on this subject to read.
Now for the bad. While at times this book took a neutral stance, it certainly doesn't wind up that way. Both authors end up in natalist camp. One already has a child and one decided after years of ambivalence to do IVF. I think this leads to some clear bias against antinatalist positions, especially toward the end in chapter 4. There are sections that paint antinatalist sentiments as almost hysterical. One sentiment specifically I take objection to is when they talk about suffering at the end of chapter 4. They only mention the notion of suffering from a philosophical, over-arching sense as in "I don't want to have a child because the child may suffer". There's absolutely no nuance, which is why I say they paint it as near-hysterical. The reality is people make decisions based on the information they possess. I can give myself as an example that there are scientifically-backed reasons to believe my child would inherit several of the health problems I inherited from my parents. Some of these conditions have caused me immense suffering - not the philosophical kind they talk about - but real suffering based on a decision my parent made. While the first chapter talks about external reasons people don't have kids (money, social pressure, etc), they didn't include any discussion on internal reasons like genetics. I chalk that up to a lack of research, which leads me into my biggest complaint.
So much of the book is focused on discussing literature. Instead of drawing on sciences like evolution and epigenetics, they talk about the role of women and mothers in literature ad nauseum. Chapter 3 was particularly nauseous, given that the entirety of it was discussing current fiction. Not only is this alienating to people who haven't read those books, but it's also a spoiler fest. After skimming through that chapter, I was relived to get to chapter 4 on climate change. Was a thrilled to see a 70 page chapter? Absolutely not. Edit. Why was it 70 pages? Because it digressed once against into discussions on fiction. If the authors wanted to write a book on the portrayal of women and mothers in literature throughout time, they should have written that book. Instead, it detracts from what could have made this book good.
I have a few other complaints. There are conclusions they make on scientific and other studies that are outright wrong. In the chapter on external issues, they end up claiming that millennials actually do have a lot of money by stating they have "trillions in wealth". While that may be true, like all wealth in the US, only a few have it and the rest have little. The vast majority - around 90% - of millennials are not in a good place financially. The top decile contains a disproportionate share of wealth, as these are millennials with higher paying jobs and/or inheritance. They cherrypicked information to tell the narrative they wanted to tell. Later on in the climate change chapter, they missed the mark even more. They outright said that mass migration caused by climate change is not going to happen. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Why do they think millions of people are fleeing countries like Syria for Europe? The reality is mass migration is already happening because of climate change and as it further destabilizes at-risk countries, governments will descend into conflict, thus further exacerbating migration. If they had done research into evolution, they would have known that climate change has always been one of the biggest- if not the biggest - driver of human migration.
The bottom line is this book takes a pronatalism bias. The authors clearly wrote a book that worked through their ambivalence to paint a picture of optimism to reinforce the decisions they have made and are making. They left out crucial parts of the discussion that would have balanced the book more in order to favor their pronatalist outcome. As I mentioned above, there was almost no discussion on evolution or evolutionary history. There was no discussion on consumption in its relationship to population (**cough** privilege **cough**). There was no discussion on health or epigenetics. It's even more baffling that health and biology are left out given the one author is having to resort to IVF. Why does she think she needs IVF? It's not randomness, that's for sure.
I'll start with the saving grace of that book that keeps it out of my rare club of one-star reviews: the authors can write well. Despite feeling a bit disorganized at times, the one thing I can't knock it on is not being well written. There are times when this book is good. I appreciate the parts where they were able to take a neutral stance between natalism and antinatalism. Those sections almost read as a pro-con list, which I think could be fitting for people ambivalent on this subject to read.
Now for the bad. While at times this book took a neutral stance, it certainly doesn't wind up that way. Both authors end up in natalist camp. One already has a child and one decided after years of ambivalence to do IVF. I think this leads to some clear bias against antinatalist positions, especially toward the end in chapter 4. There are sections that paint antinatalist sentiments as almost hysterical. One sentiment specifically I take objection to is when they talk about suffering at the end of chapter 4. They only mention the notion of suffering from a philosophical, over-arching sense as in "I don't want to have a child because the child may suffer". There's absolutely no nuance, which is why I say they paint it as near-hysterical. The reality is people make decisions based on the information they possess. I can give myself as an example that there are scientifically-backed reasons to believe my child would inherit several of the health problems I inherited from my parents. Some of these conditions have caused me immense suffering - not the philosophical kind they talk about - but real suffering based on a decision my parent made. While the first chapter talks about external reasons people don't have kids (money, social pressure, etc), they didn't include any discussion on internal reasons like genetics. I chalk that up to a lack of research, which leads me into my biggest complaint.
So much of the book is focused on discussing literature. Instead of drawing on sciences like evolution and epigenetics, they talk about the role of women and mothers in literature ad nauseum. Chapter 3 was particularly nauseous, given that the entirety of it was discussing current fiction. Not only is this alienating to people who haven't read those books, but it's also a spoiler fest. After skimming through that chapter, I was relived to get to chapter 4 on climate change. Was a thrilled to see a 70 page chapter? Absolutely not. Edit. Why was it 70 pages? Because it digressed once against into discussions on fiction. If the authors wanted to write a book on the portrayal of women and mothers in literature throughout time, they should have written that book. Instead, it detracts from what could have made this book good.
I have a few other complaints. There are conclusions they make on scientific and other studies that are outright wrong. In the chapter on external issues, they end up claiming that millennials actually do have a lot of money by stating they have "trillions in wealth". While that may be true, like all wealth in the US, only a few have it and the rest have little. The vast majority - around 90% - of millennials are not in a good place financially. The top decile contains a disproportionate share of wealth, as these are millennials with higher paying jobs and/or inheritance. They cherrypicked information to tell the narrative they wanted to tell. Later on in the climate change chapter, they missed the mark even more. They outright said that mass migration caused by climate change is not going to happen. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Why do they think millions of people are fleeing countries like Syria for Europe? The reality is mass migration is already happening because of climate change and as it further destabilizes at-risk countries, governments will descend into conflict, thus further exacerbating migration. If they had done research into evolution, they would have known that climate change has always been one of the biggest- if not the biggest - driver of human migration.
The bottom line is this book takes a pronatalism bias. The authors clearly wrote a book that worked through their ambivalence to paint a picture of optimism to reinforce the decisions they have made and are making. They left out crucial parts of the discussion that would have balanced the book more in order to favor their pronatalist outcome. As I mentioned above, there was almost no discussion on evolution or evolutionary history. There was no discussion on consumption in its relationship to population (**cough** privilege **cough**). There was no discussion on health or epigenetics. It's even more baffling that health and biology are left out given the one author is having to resort to IVF. Why does she think she needs IVF? It's not randomness, that's for sure.
July 30, 2024
If the entire book was written like epilogue was, I might’ve liked it more.
This is a fantastic idea and much needed work- in theory. In practice it feels like a very white, very eurocentric, soulless imitation of every other creative nonfiction/ literary criticism/ social commentary work/ syllabus. It often felt like the authors had a checklist of things to go through and a time limit on how much they could go into each item. The points would start off quite interesting, citing the usual philosophers and psychoanalysts etcetera, then talk about the points “child free” folks make. At the end of these lengthy diatribes the authors would put a short sort of “refutation” for why this might not be the “end all be all” of answers. While I understand that the point of this book was neutrality so to speak, I do believe that what makes this genre of nonfiction works most interesting is the authors ability to contribute something new to the conversation. In this book it felt like that rarely happens. What’s more, it felt like many obvious points (eugenics, religiosity, individualism vs collectivism) are skirted around or skipped altogether. Black and brown peoples point of view is rarely mentioned, within the context of the United States. (Angela Davis and bell hooks are mentioned in what feels like an afterthought) and in the international context we get mentions of some European countries and their social democracy but I would’ve really liked to see discussion on India and China’s laws on limiting childbirth and their effects or some of the public health campaigns by the UN to teach about birth control, as well as having children in war or refugee camps as a form of resistance and resilience. Again I would’ve liked to hear about eugenics- something so obviously important in this conversation. I also would have wanted to see a conversation about women being excluded from public spaces bc of their children, specifically in the United States.
