Today is my blogoversary of joining ScienceBlogs. w00t! It's been, well, quite a year.
Last week I was anticipating the big commemorative event, complete with fan fare, the sacrifice of some animals (but not JB Handley's horse), a full day of unabashed worship, and ballads and prose from my Sciblings telling me how I have totally hottened up the place. Cause, let's not lie, I have....
But, today I am mostly just exhausted. Yesterday I was so exhausted I went to bed at 8pm. Today instead of posting links to all the most amazing things I have written since joining ScienceBlogs I'm mostly thinking that it seems premature to be patting myself on the back. After all, where was I a year ago when I joined the Borg?
Exhausted. And I thought tonight, after reading some comments on Female Science Professor's post on Kidlessness I'd write about being exhausted. In the post, Female Science Professor follows up on a previous post polling her readers about their career and family choices. She writes:
At the risk of upsetting my ethically inclined bio-colleagues with another survey, I hope that some of the childless respondents from yesterday (female and male), or anyone willing to share their personal data, will leave a comment today that completes this sentence:
I am [female/male] and I do not have children because.. [rest of sentence].
I was intrigued by some of the commenters, early in their careers, who had not had children and were afraid that motherhood and sciencehood were not compatible.
I wandered deeper into the comments section of the post and that's when I saw it. Commenter Cloud writes:
To those looking for role models of women combining careers in science and motherhood, can I suggest using the internet? I know of a few blogs written by professors who are also mothers (this one, Blue Lab Coats, Dr. Isis' blog....) I know that it would be nicer to have examples you can actually meet and have lunch with, but don't discount what you can learn from anonymous bloggers online! Also, a lot of bloggers will take the time to answer personal emails looking for advice and/or data points about what combining career and motherhood looks like.Role model? Oh no! drdrA? Probably. Me? I'm happy to role model being exhausted. Man, have I got that shit down.
When I moved to ScienceBlogs I was the mother of a two year old. Now I am the mother of a three year old. I love being a scientist and the mother of a three year old, but my three year old is beginning to try my patience. For Little Isis's sake, there had better be a God because I am convinced nothing else can save my sanity but divine intervention.
On Wednesday nights Mr. Isis engages in an extracurricular activity away from home and Little Isis and I stay home and cook dinner together. Then we play toys.
Ok, usually I am the one playing toys. But, I digress.
Tonight Little Isis and I were standing at the kitchen counter and I was chopping vegetables. Then next thing I knew, my socked feet were warm and wet. And then I heard...
Mommy, I just had an accident.I sloshed my child into the bathroom, peeled his soaked clothes from his little person, and asked him if he wanted to try to go in the potty. He replied,
Mommy, I don't have to go potty. All of my pee pees are in my underpants.
Figure 2: I suppose the kid's got a point. You can't squeeze urine from a stone.
After convincing Little Isis to dribble in the potty a bit, a bit of negotiation strategy that I am convinced could benefit peace talks in the middle east, I returned to the kitchen to clean up the puddle. Kneeling next to it, and trying to keep the dog from drinking it, I said to Little Isis:
Is everything alright, honey? You haven't had an accident in a long time. Did you forget to tell me?To which he replied:
Shut, up Mommy.I've never heard Little Isis speak this way before and I was pretty surprised by his response. When I told him that this is not a polite thing to say to one's mommy he told me:
But David says it to his mommy.And that's when I knew I was in trouble. David is a little boy at Little Isis's preschool with some serious behavioral problems that may stem from some issues that his his parents are dealing with. We have heard a lot about David lately. A lot. Daily. David's malfeasance has begun to infiltrate our home and, while I appreciate that no 3 year old can really be responsible for his actions, if I hear "But David does it" even one more time, I am going to sneak into David's house in the middle of the night and murder that little brat in his sleep.
Figure 3: Ninja-style.Three is just as exhausting as two and two is as exhausting as one and one is as exhausting as when they were an infant - the difference is that the exhaustion has a different cause at each stage. While during infancy I was sleep-deprived and felt like a walking milk cow, I'm now exhausted trying to keep up with a curious and precocious little boy, trying to prevent the constant threat of permanent bodily injury, while simultaneously battling the bad influences around him. You know, ninja style.
But, to go back to the commenters at Female Science Professor's place who are worried about science and motherhood not being compatible -- you guys are totally screwed. Not because science and motherhood are not compatible, but because motherhood is just not compatible with anything rational or sane. This week I am convinced that if they weren't so damned cute and we didn't love them so deeply, we'd eat our young.
Let's continue this tomorrow because, seriously, I am about to fall asleep and I can't guarantee what I may say from this point on. In the meantime, I'll leave you something to discuss in the comments section below. Modified from Female Science Professor's post:
Education
Life Science
Comments
...
I am a male and I do have children because I choose to try to pass forward a positive influence on the future and thinking, caring, loving hands and minds to implement that influence.
So far (knock on wood) I have not been (too) disappointed...**
...tom...
** Of course, none of them have peed on the kitchen floor lately either. This too shall pass Isis. As your post seems to indicate you already know.
Posted by: ...tom... | November 4, 2009 10:57 PM
I'm a female and do not have children because...well, FUCK, I don't like them. I'm the eldest in the family and I've had to raise my siblings--two of them since birth--and I can tell you that they are annoying little shits. Right now I'm doing nearly 100% of the child rearing since my mum lives elsewhere due to work and my dad is working most of the time. It is fucking exhausting, and I get NO reward from it.
My own kids? DO NOT WANT. I don't want to go through the diapering, the peeing on the floor, the disciplining, the cooking for picky eaters, the making them do homework, etc. again. For what? So my own kids can coo and giggle at me? So they can one day make me proud? So they can love me unconditionally?
No. Just. No.
I'd rather have a herd of cats.
Posted by: Nekohime | November 4, 2009 11:32 PM
i made it into a blog post...
http://lalaleigha.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/thought-process-on-the-kids-question/
Posted by: leigh | November 4, 2009 11:57 PM
I am female, and I have children because I like kids--a lot.
And why is it that people don't have kids because they don't want to deal with poop etc? That is such a short phase of their life. My kids do all the dishes in the house. They pick up and vacuum or sweep/mop all the public areas of our home. They can make breakfast/lunch/dinner for us if my husband and I can't get around to it. They mow the lawn and rake leaves and wash the exterior of the car and vacuum the inside...and that's just the beginning!
But kids are more than just free slave labor. My kids because they make me laugh when I'm feeling blue. They spot cool things that I would never notice because I'm so busy trying to cross things off the to-do list. They give me hugs when I'm having a weepy day and every once in a while they even surprise me with a compliment or two.
When they were little, I loved my kids because they were cute. But the older they get, the more I like them as human beings. They are intelligent. They are witty. They are kind. Some day, when they're grown and we can have a more equal relationship, I will be proud to call them my friends.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | November 5, 2009 12:10 AM
I'm sorry to have turned you into an unsuspecting role model. But that comment thread was getting depressing- everyone seemed so convinced that they couldn't possibly have kids and a career in academic science but they were commenting on the blog of a woman who has a child and a career in academic science.... I had to point out the obvious and also point out that there are a few other examples of the academic scientist/mother out there in the blogosphere.
Anyway, I'll answer your question:
I'm female and I have kids because I suddenly realized I wanted them. I suspect something biological kicked in. Now that I have them, I'm glad I have them because they add perspective to my life, make me get joy from things I used to take for granted (like sea horses- who knew sea horses were so cool???), and because my husband is an amazing father. And for lots of other reasons, too, which I'm too tired to try to enumerate.
When the time came, I didn't really give a flying fig about whether having kids would damage my career. So far, I have detected no damage. But I work in industry, so I am no use as an example to the commenters on Female Science Professor's blog.
We're potty training, too. I can't say its one of my favorite parts of parenting. We foolishly started potty training the toddler just a few weeks after our second child was born. She seemed so ready, always talking about the pull ups the other girls at day care were wearing. Ha! She fooled us.
Posted by: Cloud | November 5, 2009 12:23 AM
I am female and I do not have children because...
I am two years into a five year PhD program.
I don't have the sort of genes you want to pass on to an unsuspecting child. As Stza Crack says, "addiction and depression is just swimming in my cum". This leaves me leaning towards adoption, which require a lot of money.
I don't have a life partner. I would be okay raising children alone, but I know I am not in a place right now where that is possible. I hope that someday I will have a partner that I could balance those duties with, but that isn't where I am at right now.
I have this intense fear that some sort of bizarre "maternal instinct" will take over as soon as I have a child, and my science will suffer immensely. I can barely stay on track when my dog and Facebook are my only attentional demands. How do I manage KIDS?
Posted by: Amber | November 5, 2009 12:39 AM
i am female and i do not have children because i worked in retail wayyyy too early in my life in a job where i saw the WORST mothers ever. i used to think that it was bratty kids that i hated, but then i realised it was actually the snobby parents with the 'my kid does no wrong so you can just deal with their temper tantrums and naughty behaviour because it's not my problem' attitude. it wasn't until the past few years where i've started to meet (or in isis' case read about) some totally rockin' (and stylish!!) parents and the idea is slightly less frightening.
Posted by: erica | November 5, 2009 1:05 AM
I am female and don't have kids because I just don't see the appeal. I mean, there's some slight appeal, but not enough to balance stories like this one, let alone pregnancy and childbirth.