Overall a cool idea and while this definitely had plenty work go into it, I feel like there were just too many white women with the same world view involved. That may not be a flaw but a feature as the target audience is probably white women writers.
This is a fantastic idea and much needed work- in theory. In practice it feels like a very white, very eurocentric, soulless imitation of every other creative nonfiction/ literary criticism/ social commentary work/ syllabus. It often felt like the authors had a checklist of things to go through and a time limit on how much they could go into each item. The points would start off quite interesting, citing the usual philosophers and psychoanalysts etcetera, then talk about the points “child free” folks make. At the end of these lengthy diatribes the authors would put a short sort of “refutation” for why this might not be the “end all be all” of answers. While I understand that the point of this book was neutrality so to speak, I do believe that what makes this genre of nonfiction works most interesting is the authors ability to contribute something new to the conversation. In this book it felt like that rarely happens. What’s more, it felt like many obvious points (eugenics, religiosity, individualism vs collectivism) are skirted around or skipped altogether. Black and brown peoples point of view is rarely mentioned, within the context of the United States. (Angela Davis and bell hooks are mentioned in what feels like an afterthought) and in the international context we get mentions of some European countries and their social democracy but I would’ve really liked to see discussion on India and China’s laws on limiting childbirth and their effects or some of the public health campaigns by the UN to teach about birth control, as well as having children in war or refugee camps as a form of resistance and resilience. Again I would’ve liked to hear about eugenics- something so obviously important in this conversation. I also would have wanted to see a conversation about women being excluded from public spaces bc of their children, specifically in the United States.
Overall a cool idea and while this definitely had plenty work go into it, I feel like there were just too many white women with the same world view involved. That may not be a flaw but a feature as the target audience is probably white women writers.
May 13, 2024
I appreciate the book's premise and liked it overall, but it's not the guide it bills itself as. The summary describes 'WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?' as an "argument" with "guidance" on how to overcome parenthood ambivalence. However, it's more of a collection of various people's thoughts on having children throughout history. The authors definitely add to these perspectives, but as someone who is absolutely the target audience for this book, I didn't find much of what I would consider guidance or advice. Still, I did enjoy reading what various people, including many prominent feminist voices, thought about motherhood and the choice to bear children.
I had a problem with how this book unnecessarily spoils other books that are mentioned, though. If you plan to read 'WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?' and don't want spoilers for the fiction books DETRANSITION BABY by Torrey Peters and THE LOST DAUGHTER by Elena Ferrante, read with caution. I've already read the former, and I no longer feel I need to read the latter. There were other books mentioned with spoilers that I don't remember, but those were the main two.
Fiction spoilers aside, cultural criticism plays a big part in the makeup of this book, and the authors do a good job with this. 'WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?' is culturally conscious, historically and generally informative, and social justice-oriented, which makes it a solid book on the pros and cons of having children. I wish it were described more accurately because anyone who is researching what modern vs. previous decades women thought about having children would find it a helpful resource. It's meant to be a guidebook but never makes it there. It gets stuck in the intellectual weeds, but I like intellectual weeds, so I don't regret spending time in this book. (Rating: 3.75 stars, rounded up to 4)
*This review is based on a digital ARC provided by the publisher via NetGalley. All opinions are 100% honest and my own.
I had a problem with how this book unnecessarily spoils other books that are mentioned, though. If you plan to read 'WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?' and don't want spoilers for the fiction books DETRANSITION BABY by Torrey Peters and THE LOST DAUGHTER by Elena Ferrante, read with caution. I've already read the former, and I no longer feel I need to read the latter. There were other books mentioned with spoilers that I don't remember, but those were the main two.
Fiction spoilers aside, cultural criticism plays a big part in the makeup of this book, and the authors do a good job with this. 'WHAT ARE CHILDREN FOR?' is culturally conscious, historically and generally informative, and social justice-oriented, which makes it a solid book on the pros and cons of having children. I wish it were described more accurately because anyone who is researching what modern vs. previous decades women thought about having children would find it a helpful resource. It's meant to be a guidebook but never makes it there. It gets stuck in the intellectual weeds, but I like intellectual weeds, so I don't regret spending time in this book. (Rating: 3.75 stars, rounded up to 4)
*This review is based on a digital ARC provided by the publisher via NetGalley. All opinions are 100% honest and my own.
May 18, 2024
I really enjoyed this exploration on having children. As a woman with children, I was curious to read more about the anti-natalist movement that has seemingly increased in popularity. I found it super interesting to hear about many adults choosing not to have children due to unrealistically high expectations of how much money they should have, what assets they should possess prior to having children, and fears related to the climate and contributing to "the problem." Within the context of our present day, it is no wonder the birth rates are continuing to drop in almost every country in the world. I think much of the argument that people have against having children is rooted in our individualistic (versus collectivist) culture.
This book has a lot of references to feminist texts, often citing the works of Rachel Cusk and Sheila Heti. This provides the reader with additional materials to seek out to read more about direct experiences with motherhood and ambivalence. I don't necessarily think this book would be a directly helpful guide for those struggling with the decision to have children. While there is exploration of different arguments - including climate change, not finding a suitable partner, financial concerns, and self-interest - there is (perhaps obviously) no direct path to coming to a conclusion for yourself. I would also say that the authors perspectives on motherhood seem to skew slightly negative, which is obviously not everyone's experience who chooses to have children. Overall, I really enjoyed this. One critique I have is I didn't experience a different voice for each of the authors and felt a bit confused as to who was speaking in the conclusion of the book.
Thank you to NetGalley, St. Martin's Press, and the authors Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman for an ARC on the interesting topic of having children!
This book has a lot of references to feminist texts, often citing the works of Rachel Cusk and Sheila Heti. This provides the reader with additional materials to seek out to read more about direct experiences with motherhood and ambivalence. I don't necessarily think this book would be a directly helpful guide for those struggling with the decision to have children. While there is exploration of different arguments - including climate change, not finding a suitable partner, financial concerns, and self-interest - there is (perhaps obviously) no direct path to coming to a conclusion for yourself. I would also say that the authors perspectives on motherhood seem to skew slightly negative, which is obviously not everyone's experience who chooses to have children. Overall, I really enjoyed this. One critique I have is I didn't experience a different voice for each of the authors and felt a bit confused as to who was speaking in the conclusion of the book.
Thank you to NetGalley, St. Martin's Press, and the authors Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman for an ARC on the interesting topic of having children!
January 20, 2025
Hm… this was tough. I really wanted to like this book. Back in October, I had the privilege of hearing both authors speak at a philosophy event and loved their presentation. I thought their research on why people are or aren’t having children was fascinating and also handled with a lot of compassion and grace. Therefore, when I heard they had a book, I was quick to read it! The book starts off strong, with Rachel’s personal story of how she comes to decide to have children. Then, the authors introduce the subject of their research, using quotes from many of the individuals who participated in their study. Chapter three focuses on first and second wave feminist philosophy and also brings in the voices of black female feminists, which I thought was great! Then there was chapter four… which is where it goes downhill for me. Not only was this chapter incredibly long and super heady (whereas up until this point, the book was an even combination of intellectual and grounded), this chapter was also INCREDIBLY dark. For a book advocating for hope and life amidst suffering, it felt like they spent way too long talking about anti-natalist arguments, the evils of humanity and the destruction of the environment. Because it is such a long chapter, it felt like they did not leave themselves adequate room to address the many arguments presented against bringing more humans into the world. After this long and arduous journey through the depths of nihilism, we switch back to Anna’s personal experience of motherhood, which gave me cognitive whiplash. Overall, I’m glad this book exists and hope the authors continue their work of promoting hope and human flourishing… but they could use a better editor if they write a second book.
October 18, 2025
Chapter 1 is great (the low birth rate is less about parental leave and all these policy issues, although important, but more about the sociocultural understanding that the goal of one’s life is self realization). Chapter 2 takes a systematic (but brief) look at the ambivalence about having children wrt the feminist ideals. This has always been the crux of my issue (is it feminist to want to be a mother). Whether parenthood can be a meaning giving activity.
Interesting points:
- The feminist quest to have women work outside of the home is a reflection of middle class white privilege. Black and Hispanic women had always worked outside of the home. Many of such women of color say that the caretaking work in their homes is a meaning giving activity. In this respect, my feelings on this issue are now veering towards those of slaves, alas.
- Feminism is not a checklist of predetermined goals but an evolving movement. Every generation has their own problem with no name. If women nowadays want to have children, then we need to address it.
The discussion on whether it is morally permissible to have children given climate change is much needed, although they have an argument in mind.
Their interpretation of “The Lost Daughter” (motherhood ambivalence literature) and overview of ecological disaster books were also helpful.
Interesting points:
- The feminist quest to have women work outside of the home is a reflection of middle class white privilege. Black and Hispanic women had always worked outside of the home. Many of such women of color say that the caretaking work in their homes is a meaning giving activity. In this respect, my feelings on this issue are now veering towards those of slaves, alas.
- Feminism is not a checklist of predetermined goals but an evolving movement. Every generation has their own problem with no name. If women nowadays want to have children, then we need to address it.
The discussion on whether it is morally permissible to have children given climate change is much needed, although they have an argument in mind.
Their interpretation of “The Lost Daughter” (motherhood ambivalence literature) and overview of ecological disaster books were also helpful.
August 8, 2024
I picked this book because I've seen lots of articles about a declining desire to have children. This book didn't provide any real insight into that. What it did provide insight into is a certain type of academic neuroticism in which any problem- including the decision to have children- can be solved through extensive literature review. Of course, most issues of life's uncertainty don't respond well to literature review. The chapter on climate change related reasons to avoid having children is especially- how do I put this- of a certain circle. This book is certainly for a certain type of person with a certain set of beliefs and I don't happen to be that type of person.
Read
July 6, 2025Has there ever been a time when the possibility of having children was a more controversial choice, more political choice, or created as much life path choice paralysis as it does now?
If you exist in a liberal bubble like I do, you may have noticed that talking about wanting children has become a bit of fraught territory on the left. There are many voices who will tell you why you shouldn't be making that choice, both in the media and in person. It gets pretty annoying.
I picked up a copy of What Are Children For? after listening to Jerusalem Demsas's interview of one of the book's authors. I recommend the interview, although maybe not so much the book. Here's why.
The interview succinctly described what the authors see as the main forces contributing to motherhood ambivalence. Among them is the fact that the transition from "young woman" to "mother" in today's media is the transition from "5 season main character arc" to "series finale, never to be seen again". That's very astute, I thought. I hoped that picking up the book to get more details and more insights into the concept of modern motherhood would help me understand it more - and, consequently, feel better (slash more in control).
Alas, instead of presenting a cohesive perspective of its own, this book leans into summarizing what hundreds of other works say about motherhood. Quickly, it starts to feel like a phonebook where every listing is yet another nosy voice that has something to say about the choice to become a parent. Berg and Wiseman's book amplified the overwhelming phenomenon of parentosophy to the degree where I actually couldn't stand to read anything about the choice to become a parent for a few of months.
I wish it was less like a book report and more about Berg and Wiseman's own perspectives on sorting through the noise.
If you exist in a liberal bubble like I do, you may have noticed that talking about wanting children has become a bit of fraught territory on the left. There are many voices who will tell you why you shouldn't be making that choice, both in the media and in person. It gets pretty annoying.
I picked up a copy of What Are Children For? after listening to Jerusalem Demsas's interview of one of the book's authors. I recommend the interview, although maybe not so much the book. Here's why.
The interview succinctly described what the authors see as the main forces contributing to motherhood ambivalence. Among them is the fact that the transition from "young woman" to "mother" in today's media is the transition from "5 season main character arc" to "series finale, never to be seen again". That's very astute, I thought. I hoped that picking up the book to get more details and more insights into the concept of modern motherhood would help me understand it more - and, consequently, feel better (slash more in control).
Alas, instead of presenting a cohesive perspective of its own, this book leans into summarizing what hundreds of other works say about motherhood. Quickly, it starts to feel like a phonebook where every listing is yet another nosy voice that has something to say about the choice to become a parent. Berg and Wiseman's book amplified the overwhelming phenomenon of parentosophy to the degree where I actually couldn't stand to read anything about the choice to become a parent for a few of months.
I wish it was less like a book report and more about Berg and Wiseman's own perspectives on sorting through the noise.
January 29, 2025
Motherhood is ambivalence. At the end of the day, you can argue the pros and cons until you are blue in the face, it’s still not a straightforward choice. There is also no counterfactual experiments in life. The authors in the book are pronatalists: one has a child and the other is trying to, so the conclusions eventually swing one way. However, there are some nuanced arguments and aspects I never thought about before, so I appreciated reading about those. It’s also worth noting that having the choice is a privilege in itself.
December 24, 2024
by far the best book on this subject i’ve read and honestly exactly what i was looking for. this was the first book that really engaged with the moral conflict of having children in a world that is going to pieces. they tie this question of “what are children for” to the more fundamental question of “is life worth living” despite the pain and suffering and uncertainty.
i really enjoyed the literature review of past feminist thinkers and philosophers, and highlighted basically the entire last chapter. the only thing keeping me from giving it 5 stars was the interminable literary analysis chapter. dragged ass so hard
i really enjoyed the literature review of past feminist thinkers and philosophers, and highlighted basically the entire last chapter. the only thing keeping me from giving it 5 stars was the interminable literary analysis chapter. dragged ass so hard
December 7, 2024
Found this ecstatically, insistently alive.
Refreshing to read something that is at once skeptical of Mass Hamlet Culture but also fully willing to play on its terrain. 200 pages of “be honest that is not why lol” and honestly: fair. We are modern creatures. We move so fast that we somehow end up wasting too much time.
Made me want to, in order: 1) have a child, 2) finish Proust, and 3) die. But when I say that classic zoomer phrase, “made me want to die,” I mean it differently: as a natural death, contented, surrounded by my remainders.
(Family book club)
Refreshing to read something that is at once skeptical of Mass Hamlet Culture but also fully willing to play on its terrain. 200 pages of “be honest that is not why lol” and honestly: fair. We are modern creatures. We move so fast that we somehow end up wasting too much time.
Made me want to, in order: 1) have a child, 2) finish Proust, and 3) die. But when I say that classic zoomer phrase, “made me want to die,” I mean it differently: as a natural death, contented, surrounded by my remainders.