Posted by: rehana | November 5, 2009 1:07 AM
I was struck by the honesty of this (anonymous) comment on the “Kidlessness” thread:
I am a tenured FSP.
At ~40 years old, I gave birth to one healthy planned child….
I would like to comment on a previous post that concerned "the day that people stop assuming that having a kid makes you less of a scientist..."
I would like to note that having a kid DOES MAKE ME LESS OF A SCIENTIST. I think less than I used to. I produce less. I mentor my graduate students less. I have less funding. I read less. I have fewer ideas. I have less energy and time to pursue the ideas I do have.
This is true even though I am healthy, have a healthy child, have outstanding daycare, have good health care, have a helpful spouse, and have occasional help from extended family when one of us is out of town.
I do not regret my decision to have a child - my child brings great joy into my life - but years after the event I am still continually exhausted. I am glad I waited until after tenure.
Perhaps this woman also has a small child. Hopefully one day she will no longer feel exhausted. But wow … what a gutsy thing to write – and on the blog of a woman who sometimes makes it look so easy!
I don’t have any children (yet!), but I’m not convinced that it’s any harder to balance kids with academia than it would be to balance them with any other demanding job.
Posted by: Hope | November 5, 2009 2:46 AM
I am female (34, married 9 years, currently a postdoc, husband not in science) and I do not have children because neither my husband nor myself has ever strongly wanted them.
Posted by: JAE | November 5, 2009 3:14 AM
I am a female PhD student and I have two kids and a post-doc husband. I just finished reading FSP's thread and it made me cry. I am 31 and had one kid while husband was in grad school and the other while I was in grad school. What the hell were we thinking?
Some days I feel like it was totally worth it and other days I just envy my childless peers. At least once a week we discuss quitting/moving etc as potential solutions to our circus life. I don't even have a good reason for being in grad school except that I LOVE DOING RESEARCH. I have no career goals, I just enjoy it. I could be such a great scientist without the little ones, but I don't know how important science vs. kids will be to me when I'm 45. I'll probably be really glad I had the kiddos and that I got the PhD, but I am teetering on the bridge of insanity. Someone in my house has been sick enough to not attend daycare/work for 10 out of the last 14 days. What the hell am I supposed to do about that? I know people will probably hate me for being honest about these feelings, but oh well, it's the truth.
My older one had behavior problems this whole year and we had to scale back to part-time daycare (good for the family, bad for the science). I had to switch labs because of an unsupportive advisor and start a whole new project. My current advisor is super, but nothing gets around the fact that I can't work as much. The comment that Hope quoted (#9) IS TRUE! Having a kid does make me less of a scientist too. I may be doing better work than many of the grad students around me, but I'm not doing nearly as much as I would if I were childless.
Of course I adore my kids, but the older one is just starting to not be a complete energy-sucker and the toddler is entering the terrible twos. They'll get a lot easier, I know, and we're sure loving the vasectomy. I know I would be really sad when I was 39 and infertile if I hadn't had kids. They are just SO HARD. It is kicking our collective ass. My husband and I were both barfing yesterday. Caring for two little emperors while barfing, canceling the class you were supposed to teach (him), trying to submit an abstract (me), and not killing someone in the process is really effing hard.
I used to feel proud of what I am trying to do, but lately I just feel like a fool. It's not considered okay to regret having kids, and I don't regret it. I'm just still coming to terms with what it has cost me and my husband and learning to accept that. I feel like world's worst mom (for resenting them sometimes) and world's worst scientist (for aborting my successful experiment right in the middle of it to get home on time). There's something wrong with academics that it's like this. FSP's comment thread just made me more depressed. I'm going to bed.
Posted by: Wombat | November 5, 2009 3:41 AM
I can't believe I forgot to mention that Dr. Isis is my heroine and that she is sometimes the only encouragement that gets me through the day. I take time to read her blog (and some others) because if I didn't my mental health would be in shambles. And she's Catholic, which is rad.
Posted by: Wombat | November 5, 2009 4:01 AM
I'm female and I don't have kids because as a full-time PhD student who works part time (for the luxuries of food and electricity), I don't have time to meet anyone to have kids with, let alone raise some.
It is a niggling worry though - I look around my department at the single, childless female academics, who are amazing scientists and I wonder whether they consciously made that decision, or whether they woke up one day and realised that they'd been so focused on the science, that they had missed the opportunity for a family.
Posted by: Em | November 5, 2009 5:09 AM
I am female and I don't have children because, while I've always said that I wanted 4 children, and the first one before I'm 30, I'm 29 now, in the last year of my PhD, and having one child in the next 2-3 years would be a challenge.
There's a dream to go abroad for 2 years for a post-doc, and while I'm not afraid of having a young child with me there, I'm not so sure that I want to be pregnant and have my baby there. Also, my partner isn't quite convinced yet, so we've decided to wait at least until after we get married (which will happen in April, whee!). Who knows, I will probably join the exhausted ranks within the next 5 years.
Posted by: FAW | November 5, 2009 7:02 AM
I'm female and I don't have children because I'm only 21, I'm not even out of my undegrad, and I'm not really interested in kids at all. I don't see myself ever having kids because I'm too self-centered and raising children seems like such a hassle that involves few rewards I'm interested in.
Posted by: LostMarbles | November 5, 2009 7:35 AM
I am a female in my 30s and I do not have children because I am too selfish. I am no longer a research scientist, but working in a science-related field and pursuing lots of other interests that are incompatible with children. I struggle with this a lot, as part of me would dearly love kids. But I realise that it's the same kind of yearning as I feel for wanting a puppy. I love babies, they are adorable. But I don't think I could have my own.
Posted by: A Nonymouse | November 5, 2009 7:54 AM
I am female (33), and I am hoping for a child despite starting year 1 on the TT and all that comes with it. I think Isis is right - parenthood can be incompatible with a lot of things but somehow that ceases to matter if you really, really want to be a parent.
Posted by: New Asst. Prof. | November 5, 2009 8:07 AM
I'm 29, married for 9 years to a (currently) postdoc, with absolutely no intention of getting pregnant. Our rationale was this: we like our life. We have been told innumerable times that having kids, while really hard, is also really awesome. We can't make any comparisons between this thing we don't understand (really hard/really awesome) and our status quo. What if the "really awesome" doesn't outweigh the "really hard"? We're just not willing to give up something we know is good for the potential of something awesome.
Posted by: DamnGoodTechnician | November 5, 2009 8:22 AM
I'm female and I do not have kids because of...well...fear.
I'm afraid of having a child and then having something happen to it. Or to me, or to my husband. I just don't think I could handle that. Yes, I know that everyone worries about their kids. Yes, I know that you manage to hide, bury, or otherwise deal with that worry. But for me, the cost is just too high.
I like kids (in small doses, as long as they're not whining), and love to play with my friends' children. I find babies absolutely fascinating. But I have no desire for my own. So I suppose there's an aspect of selfishness in there, too.
Posted by: Dr. Kate | November 5, 2009 8:54 AM
So I'm 29, female, an MD and working in both basic science and transitional medicine while doing my surgical residency (surg onc fellow to follow). The soon-to-be hubby isn't in medicine or science (while drives me mad when trying to explain that the plural of anecdote is not data). We don't have kids - yet - because we don't have the finances to give them what we want to - yet. That should change within the next five years, so we'll avoid the increase in non-disjunction events (maternal age) neatly.
So seriously. I get it. It's hard. Intern year was hard and being a mother is harder. It makes you cry and tear at your hair and get frustrated and want to complain and vent. I was much less optimistic while wearing an N95 respirator mask and rolling around an IV bag so I could keep taking care of patients while I was sick with the flu and there was no one to take my hospital call. It wears at you sometimes. But not thinking about science as much doesn't make you LESS OF A SCIENTIST. That's insane. It's like patients who have mastectomies thinking losing their breasts make them less of a woman. Yes, breasts are something a woman has and thinking about science is something a scientist does, but having less of either doesn't negate either category. If a scientist is what you are that colors everything you do - from the way you make your kids sandwiches or teach them about the world or argue with your husband or gather super hot data and none of those things change that.
This is not a zero sum game. You can be a scientist and mother and macrame maker if you want. Nothing is ever ideal, but don't make perfect the enemy of good.
Damn.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | November 5, 2009 9:07 AM
I am female and I do not have a child because I'm scared. I was 12 when my sister was born and spent a lot of time looking after her as she grew up and I would yell at her and be angry because she stopped me having a life of my own. I love her dearly and regret every bad word I've said to her because she is sweet and smart and kind and funny. I worry that I was angry not just because I was a teenager, but that I'm like that naturally. I'd hate for another child to have to live with my temper and my resentment that they've taken the fun from my life.
Posted by: Just another anon | November 5, 2009 9:09 AM
I'm male, 29, married, and a grad student. I do not have kids because I know that I do not currently have time for them, and can't afford them. And that's if everything goes right and we get healthy, well behaved kids. What happens if we get disabled or "naughty" kids. What if our kid is autistic? What if it's a destructive, violent little thug? Also, my wife is an elementary school art teacher, and her maternal instinct has been more or less permanently satisfied/quenched/extinguished.
I like kids, don't get me wrong. I specifically like other peoples kids, because they act cute and say funny things, and then they go away. And if they aren't cute or funny (ie. acting like brats), I can go away.