(Family book club)
October 20, 2025
The authors regurgitate other people’s thoughts & add few of their own. I didn’t need an entire chapter to tell me that millennials are financially strained and so are not having children as a direct result. The authors themselves seem ambivalent about having children, and provide no suggestions for either moving past ambivalence or embracing it
February 26, 2025
How hilarious that this book purporting to address modern ambivalence around having children literally ends (if you remove the conclusion) with the statement: "...only you can determine whether it is the right [choice] for you." Thanks for nothing. It is literally circular. The book begins with an introduction about how frustrating the "only you can make this choice" statement is and then ends with that exact statement and no further argument.
But the most frustrating aspect of the experience of reading this book is more so that it is mostly just a superficial summary of other works. The first chapter is a summary of modern magazine articles analyzing trends in childbearing and modern attitudes towards having children. If you frequently read this genre of magazine article (as I do) then it is essentially repetitive. As is the second chapter, a very broad and shallow analysis of different kinds of feminist discourse on motherhood, mostly summarizing already popular and well known books. The third chapter summarizes a few popular modern books on motherhood. The fourth chapter is the longest - and the only one to actually, in my estimation, engage in any actual original argument - but is still mostly a summary of anti-natalist trends in literary and philosophical history, and modern apocalyptic climate fiction. Fortunately, Berg and Wiseman are decent writers so these chapters aren't necessarily a slog to read but they are also not at all interesting or original in any way, and often summoned in me the desire to simply read (or reread) the cited books themselves.
The aforementioned fourth chapter does end in about 10 pages of argument (out of so far almost 200 pages of mostly lit review), the arguments being an attempt to refute anti-natalist claims. But even this section, while the most interesting, still does not actually engage in a well reasoned refutation of the summarized arguments but simply peter out before stating "having children might still be the most basic way to affirm our existence." This claim is barely justified - in fact one could say it is not really argued for at all. Could not the 200 pages of lit review before this instead have been dedicated to making this argument, about the value of having children as a basic facet of existence? It is clearly what the authors seem to believe.
But here lies a central philosophical problem of the book. The authors do indeed seem to believe - perhaps a bit nervously - in the goodness of having children. But they can not actually state and argue this in such a positive way because this would then identify them as putatively pro-natalist - and thus not "liberal" - an unacceptable stance, supposedly, to admit one holds in the social circles they are likely shadowboxing with. Notice how in this entire book about "ambivalence," the only side of argumentation they examine is the "ambivalent" or anti-natalist one? They do not examine pro-natalist beliefs and texts, historical or modern, of which there are many. No, occasionally mentioning that it sucks Roe v. Wade was overturned doesn't count. If they wanted to truly examine "both sides" of ambivalence - surely this is what one would do. But instead they must spend the book obsessing over the modern surge in ambivalent and anti-natalist perspectives, because that is the real purpose of the book. Not to examine arguments for and against childbearing, but to examine (and subtly argue against) the modern decline in the idea that childbearing is a necessary part of life. This is the true trajectory of the book (the authors even call themselves "anti anti-natalist") even if the centrist liberal style does not allow one to strongly state that they disagree with any so-called "dominant" progressive orthodoxy but only to dance around how progressive trends might be troubling or worth reconsidering. To, you could say, engage in a kind of ambivalently negative attitude towards the existence of these progressive (in this case anti-natalist) ideas.
I was not reading this book looking for insight, but did admittedly go in as a skeptical reader, as somebody who is not ambivalent, but knows I don't want kids, and is sympathetic towards anti-natalist ideas. But ultimately this book mostly bored me more than it angered or frustrated me. I wish it had actually engaged in some argument for those claims it makes at the end, because at least it would give me something to chew on. Instead one is left with that trademark of modern liberal magazine style essays: writing that claims to be examining something but is actually saying nothing at all.
But the most frustrating aspect of the experience of reading this book is more so that it is mostly just a superficial summary of other works. The first chapter is a summary of modern magazine articles analyzing trends in childbearing and modern attitudes towards having children. If you frequently read this genre of magazine article (as I do) then it is essentially repetitive. As is the second chapter, a very broad and shallow analysis of different kinds of feminist discourse on motherhood, mostly summarizing already popular and well known books. The third chapter summarizes a few popular modern books on motherhood. The fourth chapter is the longest - and the only one to actually, in my estimation, engage in any actual original argument - but is still mostly a summary of anti-natalist trends in literary and philosophical history, and modern apocalyptic climate fiction. Fortunately, Berg and Wiseman are decent writers so these chapters aren't necessarily a slog to read but they are also not at all interesting or original in any way, and often summoned in me the desire to simply read (or reread) the cited books themselves.
The aforementioned fourth chapter does end in about 10 pages of argument (out of so far almost 200 pages of mostly lit review), the arguments being an attempt to refute anti-natalist claims. But even this section, while the most interesting, still does not actually engage in a well reasoned refutation of the summarized arguments but simply peter out before stating "having children might still be the most basic way to affirm our existence." This claim is barely justified - in fact one could say it is not really argued for at all. Could not the 200 pages of lit review before this instead have been dedicated to making this argument, about the value of having children as a basic facet of existence? It is clearly what the authors seem to believe.
But here lies a central philosophical problem of the book. The authors do indeed seem to believe - perhaps a bit nervously - in the goodness of having children. But they can not actually state and argue this in such a positive way because this would then identify them as putatively pro-natalist - and thus not "liberal" - an unacceptable stance, supposedly, to admit one holds in the social circles they are likely shadowboxing with. Notice how in this entire book about "ambivalence," the only side of argumentation they examine is the "ambivalent" or anti-natalist one? They do not examine pro-natalist beliefs and texts, historical or modern, of which there are many. No, occasionally mentioning that it sucks Roe v. Wade was overturned doesn't count. If they wanted to truly examine "both sides" of ambivalence - surely this is what one would do. But instead they must spend the book obsessing over the modern surge in ambivalent and anti-natalist perspectives, because that is the real purpose of the book. Not to examine arguments for and against childbearing, but to examine (and subtly argue against) the modern decline in the idea that childbearing is a necessary part of life. This is the true trajectory of the book (the authors even call themselves "anti anti-natalist") even if the centrist liberal style does not allow one to strongly state that they disagree with any so-called "dominant" progressive orthodoxy but only to dance around how progressive trends might be troubling or worth reconsidering. To, you could say, engage in a kind of ambivalently negative attitude towards the existence of these progressive (in this case anti-natalist) ideas.
I was not reading this book looking for insight, but did admittedly go in as a skeptical reader, as somebody who is not ambivalent, but knows I don't want kids, and is sympathetic towards anti-natalist ideas. But ultimately this book mostly bored me more than it angered or frustrated me. I wish it had actually engaged in some argument for those claims it makes at the end, because at least it would give me something to chew on. Instead one is left with that trademark of modern liberal magazine style essays: writing that claims to be examining something but is actually saying nothing at all.
Read
July 5, 2024Proud to know them!
August 22, 2024
A practical, literary, and philosophical discussion of, ~what we talk about when we talk about having kids~ I would say this is firmly rooted in the experience of middle/upper middle class overthinkers who went to liberal art schools But hey thats me! So it really reflected discussions ive had with my own friends about this stuff in a really relatable and refreshing way.
I particularly enjoyed how they tackled the poltically contentious issue of Low Birth Rates in The West, through a lens of the cult of personal fulfillment! When somewhere along the way life became about individual achievement, personal exploration and happiness, having kids, so overwhelming and demanding especially in those first few years, seems a risky proposition to say the least.