Maybe after I graduate i'll get a dog and see how that goes.
Posted by: mousedude | November 5, 2009 9:14 AM
male, 2 teenage kids, professional wife. There is no "because" to why we had kids. It was the only path consistent with our marriage and our life goals. As for exhaustion: been there, done that. The older boy didn't sleep through the night until he was 3-1/2; every night I'd walk around the neighborhood carrying him at 1 AM so the wife could get some sleep.
Being a parent is compatible with a career in science, but it has the effect of knocking 0.5 standard deviations off your peak performance (involved parents, anyways). Making 2-career supportive decisions knocks down another 0.5 SD. Life choices are compromises; competetiveness at a superstar career got compromised away. My career is OK, but not great. And I don't regret that at all.
Posted by: David | November 5, 2009 9:30 AM
I seem to be an outlier here. I'm female, 50, in industry, so I'm really old compared to the rest of you, and I have a 15 year old son. He's the joy of my life and a lot of work, and yes, he interfered with my career as a technical writer who writes about hot smokin' software. But, he's a cool person and I'm glad he's around.
I also had the advantage of being a writer rather than a scientist, so I did have the choice to work at home when he was sick with minor ailments. That's not something someone tied to a lab can do.
The only other drawback I can see is that carrying a small kid on my hip forced me into lovely sandals and neat ballet flats. I can still enjoy looking at hot, hot shoes, but I'd rather wear practical (but attractive) shoes.
Posted by: Lauren | November 5, 2009 9:37 AM
I am female and have a child because I can't imagine life without a child. Actually now I am living life without a child as mine is recently grown and on his own. Yes I remember the exhaustion well but, quite frankly, I'm often still exhausted from my science. The difference is (a) I can now take a break if I choose to and (b) I don't have to decide between time with my son and time with my science. I agree 100% that motherhood is not compatible with anything rational or sane. But as crazy as it sounds I would kill to have him peeing on my socks again (well not at age 20 but at age 3).
Happy blogoversary. I've enjoyed the past year immensely.
Posted by: Brigindo | November 5, 2009 9:40 AM
I am female, 32 and have one child almost 2 years old and one on the way. I really do not like children. Other peoples children that is. My own is of course the love of my life. I got children because I was getting old(er), and could not picture myself growng old without having children. If I was still without children, I probably would have been doing my PhD about now. And now, that road seems so far away, having other things in my life that require my time and attention.
Not one of the comments I have read here has addressed the issue of biological clock. I hate to bring it to you people, but at 35, it might be to late to even get pregnant at all. If you start getting pregnant at 35, you try for a year, without succsess. At 36 you start doing all the exams for "what could be wrong". At 37 you might be ready to try IVF. At 38 you could have 4-5 unsuccessfull IVF attempts behind you, it really takes a lot of time. At 39, it is not too uncommom to hit menopause, and it it definitly game over. Yes, Madonna got pregnant at 40, but that is the exception, not the rule.
I got pregnant now because it is now I am fertile. I can always do a PhD when I am 40. I do not think I will have the engergy to have an infant at 40 and a 10 year old at 50, if I am lucky enough to still be fertile at that age.
We grow old and refuse to accnowledge it.
Posted by: Nimsy | November 5, 2009 10:31 AM
I am a male (34 years old, bald, smelly, and tired), have been married for 9+ years, and have two kids (6 months and 2.5 years). My wife and I didn't have kids when I was in grad school cuz we were broke and away from our families. This would have made life insanely difficult, which is already grad school's job.
After being a post doc and believing that I would have a TT job in the future, we decided to have kids. About 1.5 years into Child 1, I landed a TT job. I started it about 3 months into Child 2. Wow. It's hard. But, coffee, cigarettes, and night cap/cocktails (after the kids are sleeping) kept our parents together, so why not give it a whirl!?!? So far, so good.
Importantly, however, iIf Mrs. TreeFish wasn't a perfect 10 on all levels (e.g., inner and outer beauty, humor, strength, intelligence, tolerance), we'd be spiraling out of control. One needs an incredible amount of strength and an incredible support structure to raise kids and be a career-oriented person. Dear God...that's the truth.
They do inspire you, though. There is nothing like a hug and a kiss...or even a smile or laugh, from the little ones you're raising to inspire you to keep the train rolling.
Posted by: TreeFish | November 5, 2009 10:33 AM
All right, Dr. Fabulous Shoes! I agree-- it is not a zero sum game. I am starting my fourth year as TT assistant professor and have a one year old boy. It sucked at the beginning because I am not crazy about babies but right now it ROCKS. And my husband and I don't put as much (over)time in at work as we used to, but I do more stuff from home when he's sleeping. Academic jobs are infinite in scope-- there is always something more to do. People claim they can't even sleep because they need that time to work. I schedule in "living" and give science the rest.
Posted by: orangestuff | November 5, 2009 10:34 AM
This thread is getting very depressing as well :(
I am a female Associate Professor and have three children. They were born when I was 6 months into, 3 years into, and 1 year after grad school. The honest "because" is that my husband and I are apparently no good at birth control: we only managed to plan the even-numbered children (I sure hope they are not reading this). However we always wanted to have children, it was just the timing that was off. Funny that I can't verbalize why we wanted children - perhaps it is just the default position (culture, genes, ...), so you have to reasons _not_ to want children. However I don't regret having children at all, and don't feel that they affected my career substantially. The timing actually worked out much better than I would have thought. I had much more flexibility during grad school than later in my career. It is interesting that several commenters mention being afraid of having children. While it is a major decision, perhaps the control we have over it makes us overthink this question.
As additional anectodes, the two other ladies in my department both have children (2 and 3, respectively), that were born during or shortly after grad school. I don't know why, of course.
Posted by: Aniko | November 5, 2009 10:45 AM
Yes, yes- Dr. Fabulous Shoes. Thanks for the comment. I can see that some types of high-flying careers (or ones that require a lot of fieldwork or something like that) might be challenging to balance with motherhood, but I am constantly amazed by what people figure out and are able to do. My husband and I have both made some trade offs/adjustments to handle parenthood, some at work, but more in our hobbies. And that is OK with us, because the kids are amazing.
Hubby describes it as like that wonderful feeling you get when you first fall in love, except it never goes away. Even when you're cleaning up the various bodily fluids that you inevitably have to deal with in the early years.
For the record, I decided to go into industry well before I was thinking about having kids. The type of work I do is better suited for industry than academia. I have made some career choices with an eye to what fits my life best, but I don't feel that my career has suffered from it.
Also, while it is true that some people will have fertility problems if they wait too long to have kids, some people will have fertility problems at the age of 25. They just get more likely as you age. And some people will have no fertility problems at all- I had my two kids at 35 and 37. It took two months and one month (really) of "trying" (i.e., not actively preventing pregnancy) each time. I know I'm lucky, but I'm not a freak of nature. Also, the doctors won't label you "advanced maternal age" until your over 35, and the truly eye-popping risk increases start closer to 40.
Posted by: Cloud | November 5, 2009 10:48 AM
I'm female, 35, and I don't have kids because I haven't found the right guy to be the father and I'm not ready to try and do it on my own. Lately, I've been wondering if kids are the cards for me. The boyfriend doesn't think he wants them. Plus, it seems so hard. My friends with kids are always exhausted. Sometime I feel like I can barely keep my cat fed and the laundry done. How can I possibly be anyone's mother?
Posted by: katydid13 | November 5, 2009 10:59 AM
Male, 44, one five-year-old. I admit that the single largest factor in having our daughter was that my wife wanted to, for whatever her own reasons are, and I firmly believe that being married is largely about accepting a spouse's desires and priorities as equal to one's own. She wanted, so I wanted. Other factors include the fact that it's an amazing adventure/experiment, that I want for there to be at least one kid in the next generation who will inherit some of my (and my wife's) non-genetic things like character and values. The timing was based on feeling ready in terms both of resources and of stability/maturity/satisfaction in ourselves, our marriage, and our careers.
I'm happy to say that it has turned out to an even more exciting adventure than either of us had anticipated, especially in terms of being able to interact and bond with a completely unique person who is in some ways so familiar and pliable but in other ways so alien and independent. No interaction with a fellow adult feels like that. The experience has also been more exhausting than I had ever imagined, even now that she's in kindergarten. The "problem" is that I consider family an absolute priority. "Absolute" means that literally any other need must yield at some time, whether the need relates to career, friends, sleep, sex, good food or intellectual stimulation. It is most relevantly not possible to feel that way about one's family and simultaneously feel that way about one's career - no matter how well someone in medicine or military service might be justified in believing that. Either the irresistible force is not so irresistible, or the immovable object is not so immovable. One must, ultimately, be subordinate to the other and people should be able to accept logical necessity without feeling bad about it.
Posted by: Jeff Darcy | November 5, 2009 11:01 AM
I am female and have a 4 kids, ages 9 to 23. They are expensive, time-consuming creatures...and I love them to pieces. They are our contribution to the world. We're raising them to be self-sufficient, God-loving, science-based little chickens. Someone has to continue hot science, the fight against general stupidity and wackaloonery, right? We're not going to live forever.
Has it been difficult? Oh yeah. Damn near lost my mind several times. I still might.
Did the kids slow my career? Hell yes. I'm 47 and just starting to recover. The world does not always understand that work can't come first in my life. And it's hard to do hot science when you're in a state of perpetual exhaustion with all of the stuff that comes with having children.
It's been two decades, but I clearly remember one particular night. Child #1 was sleep-walking. I got out of our bed to steer her back to hers...and stepped in a warm puddle. I flipped on the hall light to discover that she peed while sleep-walking and had left a trail through the house. My husband was out of town and I was near bursting with child #2. I stood there crying wondering whether to clean the kid, my feet, or the house first. I can look back and laugh at it now...
Child #1 is about to graduate from college with her BS in Chemical Engineering (a semester early) and is going straight for her PhD. She has arranged to work in a lab between January and the start of school in August. She's doing hot science of her own and I'm proud as hell. Rock on child!
One down...three to go...and worth every moment.
Isis, thanks for sharing your life with us. You make me laugh and that is a very good thing. Happy Blogoversary.
Posted by: IrishMom | November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
I'm female (6th year grad student, 25 years old, and unmarried although with a great partner) with a 2 month old. I decided to have him because... Oh hell, I don't know. I didn't know what I was getting into. But I don't know that I ever would have.
I don't know if I'll make it through grad school now (though I don't know if I would have otherwise, either, I guess- I feel a bit like I didn't have the 0.5 std dev of performance to spare).
I was thinking about this last night. It hasn't, and probably won't, change my identity. I don't think of myself as a mother. Maybe just not yet? In any case, I can't imagine thinking of myself as a mother and not something else. (I come from three generations of working women).
On the other hand, becoming a parent has given me an additioanl sense of purpose. Now that it's happened, I need to be there for him.
Oh and Dr. Isis- I agree absolutely on the motherhood being incompatible with anything rational. Hell, it's incompatible with arithmetic! 4x2 hour naps != 8 hours sleep.
Posted by: becca | November 5, 2009 11:27 AM
I'm too old and out of your loop to have a relevant answer to your final question, but for context we have 4 (grown) children and I clawed my way back into science/science support WAY below your level AFTER the children.
My contribution is a longer view of the stages of childhood, that you can peg to various ages depending on the child and the environs:
1. A child is born doing little beyond the basics of life, then
2. learns to coo and interact
3. learns to use hands to play with toys
4**. learns to sit and play with a toy without falling backwards
5. learns to crawl
6. learns to pull up and walk
7. learns to run
8. learns to talk
9. learns to talk back
10. goes to school
11. learns to drive a car
12. leaves home with mucho $$ to go to college
which all happens faster and faster.
As you can see, #4 is the perfect stage. Children should be bronzed at that point because that is as cute and non-destructive as they get. After #4 the child is no longer satisfied with the toy in hand, starts looking across the room for something more interesting and finds a way to "get there". This will cause a myriad of problems over the years.
That a child is cute is the protective camouflage that allows them to reach adulthood. Keep those "cute" pictures around for reference during the teen years.
As my mother-in-law used to tell me in a cautionary tone when I had four running circles around me, "all your problems are little NOW".
I'm glad we had 'em all, and my mother-in-law was right.
Posted by: Super Sally | November 5, 2009 11:36 AM
@becca- your new identity, the one that includes "mother" as well as whatever else you decide to keep, will come. 2 months is really early. 2 months after my first was born, I barely felt human. I didn't really feel like "mother" was part of my identity until closer to 1 year. Now- its as central as "scientist". (The bits of my identity that have been totally backburnered? "fiddle player" and "beer drinker". I miss those things, but they will come back, in time.)
And for me, the key sleep number is 4 hour uninterrupted. If I can get that, I can function. Less than that, and things start going to pieces. My first didn't sleep through the night until she was 2- so my husband and I worked out a routine that got me my 4 hours of sleep most nights, regardless.
This has been an interesting thread of comments. Thanks, Dr. Isis, for inviting people to say why they have kids as well as why they don't.
Posted by: Cloud | November 5, 2009 11:37 AM
I am female, 29, and I have my first child because my then-boyfriend-now-husband and I were careless and didn't have protection during sex, and I am pregnant again because my birth control failed. I refused to have an abortion either time. I'm thrilled to be a mom, but that came after the getting pregnant part. I'm a layperson with no real career trajectory, but that was true before having children. Parenthood just happened and I just went with it.
Posted by: purpletempest | November 5, 2009 11:39 AM
I'm female, two little kids, coming up for tenure this year and it's looking good. It took a long time for my now husband to convince me to have kids. A loooonnnnngggg time. But now I can't imagine life without them. They are just as much fun and just as fulfilling as science, sometimes more so. Does my productivity suffer? Yeah, sure. But I'm paid shit and why should I be expected to work 18hr days? I'm productive enough (and still more productive than many). Am I a shitty mentor? Well, now that depends. My female students and postdocs certainly don't think so.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 5, 2009 11:43 AM
I am female, 48, currently unfunded, with two "grown" children: 22 year old daughter is in college, and 17 year old son is a junior in high school. We had children because it was the thing to do; we had reached a point in our training where it was possible and nothing besides a child seemed to fit what we desired at that point.
I believe motherhood would have been insane and exhausting with OR without a career superimposed. On the other hand, I cannot imagine not doing any part of my life. Have I achieved everything I could have in my career? Hell, no- but I am happy with my overall life.
And, really, that's the most important thing: when your life on this earth is over, you must be happy with what you have done. All of it.
I can also die knowing that I have left behind two kids to continue FWDAOTI or whatever the equivalent is at that time.
Posted by: Pascale | November 5, 2009 12:00 PM
I'm a female, 27-yr old postdoc with a 2 year old daughter. It's interesting that everyone seems to ask: I absolutely must be a scientist, can I also be a parent?? But for me it is the other way around. I loved playing mommy and helping take care of my baby brother WAY before I discovered my love of hot, hot science. So, if I absolutely must be a parent, can I also be a scientist?? This seems like an absurd question, as I don't think you can exclude someone from an entire field just because they want kids. Where would future scientists come from?!?! I suppose being successful in academic science is a different question, but I still have a long way to go and can't provide much insight there. I can say that for me the flexibility of grad school/postdoc makes this a great time to have young children. I often work on the weekends during nap time and weeknights after she goes to bed. I've become more efficient. I feel I am just as productive as peers without kids. I think (hope) if you're good at what you do, and you're committed to it, having kids doesn't have to affect your career trajectory.
Posted by: lynne | November 5, 2009 12:19 PM
It totally figures that my mom beats me to a comment in this thread, and has more relevant and better thought out information to convey.
Do you know why?
BECAUSE SHE NO LONGER HAS KIDS AT HOME!!
Ahem.
I am female and do have children because they can now reliably find their own way home. Also, I think there was some stuff about how we love them and how they embody their parents' hope for the future and such.
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | November 5, 2009 12:27 PM
I'm female, 39, with one child, a son almost two and a half. I had him because my husband and I always wanted children, and one day, several months after we got married, we felt ready for one. I was 37 when my son was born. I did have some complications, especially toward the end. At this point, we are most likely to stop with one child, due to expenses, potential health issues with being pregnant so close to 40, and other reasons.
Yes, motherhood is a lot of work, even harder than my day job. There's more to be done around the house, but with our son demanding so much of our attention (and having a late bedtime for a toddler), it's hard to keep up, let alone pursue my other interests. I figure that will get better when he's older. In the meantime, yes, he's cute, and as he learns more, it's more fun to interact with him and teach him things. Having a child allows you to be a child yourself in some ways, which makes up for the extra responsibility.
As for the effect of motherhood on my career. I'm in industry. Unfortunately, I was recently and forcibly transferred from R&D to QC when my company started a new project. :( Still not sure if I'm going to stay in this position long-term; there's not enough science in it for me anymore. But with a family dependent on me, it's going to be harder to find something else that won't change their lives too much.
Posted by: Sandra | November 5, 2009 12:43 PM
Ahh yes, the three-year-old years. I remember them well. When my first turned three, I thought the gods/goddesses had bestowed upon me a child with immunity to the "terrible twos." Little did I know that the term was a misnomer, and really should be called the terrible threes. It's hard to take, especially for the first one, because two-year-olds are SO cute. They are developing little personalities, have cute little voices and mannerisms, and want nothing more than to please you. Then they turn three. They forget about the potty training, throw tantrums, don't like hearing the word "no," and discover that you're a big fat meanie. It gets better... eventually... until the preteen years.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 5, 2009 12:44 PM
(de-lurking to vent)
I am a female and I do not have children because I can't get pregnant (yet).
I always assumed I would have both a career and children. I grew up watching my parents handle having their own company each and raising 4 children, and I never saw career and parenthood as incompatible. I knew I would have to work very hard to be successful in my career - my parents never stopped working, even on 'vacation' - and I know children are a lot of work, too. (I'm the oldest and had to babysit my siblings often) It never occurred to me that I would have to work very hard to get pregnant in the first place.
I know many women and men put off having children until they finish grad school / get tenure / buy a house / whatever, but those are not the only possible reasons a 29-year-old grad student and a 27-year-old postdoc do not have children (yet). I wish more people understood this.
Posted by: Future Dr. B | November 5, 2009 1:45 PM
I am a 24 year old female grad student married to another grad student and we don't have kids. I've never really had a maternal instinct and we just really like our life how it is right now. We don't have pets or even sea monkeys (they dried up in the last move). I admire and respect those who are raising children, but at this point in my life, I just don't see myself having any babies anytime soon.