That’s not to say these things are inherently bad! It’s good to explore your interests have a great career etc, but it comes hand in hand with a sense that some sort self actualization is required before you have kids. It’s become a common trope to complain about how much our parents messed us up, the implication being they weren't ready in some way to kids, and that being fully prepared to have kids is possible! But We can be different! Were gonna be responsible! Were going to figure out what we want out of life, find a perfect loving relationship, and fully become ourselves before we even think about bringing another person into the world. Just writing out all these idealistic goals together helps to reveal how rare it would be to actually achieve all three and still be at an age when you can have a couple kids.
This helps make a lot more sense out of the fact that even in European countries where theres universal healthcare, child care, and other supports, that ostensibly keep us precarious Americans from taking the leap, their birth rates are still pretty low.
This is all to say that we need to recognize that it is likely not possible to have it all or have a perfect individually fulfilled life and be perfectly prepared when you want to have kids. Children are for sharing the world with. But that means we have to share.
Also dug the philosophical discussion of “climate literature” and whether its morally permissible to bring kids into a world that will be ravaged by climate change, and whether we can even justify the continuing of humanity at all. This idea has a new scientific gloss due to the looming ecological disaster but whether humanity is evil and even worth saving has of course been around in varying forms since at least the Greeks! And this idea, in addition to being fatalist, has a narcissism to it! There’s a sorta of self congratulation in being so smart to know it’s too late, and a sort of romance to being a kind of “last generation” both of which are a lot less popular in the parts of the world that will actually be worst effected.
Also enjoyed the very honest talk about what’s. Nice and what sucks about practical experience of raising kids. I feel like that it’s sort of taboo to say you regret having kids or don’t like your kids and this helped to break that (Berg, the author who does have them doesn’t regret it but she’s honest about the ups and downs)
I will say though the chapters are long and could really have used subheadings to help keep track of the arguments/issues being combined. But in any case good stuff!
I particularly enjoyed how they tackled the poltically contentious issue of Low Birth Rates in The West, through a lens of the cult of personal fulfillment! When somewhere along the way life became about individual achievement, personal exploration and happiness, having kids, so overwhelming and demanding especially in those first few years, seems a risky proposition to say the least.
That’s not to say these things are inherently bad! It’s good to explore your interests have a great career etc, but it comes hand in hand with a sense that some sort self actualization is required before you have kids. It’s become a common trope to complain about how much our parents messed us up, the implication being they weren't ready in some way to kids, and that being fully prepared to have kids is possible! But We can be different! Were gonna be responsible! Were going to figure out what we want out of life, find a perfect loving relationship, and fully become ourselves before we even think about bringing another person into the world. Just writing out all these idealistic goals together helps to reveal how rare it would be to actually achieve all three and still be at an age when you can have a couple kids.
This helps make a lot more sense out of the fact that even in European countries where theres universal healthcare, child care, and other supports, that ostensibly keep us precarious Americans from taking the leap, their birth rates are still pretty low.
This is all to say that we need to recognize that it is likely not possible to have it all or have a perfect individually fulfilled life and be perfectly prepared when you want to have kids. Children are for sharing the world with. But that means we have to share.
Also dug the philosophical discussion of “climate literature” and whether its morally permissible to bring kids into a world that will be ravaged by climate change, and whether we can even justify the continuing of humanity at all. This idea has a new scientific gloss due to the looming ecological disaster but whether humanity is evil and even worth saving has of course been around in varying forms since at least the Greeks! And this idea, in addition to being fatalist, has a narcissism to it! There’s a sorta of self congratulation in being so smart to know it’s too late, and a sort of romance to being a kind of “last generation” both of which are a lot less popular in the parts of the world that will actually be worst effected.
Also enjoyed the very honest talk about what’s. Nice and what sucks about practical experience of raising kids. I feel like that it’s sort of taboo to say you regret having kids or don’t like your kids and this helped to break that (Berg, the author who does have them doesn’t regret it but she’s honest about the ups and downs)
I will say though the chapters are long and could really have used subheadings to help keep track of the arguments/issues being combined. But in any case good stuff!
July 6, 2024
Brilliant philosophical exploration of womanhood and parenthood (particularly motherhood). Explores the way modern reproductive freedom has changed the concept and choice of motherhood, since having kids or not having kids has really only become a choice recently, and therefore women are free to define themselves in different ways than for the rest of history but we don’t really have the tools for how yet. Cites Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex for this, the idea that a woman is defined in the negative as what it is not—a man. And how womanhood is culturally defined by wifehood and motherhood. But then now what now that women don’t want children, and want equal partners not to just be a wife and a mom? What are we then? Anyways loved that discussion. And it talks about modern dating and egalitarianism but also pitfalls in modern cultural attitudes like how regardless of how women want an equal life and parenting partner, men still don’t see having kids as a tradeoff with their career and personal lives because women do the lion’s share of domestic and emotional labor even when men perceive it is equal. Deals particularly with ambivalence a lot of women feel. Because men are ambivalent because it is a not a trade-off for them. Women it’s like I will destroy my body for this and my career and if you decide to be lazy in childcare then I’m trapped defining myself in relation to the child and you, and have lost my ability to define myself as an independent human (which men have always had the luxury to do even with kids). But anyways also how ambivalence can end up making the decision for you which is not preferable. And there is a section on interviews with women who froze their eggs and why and also even if you freeze your eggs it’s less than 80% chance in best scenario that it’ll work so that was interesting. Honestly there’s so much more than what I have described it was a great book. Also the most in-depth view of anti-natalism and pro-nataliam and quotes philosophical and theological arguments from various schools of thought/religions. Even discusses modern surveys of men and women about parenthood and generational differences and discusses possible reasoning and in a very intellectually honest way. Overall written in a very exploratory and non-ideological way plus it summarizes so many classic and recent feminist texts—authors clearly did their homework. I love how they bring literature into it too!! Literature is philosophy!!!
I will come back and write a more refined review later I want to organize my thoughts more
I will come back and write a more refined review later I want to organize my thoughts more
September 26, 2024
I heard about this book and the authors on an episode of Plain English and wanted to learn more. What I found incredibly valuable is the insight on the reasoning and mindset of those who are unsure of or have decided against procreating. As in all things, what most impacts human behavior is how one assimilates and translates inputs. First into thoughts and then manifested in actions (yes kids/no kids).
I'm one of the ones that never considered NOT having children and have also forged a strong upwardly mobile career as a primary bread winner. My position is that each of us shapes our expectations of motherhood, marriage, parenting, finances, etc. If those criteria are too strict then it's easy to see why people feel like they can't 'have it all'. (EX. I have to be able to pay for my kids' private college education, I need to be able to dedicate all of my energy to work, I want to be able to travel whenever I want, etc).
I also came away with the feeling that fear of change was a big reason for some people (I won't be able to spontaneously hang out with my friends, spend money as extravagantly, I'll lose my free time). All of which, dare I be honest, are rather self centered and immature resonings (Individualistic hedonism). Selflessness is a character trait that is learned and earned through other-centerdness. If that isn't a value to a person, then I can see how having children wouldn't be on the agenda.
What are kids for? As my husband stated, procreation is what it means to be human. We are perfectly built for it. Not everyone needs to have kids but it's undeniably ingrained in our DNA. On a day to day level, it's a similar joy that comes from having a partner - "simple and familiar" as the authors put it. Bearing children is an act of pursuing joy in this world through relationship. It's walking with and supporting another human as they forge their own path of self fulfillment.