Posted by: AKSci | November 5, 2009 2:37 PM
I am female and I don't have kids because I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Creeping up on my 32nd birthday, childless and unmarried (but with a lovely science-y job), I spent 8 years of my life in school, then grad school, then an additional few years cultivating a career and urging my distinctly non-science-y partner to throw himself back into school to appease my parents. At what point does one feel grown up enough to have kids?? With hubby's career slowly coming around, I'm starting to feel the urge to procreate.. but damn if it hasn't taken this long just to get my life sorted to a point where having kids seems like a remotely rational decision..
Posted by: Kirsten | November 5, 2009 2:57 PM
Worked in education for a number of years, so I had enough of other people's kids for 6 hours a day to last me the rest of my life--I didn't really see a need to have my own children. My reasoning has always been that children are the most important "job" that you have. If you can't commit fully to making THAT job a priority, then you need not have any children at all, as you aren't doing anyone(the children, society at large) any favors trying to manage something that may be unmanageable for you. As Jackie Kennedy once said:
"If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do matters very much."
Posted by: Patient | November 5, 2009 2:58 PM
I am male, 40ish, professional, and have one child, but am unlikely to have more. I very much want more, but am terrified to because of spouse's health, my age, and my working schedule which makes me less able to be around than I was the first time.
I really wish 40 felt more like 20.
Posted by: MonkeyPox | November 5, 2009 3:04 PM
I am male and I don't have kids because... well, lots of reasons. I'm starting grad school and sure as hell don't want to deal with that and kids at the same time. I have shit genes and I'm pretty sure I'd be committing a serious ethical violation passing them on. Dogs are cuter and make less of a mess (and you can rub their noses in the mess they do make without feeling guilty).
Posted by: Jeffrey | November 5, 2009 3:07 PM
I'm male, do not have kids currently and am on the fence on whether to have them or not.
Main reason is that with the current human population and the rate of habitat destruction that we demand because of our whims and fancies above and beyond our mere necessities, it is simply unethical to have kids.
One of the reasons I'm on the fence at all is because I'm not sure if having 1 or 2 kids to replenish your personal count as a couple is ok for a couple(yes, I know they could grow up to have a lot more kids and you can't control that). One other reason is you could (hopefully) raise them up to be the thoughtful individuals who'd counteract the douchebags of tomorrow.
But when I see people have large number of kids with absolute cluelessness about the global population explosion problem (especially in affluent countries like the US where there is zero awareness of this problem) or because of some ignorant religious reasoning, it makes my blood boil. People like Jim and Michelle Duggar are just douchebags, plain and simple.
Posted by: arvind | November 5, 2009 3:21 PM
Your post, and it's comments, actually inspired my own post:
http://spidermonkeytales.blogspot.com/2009/11/life-choices-happiness-and-hormones.html
To answer the question, I'm female, 28 years old, and I don't have kids (yet!) because 1) I need to do my dissertation fieldwork first (which will be 12-15 months chasing monkeys in Costa Rica), and 2) my relationship isn't at a point that is ready for that yet. However, I do think I would like to have kids some day, and I think that have kids would actually contribute to my scientific thinking, and make me a better scientist. Granted, I'm an anthropologist, so it's easier to see connections between life and research, but just reading about these topics has inspired some angles for my current research as well as some ideas for future research.
And btw, my four pets probably create way more messes to clean up than Little Isis. Thankfully, like Little Isis, they are adorably cute and elicit happy caregiving and bonding hormones that make them worth it anyway :) Unlike Little Isis though, I don't have to worry about them talking back to me :)
Posted by: michellespidermonkey | November 5, 2009 3:31 PM
I'm female and don't have children, but want them in the future. I'm a second-year grad student, 25 years old, and in a long-term cohabiting relationship. I recently found out that there are FOUR students in my grad program right now who are pregnant or whose spouses are pregnant, which makes me feel a little more comfortable with the idea of having at least one kid before I get that PhD. Currently trying to convince my university to adopt more progressive policies for student parents (anything would be better than the current policy, i.e. NO SUPPORT) to make that a more feasible possibility for me in years to come.
Posted by: Laura | November 5, 2009 3:40 PM
Can't speak for your spouse's health or your schedule, but your age is not a problem. Speaking from a child's perspective here.
Also, it's not good to be the only child, judging from the few cases I know (not myself – oldest of 4). Chronic lack of siblings can manifest in remarkable symptoms well into university age.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 5, 2009 3:51 PM
Oops, wrong blog for the inside joke.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 5, 2009 3:54 PM
I'm female and I don't have kids because I don't currently have a strong desire for them.
I like kids well enough but I don't "lose my junk" over how cute they are or "need" to hold the nearest infant. Kids are pretty awesome and I like hanging out with them, but like many things, they sometimes exhaust me and at this juncture in my life I am happy to pass them back to their parents when I'm done enjoying their company.
I'm not necessarily opposed to having kids in the future, if the desire arises, but as of now, I'm just interested in adding them to my life. I really have no idea if I will want them in the future. If I do, then we will have them - I have a great partner who feels the same way about reproducing that I do: we're both a little ambivalent about it at this point but are leaving the possibility open. We both feel like we should really really want kids if we're going to have them.
Now is not the time because we don't strongly desire to have children right now but also because we are not financially stable enough to do so. I'm still a grad student and in a few months we'll both be post-docs on one-year contracts. We don't have much in the way of savings. If we wanted kids right now, the impact on my career would be of far less concern than the impact of our financial situation on our ability raise a child in a way that we are both comfortable with. This is not in any way a judgment on impoverished parents. Love doesn't cost money. But my threshold for "enough money to be comfortable/confident taking on responsibility for the care of another person" has not been met and is unlikely to be so in the very near future given the average post-doc salary.
That being said, I don't think that science is "incompatible" with having kids. Just like any other major life decision, you will make compromises. Our lives are generally pretty full and when we add something else to them, then something that was previously a part of our lives has to give a little. The point being that each person sets their own priorities about it. Nobody but *you* should be the judge of which is more important or whether or not the choices you make have a "negative" influence on your life as a whole.
Posted by: ambivalent academic | November 5, 2009 5:06 PM
I am a female in my mid-20s, and I don't have kids because I would like some childlessness time in my current relationship. We live two time-zones away from each other, and have our relationship planned out timing-wise to be the best for both of our careers. One of us having to move early to help the other with an infant would be hard. Not only would our careers be affected, I wouldn't want to go from seeing each other sporadically to seeing each other every day while taking care of something that doesn't sleep much. Also, I realize that I'm an adult now, but I still don't want to call home with the news that I'm pregnant out-of-wedlock (although that is the least of my worries).
I do want kids in the future, after I have a wedding and at least a few years of childless living-together (in! the same! city!), and I've finished enough school to not have to worry I'm going to go into labor in the middle of a major national computer-based test that I need to pass to continue my career. I'm not sure when--I just know Not Now. Dear baby Jesus, Not Now.
Posted by: kb | November 5, 2009 5:21 PM
@Dr. FabulousShoes (#20): I think you’re missing the point of the comments that you take issue with, although I think that Wombat (#11) put it very clearly and succinctly:
Having a kid does make me less of a scientist too. I may be doing better work than many of the grad students around me, but I'm not doing nearly as much as I would if I were childless.
Maybe you dislike the phrase “less of a scientist,” but it seems a pretty accurate descriptor of what these people are feeling and experiencing. Perhaps you’re OK with doing less, but not everyone has to be. And it should be OK to voice that dissatisfaction. In a sense, it *is* a zero-sum game because time is not infinite – something’s gotta give. And for some people, it’s their careers. That doesn’t mean that they’re perpetually unhappy, but they don’t deserve to be told that they’re simply looking at the situation all wrong.
Posted by: Hope | November 5, 2009 5:39 PM
We have kids. I am still really ambivalent about motherhood, but it's kind of late, seeing as my kids are teenagers now . . . though as I remind my husband, sticking with cats would've been much cheaper.
The first was a surprise and was born with medical problems, which pretty much ended my science career, though I'm hoping to start up a second career. (I would probably be far less ambivalent about the whole enterprise if I hadn't had to leave the paid workforce, and if it were easier getting back into said workforce.)
I agree with Dr. Isis that motherhood is not compatible with rationality. But when it comes to rationality, most of the deepest and most meaningful and profound parts of life don't seem particularly rational.
As painful as that was to become a stay-at-home mother when I didn't plan on it, I am truly glad I have kids. They are hilarious, even though, yes, some days the only coherent sentence I could manage was: "I will NOT eat my young. I will NOT eat my young. I will NOT eat my young . . . " -- a good resolution for most every primate.
And I do love having teenagers. Much easier, for me, than when they were little -- not least because, I, like a poster way up thread, have trained them to do many, many chores which they now do very well. Plus they keep us entertained.
Broke, but entertained.
Now, if I could only find my way back to that career track . . .
Posted by: who are you, and why are you callling me 'mom'? | November 5, 2009 5:47 PM
Congrats on one year Dr. Isis! I think one thing to keep in mind is that life is a struggle for everyone, regardless of what you're doing. There is going to be SOME kind of struggle throughout your existence, that's reality. I don't have kids (I'm 25 and men my age are douche bags... Okay, not all, but most), but I think you nailed the point, when you said that motherhood not being "compatible" with anything. It sounds to me, like it's something you just work through, day by day... But of course, I am still adjusting to cooking real food in my kitchen, and doing laundry more than once a month...
Posted by: Lindsey | November 5, 2009 5:58 PM
I am female and I do not have children because I haven't felt ready yet.
I am beginning to feel ready. I'm nearly 28 and just began a postdoc after getting my PhD earlier this year. I didn't want to do it before, because of my PhD, because I had just gotten married (3 and a half years ago now), because we were living in a big fancy east coast city and I wanted to spend my time and money, when not in lab, on fancy drinks and dinners and trendy clothes. I feel grateful that I was able to have that kind of fun life for a few years, but I elected to postdoc in a smaller, cheaper city in part because I didn't want those temptations to keep distracting me from growing up - including having children.
Now, it is basically up to two things: 1) my husband willing to be the primary parent, which he has agreed to but I want him to feel sure of that decision, because I need to be the hot scientist breadwinner, and 2) my feeling like I won't lose my grip on lab when I do decide to pull the trigger, because I need to be the hot scientist breadwinner. Moving here was a big investment in my career at the expense of his, so I really can't afford to take the "mommy hit": female scientist suddenly loses her drive, starts eternally postdoc-ing, or takes crappy adjunct positions, or becomes a permanent lab manager, etc. I have also seen successful women scientists with children that they love, but they are in an older cohort than myself, and it's those negative examples in my cohort that linger in my memory.
I think scientific success is mostly about self-selection - people who want to succeed will succeed, and people who continually find themselves re-evaluating priorities are spending valuable time navel-gazing instead of reading review articles. So I worry about the fact that I have formed an association between "has children" and "success has stopped being as important to them." This doesn't seem to happen to as great an extent with the men with children that I know - but I see that some of my more misogynistic male colleagues have formed such an association about female scientists too. Hell, they've told me so. But I guess there's nothing I can do to really change their minds, or my mind, other than be a powerful counterexample.
Anyway, I've made a schedule for what months to try to get pregnant and have a kid with minimum career disruption (accounting for conference dates, abstract submissions, etc), and if my husband had a uterus we would probably have ten kids by now, so I guess I will stop navel gazing and go read a review article.
Posted by: pikake | November 5, 2009 6:28 PM
I am female and I have a child because I always knew I wanted to be a mother. That may sound mushy, but it's true...I felt from an early age that I had something to offer offspring of my own. Now that I am fully immersed in stay-at-home motherhood, I know I was right. Yes, it can be overwhelming and frustrating and at times gross, but when my little one snuggles close to me, smiles, or sings me "Twinkle, twinkle" with all the words being "Mommy," it makes it all worthwhile. I can't wait to see what kind of person he grows up to be; he's already pretty amazing, IMHO. And I think (since I am not a scientist but an MA holder) that my son is inspiring me to be a better writer. I hope that when he gets old enough I will be able to write him stories he'd like to hear.
Happy Blogoversary, Dr. Isis!
Posted by: Minerva | November 5, 2009 6:39 PM
Male and I have children largely because my wife wanted them. I voted for not more than one, and she voted for not less than two. We have twins. It's insane (not compatible with rationality--very true). My wife is a PhD candidate and is working from home, while taking care of the babies, without family support. (She is amazing.)
Things that help: legal stimulants, babysitters, SSRIs, very carefully negotiated work/childcare schedules.
On the right time: there isn't one. (Maybe for some people, but I haven't seen it.)
On parenting being compatible with careers: it's not. My wife and I do what we can at work, and the rest doesn't get done. Which of course means that parenting *is* compatible with careers. (We've both changed certain goals in the last few years.)
Posted by: Anonymous | November 5, 2009 7:13 PM
I'm male and I don't have children because, well, neither me nor my wife likes kids all that much. In fact, this was a sticking point when our dating was getting serious; we both worried that "damn, I bet he/she will want children". When we realized neither of us wanted them our marriage was a done deal, practically speaking.
As an aside, would our careers have been a problem? A huge problem. Enough that we likely wouldn't have had children anyway. I'm still going on a series of post-docs and short-term projects alternating with periods of joblessness. My wife is a graphics design freelancer, which, while much more profitable than science, makes my career look like a bedrock of stability by comparison.
Posted by: Janne | November 5, 2009 7:39 PM
I am female, starting my fourth year of a PhD program, and just had my first kid this summer. My husband and I both wanted to start a family. I spent a year or so thinking that grad school was the absolute worst time to have kids, with all the work and stress, but after really considering my career goals (tenured prof somewhere someday hopefully!) I realized that this is the point that is probably the best time to start a family. It's only going to get more stressful and I'll have even more work responsibilities, plus teaching, advising, managing a lab... We made sure to wait until I finished the fieldwork and data collection for my project. I did get some funny reactions from fellow grads when they heard the news - many assumed that it was an unplanned pregnancy because I haven't finished my degree yet. Yes I have a lot of work now, but I have a supportive advisor and a husband with a good job, both of which have allowed me to "work from home" since my son's birth. And you know what? He's a good little kid. He sleeps at night, which helps a lot. I get work done during nap time during the day, and work in the evenings when my husband is home from work and can watch the little guy. So far it's working out pretty well. Thanks Isis for providing a forum for parent/scientist discussions. Your blog and others really helped me consider my options on when to have kids, and it's good to know that there are other parent scientists out there, because there aren't many at my current university.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 5, 2009 7:51 PM
I am female, age 30, year two of the t-t job, and I have one child who was four months when I started this job. I had my child because I had always really wanted them, had practically ached for them, for much of my adult life. Certain circumstances -- kick-ass health care, a location in the US where I could give birth in a birth center rather than hospital, being near family -- made the timing right.
I have been sick a lot lately. I am stressed and overworked. I don't get enough sleep. I sometimes wish that forces had aligned to make it easier for us to have the kid a few more years from now, rather than a few years ago.
At the same time, when I look into La Dudarina's eyes, when we play, when we snuggle and sleep together, I can't imagine my life any other way. She makes me happy like nothing else can. She is just the most lovely person I have ever, ever known. So I put up with the poor immune health and lack of sleep and need for caffeine and long hours of work at night while she's in bed and cleaning poop off of diapers and picking peas off the floor because, while I would be a more productive scientist if I didn't have her, I don't think I'd like me as much as I do today.
And that's the simple truth.
Posted by: Kate | November 5, 2009 8:40 PM
I am female and I do not have children because I would never have gotten to do half the stuff I have done in the past 53 years if I had the responsibility of offspring. It was a deliberate choice, but not a difficult one.
Posted by: Shay | November 5, 2009 8:56 PM
I'm female and childless because I am so absent-minded and easily distracted, I'm afraid I'd accidently kill them with neglect. I wouldn't wish me as a mother on any innocent little kid. They all deserve better.
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 5, 2009 10:23 PM
I'm female, 27, Ph.D. candidate, recently married, and childless.
I absolutely want to have 1 or even 2 kids before I finish grad school. My advisor is totally supportive of any and all of his grad students having babies and says it's usually the best time to do it. I'm funded through my 6th year and plan to use it since my university also covers maternity 100%. There is every reason for me to have kids in grad school. If I can have them close together to minimize the total pre-school time, I think I like that strategy.
That said, I have approximately two more years of field work in Africa before I can think seriously about getting pregnant. I don't want to wait much longer than that because I know I won't be fertile forever.
My husband is excited about being a stay at home dad and working from home while I'm going to be the breadwinner. I'm looking forward to this parenthood thing, but do worry about having a high-needs child (autistic, disabled). However, I am not deterred. I'm going to be a great scientist and have awesome kids (two, I hope).
Posted by: Karina Anirak | November 5, 2009 11:10 PM
I am female, 31 and I don't have kids.
Why: I don't like children. I mean, I'm nice to them--I'm not evil. I also don't like being stigmatized because I neither like nor wish to have them.
I am a grad student though, and some people seem to do the mommy-thing well. They get bigger and bigger, and then they close their cultures, finish their manuscript and come back in a couple months looking tired and shiny. And everyone is happy for them, and offers them tea, a cookie and a comfy lab seat.
Others..well, currently one of my collaborators disappeared for 6 months with no warning, to have her second kid. I have no idea when she will be back.
It's hard not to resent those others. I know, that they may be drooling on themselves in a sleep deprived corner. And I wouldn't trade places with them for anything.
But it's hard not to feel like you're getting the short end of the stick when you have an extra project that you don't want.
Posted by: science_cyrano | November 6, 2009 8:42 AM
I am female, 29, married and I do not have children because I don't have any energy for this.
I can barely pull myself from a bed each morning and crawl under a blanket every evening as soon as possible. Don't even ask me what's for dinner! Husband does that.
(Maybe it's 6th year of graduate school which takes its toll.)
Posted by: Lu | November 6, 2009 11:19 AM
@Hope:
You said "Maybe you dislike the phrase “less of a scientist,” but it seems a pretty accurate descriptor of what these people are feeling and experiencing."
I don't dispute that this is what people are feeling and I'm a huge proponent of expressing what people are feeling - it helps to find the source of the problem. My dislike of the sentiment isn't with the people having it (like Wombat) but with societal pressure that makes them feel as such. There's no reason that wanting to do the mom (or dad) thing should make you feel less of anything else - both my male bosses do it all the time - including bringing their kids to work. Time is absolutely a zero-sum game but personal perception and definition is not.