I'm one of the ones that never considered NOT having children and have also forged a strong upwardly mobile career as a primary bread winner. My position is that each of us shapes our expectations of motherhood, marriage, parenting, finances, etc. If those criteria are too strict then it's easy to see why people feel like they can't 'have it all'. (EX. I have to be able to pay for my kids' private college education, I need to be able to dedicate all of my energy to work, I want to be able to travel whenever I want, etc).
I also came away with the feeling that fear of change was a big reason for some people (I won't be able to spontaneously hang out with my friends, spend money as extravagantly, I'll lose my free time). All of which, dare I be honest, are rather self centered and immature resonings (Individualistic hedonism). Selflessness is a character trait that is learned and earned through other-centerdness. If that isn't a value to a person, then I can see how having children wouldn't be on the agenda.
What are kids for? As my husband stated, procreation is what it means to be human. We are perfectly built for it. Not everyone needs to have kids but it's undeniably ingrained in our DNA. On a day to day level, it's a similar joy that comes from having a partner - "simple and familiar" as the authors put it. Bearing children is an act of pursuing joy in this world through relationship. It's walking with and supporting another human as they forge their own path of self fulfillment.
July 24, 2024
This was a surprise hit for me. I almost abandoned it early on because it seemed like a lot of Millennial naval gazing, but the author solidly transitions it to a comprehensive and neutral look at the discussions around this topic. There's a fair bit of philosophical reasoning in here.
A few thoughts:
-I have no opinion on whether someone decides to have children, so I got what I was looking for, an evaluation of the discourse on the subject.
-The author addresses the (apparently oversubscribed-to) assumption that historically people have had children to help with household/farm production and to support them in old age. Apparently the economic argument isn't well supported by data.
-The author gets to this point that having children is less of an end result to achieve and more like a friendship, a relationship without an end goal that just brings constant human connection.
-There's a lot of philosophical discussion on whether it's moral to bring children into the world as it is, and I feel like I hear this a lot, but really now is like the best time in history to be alive - they're least likely to starve, die young, etc.
-To go along with the previous point, there's a lot (too much, I think) discussion on the philosophical view that humans are good vs. evil, can they be moral, etc. Look, if you hate humans, don't have more of them. If you're a hopeful person, you'll probably be more likely to have children. I wouldn't try to convince someone who doesn't believe in basic human goodness or redemption to parent - that probably wouldn't go well.
A few thoughts:
-I have no opinion on whether someone decides to have children, so I got what I was looking for, an evaluation of the discourse on the subject.
-The author addresses the (apparently oversubscribed-to) assumption that historically people have had children to help with household/farm production and to support them in old age. Apparently the economic argument isn't well supported by data.
-The author gets to this point that having children is less of an end result to achieve and more like a friendship, a relationship without an end goal that just brings constant human connection.
-There's a lot of philosophical discussion on whether it's moral to bring children into the world as it is, and I feel like I hear this a lot, but really now is like the best time in history to be alive - they're least likely to starve, die young, etc.
-To go along with the previous point, there's a lot (too much, I think) discussion on the philosophical view that humans are good vs. evil, can they be moral, etc. Look, if you hate humans, don't have more of them. If you're a hopeful person, you'll probably be more likely to have children. I wouldn't try to convince someone who doesn't believe in basic human goodness or redemption to parent - that probably wouldn't go well.
Read
September 5, 2024Interesting to read a book coauthored by people who obviously have very different approaches to answering this question. There was the traditionally philosophical approach of thought experiments and peeling back moral and ethical arguments (Ch 4), a non-representative sampling for interviews (Ch 1), analysis of feminist thought and theory (Ch 2), analysis of current culture in the form of novels and memoirs (Ch 3 and 4), and personal reflections (Intro and Conclusion). I think different readers will prefer one or more of the various approaches more than the others - for me, the discussion of novels, articles, and memoirs took away from the robustness of the analysis, but I'm sure other readers found this section original and interesting.
I do wish this book had been named something different - the central question of why people have children is only considered in Ch 4, and I think there is a whole book someone could write expanding on that chapter in a more specific way that I would like to read. The rest of the book does valuable work uncovering the reasons why people do not have children, essentially settling on the answer that people simply want to remain free to do other things - find romantic love, get out of debt, travel, advance their career. The authors don't say it explicitly, but this feels like the real center of their project - to show that other "excuses" people give (climate anxiety, philosophical questions about human suffering, misanthropic view of humans as leeches on the earth, affordability concerns) are not the true reason people aren't having kids.
This will probably frustrate readers who do not intend on having children, especially those who do give one of these arguments as the reason. A book cannot cater to every person's circumstances, and it's obvious (and stated in the book) that the expected audience for this book are generally educated, white women in the U.S. It may read as pro-natalist, though I think that this is a bit reactive to the book, which discusses interviewees who don't want children with understanding, not judgement. Their argument that people, in general, find meaning and joy in their lives, and so people (in general!) should promote the reproduction of humanity is not a pro-natalist argument in the sense of targeting women and demanding that they reproduce. It's simply an argument that because we continue to live and believe in the inherent worth of people, we cannot also question whether humanity should continue to live. I think this is a nice conclusion to come to.
No book on this topic will ever fully satisfy me or anyone else, because the topic is so big and unwieldy and complicated. I found this book a worthwhile read, and would look forward to a more philosophically focused book on this topic in the future, from Anastasia Berg in particular.
I do wish this book had been named something different - the central question of why people have children is only considered in Ch 4, and I think there is a whole book someone could write expanding on that chapter in a more specific way that I would like to read. The rest of the book does valuable work uncovering the reasons why people do not have children, essentially settling on the answer that people simply want to remain free to do other things - find romantic love, get out of debt, travel, advance their career. The authors don't say it explicitly, but this feels like the real center of their project - to show that other "excuses" people give (climate anxiety, philosophical questions about human suffering, misanthropic view of humans as leeches on the earth, affordability concerns) are not the true reason people aren't having kids.
This will probably frustrate readers who do not intend on having children, especially those who do give one of these arguments as the reason. A book cannot cater to every person's circumstances, and it's obvious (and stated in the book) that the expected audience for this book are generally educated, white women in the U.S. It may read as pro-natalist, though I think that this is a bit reactive to the book, which discusses interviewees who don't want children with understanding, not judgement. Their argument that people, in general, find meaning and joy in their lives, and so people (in general!) should promote the reproduction of humanity is not a pro-natalist argument in the sense of targeting women and demanding that they reproduce. It's simply an argument that because we continue to live and believe in the inherent worth of people, we cannot also question whether humanity should continue to live. I think this is a nice conclusion to come to.
No book on this topic will ever fully satisfy me or anyone else, because the topic is so big and unwieldy and complicated. I found this book a worthwhile read, and would look forward to a more philosophically focused book on this topic in the future, from Anastasia Berg in particular.
Read
January 12, 2025A well-written book I completely disagree with.
I highly suggest also reading Hannah’s Children if you want to truly contemplate this topic.
There is one simple solution to all the quandaries presented in this book… Grow up.
Choose to pursue Good. Not “good for you” but true goodness, which yes, is fraught with challenge, hardship, and responsibility. *Grow up and handle it* in pursuit of living a bigger life.
1 star for ideas that are immature, ridiculous, and never truly challenge themselves to arrive at a conclusion based in a deeper morality.
5 stars for writing (I enjoyed the analysis of different literature) and a great audiobook performance.
I highly suggest also reading Hannah’s Children if you want to truly contemplate this topic.
There is one simple solution to all the quandaries presented in this book… Grow up.