It's hard. Anything worth doing is hard. But it makes you FEEL like less of a scientist. It doesn't MAKE you less of one. I think it's important to remember such a distinction when in the trenches, lest you lose your damn mind.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | November 6, 2009 1:00 PM
Dr.FabulousShoes- I understand what you're saying. Thanks for saying it. Every time I read one of these sorts of discussions, I end up feeling like I must have been a complete screw off as a scientist before I had kids, because to be honest, the kids haven't sapped my productivity all that much (except for when sleep is really, really bad or we're all sick). It wasn't like I was doing science during all my waking hours before I had kids. So for me, what got tossed out was the non-work, non-family stuff. I work and I take care of my kids/home life. I'm a pretty boring person these days, but I figure that it will get better once the kids are old enough to do chores and I can pawn off some of the housework on them.
Posted by: Cloud | November 6, 2009 2:03 PM
I support Dr FabulousShoes at #71. I also would like to comment on Isis statement that motherhood is incompatible with anything else. Yes it is. So is doing science. So is being a wife, sister, daughter (particularly being a daughter). So is having any passionate interest at all - or hobby - or trying to schedule a vacation.
So maybe Doing Worthwhile Things is incompatible with Doing Other Worthwhile Things.
But guess what? If it is worthwhile, we manage. We make priorities, and some of us (but not all of us) learn that we can't ever do EVERYTHING anyway, so we may as well enjoy what we can and gain experiences and have some fun doing what we can do in life; and what we like doing.
But that is why, I think, Dr FabulousShoes said it doesn't make people less of a scientist, but they FEEL they are .....
And I think we should respect other peoples' priorities - whether they choose to have children or not; whether life deals them the hand that they didn't plan (either having them or not), or whether their plans work out. We live in wonderful times, when real choices can be made.
d.
d.
Posted by: d. | November 6, 2009 4:34 PM
... Oh ... I meant to say .... exhaustion comes anyway, whether you are a parent or not and whether you do science or not and whether you do both or only one of these (or something else entirely). When you are committed to something, you want to get it done, then you get tired, then something else has to be done...
It is the second law of thermodynamics rearing its ugly head again ........(having to keep putting in energy to stop disorder taking over).
d.
Posted by: d. | November 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Science is (or should be), just like any other job. If it is incompatible with being a parent, that is a problem with the unreasonable demands of the job and not with the worker wanting to be a parent. Putting demands on science workers that prevent them from having families is exploitation.
I have been looking at Evolution for Everyone, and someone linked to a great paper that is appropriate to this thread.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p41033688v8233x2/
It turns out that water striders can be misogynists too.
I am male, have 2 children. I don’t see them as much as I would like to because of circumstances beyond my control. I would like a dad more of the time than I am at present. The paper above strikes a cord with me because being hyper-aggressive is not something that I can do, but that is what the hyper-competition in science, in relationships, and in the economy is selecting for. Not for being a good scientist or a good person but for being a hypercompetitive asshat. It is a tragedy of the commons, where the natural good-will of people is being liquidated by the asshats; liquidated until there isn’t any left.
Even Little Isis is being molded into that shape; "But David does it."
Posted by: daedalus2u | November 6, 2009 5:50 PM
@71, etc. – I’m sorry, but we’re talking about people who were brave enough to admit the following:
I think less than I used to. I produce less. I mentor my graduate students less. I have less funding. I read less. I have fewer ideas. I have less energy and time to pursue the ideas I do have.
That doesn’t make them *bad* scientists – they might be better than most, who knows? But they are *lesser* scientists than they were before they had kids. They feel like lesser scientists because they are – they are doing less science.
We all have—and are entitled to—different definitions of success. Why are you imposing your definition of what a (good) scientist is on them?
So for me, what got tossed out was the non-work, non-family stuff.
Cloud, for these people, it wasn’t their hobbies that took the hit, it was their careers.
But it makes you FEEL like less of a scientist. It doesn't MAKE you less of one. I think it's important to remember such a distinction when in the trenches, lest you lose your damn mind.
Dr.FS, you make whatever accommodations you need to to keep from losing your damn mind – just don’t expect everyone else to buy into them.
Posted by: Hope | November 6, 2009 11:53 PM
@Hope, I wasn't commenting on what other people compromised. I was saying that I found I had plenty of other things in my life to compromise. Perhaps that is because I was a "lesser scientist" before I had kids. I don't know, and I'm not going to torment myself trying to figure it out.
As much as you are bothered by DrFabulousShoe's statements, I am bothered by the statement- which I hear a lot in real life, not just on blog posts like this- that having children must necessarily mean that you compromise your career. I call bullshit on that one, because a lot of us have a lot of other things in our lives, which we can compromise if we so desire. Some people don't, I suppose, but I don't think anyone, with our without children, should be expected to devote 100% of their waking hours to their work, even if their work is to think about and do science.
Having children showed me what was really important in my life, because I don't have time for anything but the most important things. My career made the cut. A lot of other things didn't.
It would have been nice if, back when I was a grad student freaking out about whether I could combine a career in science with having a family, someone had said something like this to me. This is why I'm saying it now. Having kids may make some people lesser scientists or make them feel like lesser scientists, but it doesn't have that effect on everyone.
Posted by: Cloud | November 7, 2009 1:07 AM
@Hope
Honestly, I think comments like yours reinforce the idea that a good scientist thinks and does science 24/7 and makes others (maybe including yourself) FEEL like less of scientists. No one I know does that - and my boss's lab was awarded a god-damn Stand Up to Cancer dream team grant. I'm not saying that to make me look special (because I'm certainly not), but to make the point that every single member of that team over the age of 35 has children, several of the younger post-docs (4 in the past year) and over 40% of them are women. One of the PIs was just diagnosed with breast cancer. We manage. They're the ones that gave me hope that I'll manage. It's not easy - sometimes there's kids at the lab, sometimes a paper goes out 2 weeks after we hoped it would, sometimes someone else does the mouse handling if someone's doing a parvovirus study, sometimes we go to the PIs hospital room in shifts. Sometimes we cry together and sometimes we get each other rip-roaring drunk (not the pregnant ones of course - they just watch our antics).
Is there a reason there's so many women in my lab? Absolutely. This lab and these people are freakin' fantastic. I am regularly in awe of their science and their ability to be supportive of everyone in the lab. My PI sometimes finds me late in the lab or on the weekends and asks me "Does that DNA make you soup when you're sick? No? Will it degrade before tomorrow? No? Ok, then finish up and go home to the man who does make you soup when you're sick."
The reason that I brought up mastectomies in my first post was that I do understand why that would make a person feel that way. I see validity in the emotion and the need to express it. I see both the internal and external forces on the individual that would cause that emotion. However, (and maybe this is because my little sister is a CBT therapist and she's rubbing off on me) I see NO USE in being part of the external forces that perpetuate such a paradigm. I want there to be more places like my lab and more people like my PI. I'm not special enough to have all of these great things to myself.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | November 7, 2009 7:26 AM
Also: d.? You're spot on.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | November 7, 2009 8:48 AM
I am a female and I have a 10 month old daughter that I very much wanted to have. I had an amazing childhood and family life and I wanted to share that with my own child. So far, so good. Of course, I'm only a post-doc and it's still early, but my little family is very happy.
Posted by: ajo | November 7, 2009 11:54 AM
@Cloud: I see where you’re coming from, and I hope that when I have kids, I end up feeling like my career did not suffer. But now, pre-kids, I want to hear it all: the good, the bad, and the ugly. I want to hear stories like yours but also the ones that worked out very differently. In my environment, folks who are not as happy are the ones less likely to speak out. What freaked you out makes me feel empowered – different strokes for different folks, you know? The people that said that they were less of a scientist were not talking about anyone but themselves.
Posted by: Hope | November 7, 2009 11:57 AM
@Hope- how do you spend you nights and weekends now? If it is in the lab, is it because that is the only way you feel productive enough? If yes, you may end up feeling like your career suffers when you have kids, because once you have kids, you will spend most nights and weekends with them.
Sometime in grad school, I realized that I was actually less productive if I spent my nights and weekends in the lab. I work better if I take meaningful breaks from my work. I get some of my best ideas and solve the hardest problems when I take some time to do something else. So I stopped spending all my time working well before I added kids to the equation. The kids just changed what I spend my non-work time on.
Now, there have been times in my life when I've been more career focused than now, when I have a 2.5 year old and 5 week old. But my career is still chugging along, and I suspect that I'll be able to kick it back up in intensity when my kids are older, if I want to. Maybe I won't. Maybe I won't even want to- but I can't predict that, so I'm not worrying about it now.
I think we may overthink this- at least I did before I had kids. None of my male friends worried about this. My husband doesn't worry about it, and no one ever tells him that it is impossible to combine his career with parenthood, despite the fact that we actually split the child and house related work fairly evenly. I look at that, and it seems to me that maybe some of the warnings I used to hear about combining motherhood with science were just sexism in disguise. If there are problems combining a career in science with motherhood, the fault isn't with the mothers.