Choose to pursue Good. Not “good for you” but true goodness, which yes, is fraught with challenge, hardship, and responsibility. *Grow up and handle it* in pursuit of living a bigger life.
1 star for ideas that are immature, ridiculous, and never truly challenge themselves to arrive at a conclusion based in a deeper morality.
5 stars for writing (I enjoyed the analysis of different literature) and a great audiobook performance.
November 16, 2024
Idk honestly I just found this book kind of boring? It had some interesting info for sure, especially around the dating versus marriage intentions, but I felt like it didn’t really answer the question of “what are children for?”. I thought this would be more philosophical rather than a list of pros and cons for having kids today. The title felt a bit misleading to me. Many of the points were not new to me either.
September 17, 2024
A compelling read that gave me new ways to think about the question of whether to have kids
August 2, 2024
Ok book, but it really didn't get around to answering the question, "What are children for?" It started off talking a bit about it, but then it took a diversion to summarize a bunch of feminist ideas about having children, then spend another chapter talking about philosophical ideas about whether it's worth having children because people are bad or they suffer. These wouldn't have been too bad chapters, but it just didn't seem like the authors really had much to say of their own. It read like a review of other people's ideas. The book in the end was more about whether to have children or not, and very focused on women's perspective on the issue. It really didn't talk to much about what children are for.
August 2, 2024
So here’s the thing: this book makes it seem that because I’m ambivalent about having children, it means I’m ambivalent about choosing life. No, that’s not it. What I’m ambivalent about is wanting to ensure that my choice to have children or not is my choice and not a choice that I make because I feel bound by societal norms and expectations, something I was hoping the book would explore. Sadly, it is slanted but I guess that’s expected given that one of the authors is a professor at a religious institution - something I only discovered after beginning this read. I wish this book was more objective as it really should have been.
September 14, 2025
Más paja que contenido útil
December 21, 2024
A really important book in this day and age of childbearing ambivalence. Essentially, the book reckons with the fact that many feminist, liberal, and other intellectual traditions have settled on the idea that having children should be a person's (particularly a birthing woman's) own choice, but have fallen short of prescribing whether a person should have children in the first place. This, the book argued, has left many women feeling isolated, alone, and unsure of what they want and in many ways cut off from the easy answers readily given in previous generations, to alienating results.
The book explores the issues at play in whether a person wants kids and what various traditions say about it, including the external factors at play (financial, dating compatibility, state of the world, etc), the history of second and third wave feminist thought on the subject (they have ended in modern times agreeing that the choice is up to the individual woman, but fallen short of agreeing whether having children at all is a good or bad thing), the literary tradition of the pre/early motherhood ambivalance novels (Motherhood, The Argonauts, Detransition Baby, The Lost Daughter, and others are mentioned and analyzed), and summary and analysis of climate based and other political and philosophical anti-natalist arguments from antiquity to contemporary times. These explorations are bookended by an introduction and conclusion by each of the two authors in their personal experience dealing with this question.
I started reading this book with an eye toward whether I, a man with a long term woman partner who are in our late 20s, will ever want children of our own. I learned a lot reflecting on the book, including the physical, mental, emotional uneven division of labor between men and women in the childbearing and rearing domestic sphere, the idea that isolated mental mining of thoughts and feelings is inherently infinitely isolating and recursive, and so the real feelings have to be discovered interpersonally and collaboratively, and that I personally have a long way to go in my own personal and moral development before I can one day be a father (if I so choose) that I fundamentally accept as "ready" in the slippery and hard to pin down sense of that term.
Fundamentally, not having a children because of "circumstances not being right" is just the other side of the coin of having an unplanned pregancy and you have to make do now: both ideas take the agency and choice out of the hands of the individual and put them at the whims of chance and fate. Whether you have children or not, it should be because that's what you want and you should be working toward a life of meaning and purpose, whether children are a part of that or not.
The book explores the issues at play in whether a person wants kids and what various traditions say about it, including the external factors at play (financial, dating compatibility, state of the world, etc), the history of second and third wave feminist thought on the subject (they have ended in modern times agreeing that the choice is up to the individual woman, but fallen short of agreeing whether having children at all is a good or bad thing), the literary tradition of the pre/early motherhood ambivalance novels (Motherhood, The Argonauts, Detransition Baby, The Lost Daughter, and others are mentioned and analyzed), and summary and analysis of climate based and other political and philosophical anti-natalist arguments from antiquity to contemporary times. These explorations are bookended by an introduction and conclusion by each of the two authors in their personal experience dealing with this question.
I started reading this book with an eye toward whether I, a man with a long term woman partner who are in our late 20s, will ever want children of our own. I learned a lot reflecting on the book, including the physical, mental, emotional uneven division of labor between men and women in the childbearing and rearing domestic sphere, the idea that isolated mental mining of thoughts and feelings is inherently infinitely isolating and recursive, and so the real feelings have to be discovered interpersonally and collaboratively, and that I personally have a long way to go in my own personal and moral development before I can one day be a father (if I so choose) that I fundamentally accept as "ready" in the slippery and hard to pin down sense of that term.
Fundamentally, not having a children because of "circumstances not being right" is just the other side of the coin of having an unplanned pregancy and you have to make do now: both ideas take the agency and choice out of the hands of the individual and put them at the whims of chance and fate. Whether you have children or not, it should be because that's what you want and you should be working toward a life of meaning and purpose, whether children are a part of that or not.
Read
March 9, 2025ambitious, loving, interesting. significant tonal and research shifts throughout the text. would have functioned better as a first-person dual narration. funny that this rags on the argonauts for its open subjectivity as a “life of the mind” nonfiction book, where the key drama is the writers’ philosophical and intellectual persuits. when the writers ask questions from the “i” position— as philosophers and mothers — that’s when this text becomes compelling, not in their pseudo research of their privileged peers or sweeping literary reviews. but a fun and thought provoking read nonetheless.
Read
October 19, 2024Deciding to start a family and have children is a personal choice and in today’s world where so many couples we know choose not to have children, my husband and I had many discussions around why we wanted to. I was intrigued to learn about What Are Children For?: On Ambivalence and Choice and decided to see the other side of the decision - when people don’t quite know yet what they want to do.
I don’t need to look far to find the last generation where everyone had kids. My parents' generation was that. I know of no married uncles or aunts who chose not to have kids. I picked up What Are Children For? to understand the choices or situations for couples to decide not to have children. Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman present a thorough review of surveys, literature and opinions around ambivalence and the final choice to have kids.
I enjoyed the introduction “Under pressure” written by Rachel and the first chapter “The Externals” of this book. It laid out the historical background around the rise of ambivalence around having children. I heard from both men and women from different walks of life, sharing the thoughts that hold them back. I learned about a course that has been available since the 1990s for couples to take and help them figure out if having children is right for them. A number of factors can affect the decision including but not limited to age, financial stability, society pressure, personal values, religious influence, etc. In reading other reviews, there may be other aspects that could have been considered.
I don’t go out of my way to read feminist point of views and as I finished the first chapter, I was curious what feminists think of motherhood. The second chapter “The Dialectic of Motherhood” did a great job of reviewing those different perspectives and the futuristic settings that some feminists think childbirth would eventually move to.