Posted by: Cloud | November 7, 2009 1:05 PM
I am female, I will turn 27 in a month, and that same day will mark the last day of my first trimester of my first pregnancy. (Assuming, of course, that I make it that far.)
Those of you who are familiar with my blog know that at this time last year I was struggling with grad school applications. Going to grad school was the only thing I could imagine myself doing. But when decisions started rolling in and none of them were good, I had a choice to make. I could either apply again this year after taking a huge paycut to pursue some more research experience, or I could say fuck it and move on with my life for now. I accepted the fact that i could not have done anything differently or better that would have resulted in a different outcome.
So I looked around at my life. I saw that I had a full-time job with decent pay that gives me summers off, mother's hours, great benefits, and a family-friendly atmosphere. I accepted the reality that while reproduction has a biologically imperative expiration date, graduate education most definitely does not. But that's the practical side of all this.
I never understood why people wanted kids. The one day I was in my car and I was listening to the song "Every Day is Exactly the Same" by Nine Inch Nails. And it hit me like a ton of bricks. What I was doing right then - getting up, going to work, coming home, going to bed, getting up, etc., - was what my life was going to look like every single day without kids. Sure, there would be minor variations in routine like vacations, arguments, tragedies. But in general, that is what my life would consist of.
And that's when I realized that kids make every single day different and unique. Sure, there will be some patterns and routines, but there is so much more to look forward to in any given 24 hour period. And it never stops. They bring with them a whole new, neverending set of milestones to look forward to - milestones that barely exist in a childless life. First words, first steps, first day of school, graduation, marriage, first grandchild, so on and so forth. Without children you have to make your own milestones.
I had decided that if I was unable to have children, I would be completely okay with that and either live a life without them or adopt. I would travel, fill a bedroom with nothing but amazing shoes, do what I want when I want. I would've been okay with that.
But my uterus had other plans. The very first opportunity for my husband to play without a goalie at the net, he scored. I did not expect it to happen that fast at all. But I'm starting to believe that life just works out the way it's supposed to. And apparently the timing for us was perfect. I guess we'll find out.
In the meantime, my blog has transformed into the "path not taken" for many of you. I am the one who walked away from an academic life and took the other priority first. Sometimes it makes me feel like I no longer belong here. The rest of the time I feel like my story adds value to the "what if" factor.
Posted by: JLK | November 7, 2009 1:40 PM
I am female, 31 and a tenure-track assistant professor. I just started last year, currently progressing along my second year, and I am 8 months pregnant with our first baby. I'm having kids because I really, really want them. I figure this job is crazytown as it is, might as well be crazier. We live 84 miles from my university so I drive 168 miles a day, and I don't have an R01 yet, but we're going for it now because we just didn't feel like waiting anymore.
I DO however have a K99/R00 award that lasts until 2013, and a lab full of bright, hardworking independent folks, so I think those two things made a pretty big difference in my comfort level with this process being initiated at the current time. Thank you NIH for supporting women in science with the K99!
Posted by: Arlenna | November 7, 2009 3:45 PM
I am female, have two teenagers (one of whom has a significant mental illness), and not only totally abandoned my pursuit of an academic career (putting my husband's graduate school and imagined scientific career first), but ended up having to work in a low-status, low-paying field in order to support my family. STUCK. We had kids on purpose -- love kids, wanted kids, adore our kids -- but honestly, we are not exactly model parents. As a couple, as a family, our entire lives have been a constant struggle. Even if a couple wants kids, it is fair to say that before you actually have kids, you don't have a fucking clue what you are getting into. Nevertheless, it seems like before I had kids I could only love in two dimensions, having children opened up possibilities for love that I could not have previously imagined. Of course I feel some resentment, more toward my partner than toward our children, but kids are fascinating and although it's a cliche, it's been worth it. We do think that it is a good thing when people who value knowledge and social justice reproduce. There is nothing wrong with wanting/having children, but there is something wrong with a society that tries to (and often succeeds) force a choice (especially for women) between a life's work and having children. I've got the kids, but not the life's work. I suggest I'm entitled to both.
Posted by: anonymous | November 7, 2009 5:44 PM
I am female, 45, 8th year PhD student, mom to four-year old. (Luckily fertile at 40...)
I wanted kids because ... too hard.
I thought the science was so important that we'd have a nanny/daycare/whatever after a few months. I thought the process was rational. Turns out there isn't anything rational about it -- it's visceral, amazingly wonderful, relentless. Turns out I don't want a nanny/daycare/whatever -- what I want is for the university to keep letting me slide until my girl is in school and I have time to concentrate. These years -- fun, testing, funny, frustrating, magic, exhausting -- are also fleeting. I know I want to be with the small girl for every minute of them that I can. The science? It will come. The career? Obviously I waited for that too. I won't be a star doing hot, hot science, but hopefully I'll make a contribution.
Posted by: laurant | November 8, 2009 6:56 AM
I am thinking (at 33) of having a child next year. The timing is a little tricky; I currently work in a wonderful developmental biology lab. I want to wait until I do not work there anymore. As great as all my coworkers are, I'm seriously creeped out by the thought of being pregnant and surrounded by known developmental disruptors every day. The protocols and safety are written with adults in mind. I'm perfectly comfortable being in the lab as an adult. I would be a nervous wreck if I was pregnant there.
Posted by: Nox | November 8, 2009 11:43 AM
I'm female, 34, an MD. I don't have kids because my husband can't earn enough in the interim to keep up with our debts. We'll see what happens as I get the student loans and house paid off.
Besides, I'm an auntie eight times over, which is pretty cool.
Posted by: red rabbit | November 8, 2009 3:34 PM
I'm a 37-yo female scientist in industry with an (almost) 8 month old son. I had a child because I wanted my own family. I am the youngest of 5 children, and always knew I wanted kids someday. I got married at the end of grad school, and reasoned that I was working too hard as a postdoc to have time for kids. Then one day my parents announced they were moving out of my childhood home, and it hit me that the family I had grown up with had moved on, and it was time to create my own family with my husband. Fast-forward many years of infertility treatments later, and here we are.
While we had to wait longer for kids than we initially planned, I'm glad that it happened now, career-wise. After deciding to go into industry, it took me a couple of years and a cross-country move to find a job that I LOVE, and establish myself there as an awesome scientist. I'm making pretty good money, which makes all the money poured into quality childcare and baby supplies less stressful. Frankly, I wasn't all that happy in my postdoc, and if I had my son back then I might have been tempted to ditch the shitty paycheck and thankless work to stay at home with him, and then what of my career? Now I work for a small biotech, who appreciates my awesomeness, and allows me the flexibility I need to leave and take care of my son when I need to. I've only been back at work for 3.5 months, but so far, so good.
Has my work suffered? Not really (yet). But I also don't have any plans to take on major project leadership positions at work anytime soon, which will probably affect my ability to get promoted. I'm okay with that for now. I'm definitely more tired than I've ever been, and haven't seen my childless friends for months, but I'm willing to accept a pared-down life for a while. My son kicks ass, and is totally worth it.
Posted by: Betsy | November 8, 2009 3:44 PM
laurant at #86, you have expressed yourself very, very well. I agree - the body takes over, 'visceral' is a good way of expressing it. You don't necessarily feel the way you THOUGHT you would feel, or INTENDED to feel. Sometimes you just have to roll with it, and adjust your life expectations and try to enjoy the role that life gives you.
"Make a contribution" is all we ever do anyway, at whatever level. Each of us is only a little cog.
And anonymous at #85, yes 'love in many dimensions' is something I have sometimes said.
d.
Posted by: d. | November 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Female, 31, mother to a 2.5 month old. Because... the digits of all numbers that are multiples of 3 (or 9) sum to 3 (or 9, or multiples thereof). My head just about exploded when I first learned that, and I can't wait to tell my son about it, and everything else.
My parents are academics so I always assumed it was doable. I also have the arrogance to assume that any place that doesn't want me because of the kid(s) is not worth being at anyhow.
Posted by: Dr Jekyll & Mrs Hyde | November 8, 2009 10:22 PM
I am female and have never had nor wanted kids. I was raised in a sect that taught my intelligence and grades were good only for providing smart children to a husband, so I am hardly unbiased, let it be noted.
I've also never climbed Mt. Everest, volunteered in a third-world country or in a hospital, or been in the military. I haven't made my career as a nurse or a teacher to make the world a better place. Those are not sacrifices that I feel comfortable making, however much I respect people who do. I don't feel I'm missing anything.
But I have volunteered at battered women's shelters, science events, and mentored disadvantaged children. I work in science because I believe it makes the world a better place. I don't see how my way of contributing to the world, using my particular strengths, is any less valid than another's. And I don't feel that my love for the students and strangers I've helped is somehow less loving than if I took my time away from them and devoted it to a child of my own body instead of someone else's.
I could be a better scientist if I gave up on volunteering and other extracurricular activities that I love. I wouldn't even be less of a person for doing so. But I would be less myself if I did.
I've been told often that because I don't have kids, I am selfish, I'm missing out on real love, and I'll regret my decision. Nobody will ever say they regret having children; if they do, they're instantly considered inhuman monsters. The fact is that people can and do break from the stress. The shelters and courts are filled with the results. Maybe in a supportive and fair culture, this wouldn't happen and women could have kids without sacrificing their careers, or not have kids without sacrificing their self-esteem.
Posted by: Shamed | November 10, 2009 4:26 PM