The third chapter is where this book felt like it no longer took a neutral stance on childbirth. As an avid reader, I thought I would like an analysis of how motherhood and choice to have kids is portrayed in literature. The third chapter’s name “Analysis Paralysis” ended up being just that. Firstly, I got the distinct impression that it was an academic literature review. The writing was not engaging anymore. It was very analytical and structured like arguments. I had heard some of the novels mentioned in the chapter but not most of them. The plot of many of the novels was analyzed in detail so now I have read spoilers. I struggled so much with this chapter. I wanted to be interested but I could not figure out why I was not. So I took a break and returning a few months later showed me the problem. What made this chapter very hard to read was the fact that most, if not all (because I can’t remember anymore) books covered did not have a positive spin on motherhood and pregnancy. Some of the women did go ahead and have children, but a lot of times, it felt like reading long dissatisfied monologues that were followed by analysis of those monologues which only proved the authors’ points that deciding to have children is life changing in a negative way.
Anyway, I kept going and made it to the final chapter of the book “To be or…?”. It was almost as frustrating as chapter three. The emphasis changed from feminism and literature to broader topics like global warming that influence the choice to have children. It was the experiences and thoughts of everyday people like me with day jobs that made the start of this book such an interesting read. But by this chapter, I was reading climate activists' takes on whether they want children or not (and books and essays about this) and celebrities and movie producers on their thoughts and how they manage creative work with families, or their outright disgust at the idea of having children. Anti-natalist arguments were analyzed in depth. It was physiologically quite dense, countering each argument. I felt that the examples chosen here were primarily antenatal and providing pro-natal commentary would have made this more balanced. Overall, the conclusion was that the answer to whether to have kids or not is a personal choice.
The conclusion of the book, “Hello from the other side”, is written by Anastasia where she contemplates at length about how to answer the question “how is motherhood?” for herself from the time her daughter is born to almost two years old when she and her husband are thinking of another child. The book redeemed itself a little bit at this point. I felt that even though the author had children, she continued to have mixed feelings about that choice, or maybe had to continue to justify the positive against the challenges.
Having children is a personal choice and it is a huge life change no doubt. Maybe some people accept the changes in lifestyle children bring with grace. For others, it might take years to let go of how life used to be before children. Some parts of What Are Children For? explores the struggles of going from ambivalence to making the choice to have children and the shock of how much they truly change life. It is a choice that was made, not one that was an innate draw, like it is for some couples who instinctively know if they want children or not. Maybe the struggle of parenthood is harder in the case of looking very closely on why something matters when our heart isn’t sure and has to be convinced. Maybe once we are committed, some of us can adjust to the changes better than others. I do not know. Personal experiences are varied and just like no pregnancy or child is the same as another, ambivalence and the final decision to have or not have children is also very personal and would look different for every person.
What role does this book play to that effect?
All in all, I really wanted to like What Are Children For? It had the makings of a great book, one that could have been a resource for someone looking to read a book about ambivalence and how to navigate it. If it had stayed neutral to ambivalence rather than showing a negative picture of childbirth and motherhood through its mostly one sided research, I would have recommended it. But the way it is, I cannot recommend to someone looking to read neutral resources about whether to have children. It is more focused on the not and though that is a legit approach to getting to why, I felt the tone was more negative than positive. After the first chapter, the book feels too academic and the philosophical arguments may not be an approach that all readers can engage in.
Many thanks to the publisher for a review copy of this book for my honest thoughts.
- Kriti, Armed with A Book | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram
I don’t need to look far to find the last generation where everyone had kids. My parents' generation was that. I know of no married uncles or aunts who chose not to have kids. I picked up What Are Children For? to understand the choices or situations for couples to decide not to have children. Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman present a thorough review of surveys, literature and opinions around ambivalence and the final choice to have kids.
I enjoyed the introduction “Under pressure” written by Rachel and the first chapter “The Externals” of this book. It laid out the historical background around the rise of ambivalence around having children. I heard from both men and women from different walks of life, sharing the thoughts that hold them back. I learned about a course that has been available since the 1990s for couples to take and help them figure out if having children is right for them. A number of factors can affect the decision including but not limited to age, financial stability, society pressure, personal values, religious influence, etc. In reading other reviews, there may be other aspects that could have been considered.
I don’t go out of my way to read feminist point of views and as I finished the first chapter, I was curious what feminists think of motherhood. The second chapter “The Dialectic of Motherhood” did a great job of reviewing those different perspectives and the futuristic settings that some feminists think childbirth would eventually move to.
The third chapter is where this book felt like it no longer took a neutral stance on childbirth. As an avid reader, I thought I would like an analysis of how motherhood and choice to have kids is portrayed in literature. The third chapter’s name “Analysis Paralysis” ended up being just that. Firstly, I got the distinct impression that it was an academic literature review. The writing was not engaging anymore. It was very analytical and structured like arguments. I had heard some of the novels mentioned in the chapter but not most of them. The plot of many of the novels was analyzed in detail so now I have read spoilers. I struggled so much with this chapter. I wanted to be interested but I could not figure out why I was not. So I took a break and returning a few months later showed me the problem. What made this chapter very hard to read was the fact that most, if not all (because I can’t remember anymore) books covered did not have a positive spin on motherhood and pregnancy. Some of the women did go ahead and have children, but a lot of times, it felt like reading long dissatisfied monologues that were followed by analysis of those monologues which only proved the authors’ points that deciding to have children is life changing in a negative way.
Anyway, I kept going and made it to the final chapter of the book “To be or…?”. It was almost as frustrating as chapter three. The emphasis changed from feminism and literature to broader topics like global warming that influence the choice to have children. It was the experiences and thoughts of everyday people like me with day jobs that made the start of this book such an interesting read. But by this chapter, I was reading climate activists' takes on whether they want children or not (and books and essays about this) and celebrities and movie producers on their thoughts and how they manage creative work with families, or their outright disgust at the idea of having children. Anti-natalist arguments were analyzed in depth. It was physiologically quite dense, countering each argument. I felt that the examples chosen here were primarily antenatal and providing pro-natal commentary would have made this more balanced. Overall, the conclusion was that the answer to whether to have kids or not is a personal choice.
The conclusion of the book, “Hello from the other side”, is written by Anastasia where she contemplates at length about how to answer the question “how is motherhood?” for herself from the time her daughter is born to almost two years old when she and her husband are thinking of another child. The book redeemed itself a little bit at this point. I felt that even though the author had children, she continued to have mixed feelings about that choice, or maybe had to continue to justify the positive against the challenges.
Having children is a personal choice and it is a huge life change no doubt. Maybe some people accept the changes in lifestyle children bring with grace. For others, it might take years to let go of how life used to be before children. Some parts of What Are Children For? explores the struggles of going from ambivalence to making the choice to have children and the shock of how much they truly change life. It is a choice that was made, not one that was an innate draw, like it is for some couples who instinctively know if they want children or not. Maybe the struggle of parenthood is harder in the case of looking very closely on why something matters when our heart isn’t sure and has to be convinced. Maybe once we are committed, some of us can adjust to the changes better than others. I do not know. Personal experiences are varied and just like no pregnancy or child is the same as another, ambivalence and the final decision to have or not have children is also very personal and would look different for every person.
What role does this book play to that effect?
All in all, I really wanted to like What Are Children For? It had the makings of a great book, one that could have been a resource for someone looking to read a book about ambivalence and how to navigate it. If it had stayed neutral to ambivalence rather than showing a negative picture of childbirth and motherhood through its mostly one sided research, I would have recommended it. But the way it is, I cannot recommend to someone looking to read neutral resources about whether to have children. It is more focused on the not and though that is a legit approach to getting to why, I felt the tone was more negative than positive. After the first chapter, the book feels too academic and the philosophical arguments may not be an approach that all readers can engage in.
Many thanks to the publisher for a review copy of this book for my honest thoughts.
- Kriti, Armed with A Book | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews