What no baby? Why women are losing the freedom to mother, and how they can get it back.

Doolittle, Hilda

What no baby? Why women are losing the freedom to mother, and how they can get it back. Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press. 2005. ISBN 1920731881 $29.95 Leslie Cannold

Leslie Cannold's book, What, no baby?, is an outstanding contribution to both research on childlessness and to the fertility debate. Cannold has a relaxed and expressive writing style that carries the reader through a new perspective on the topical issue of childlessness. Her delivery is at times humorous, if a touch sarcastic (this reviewer likes a good dose of sarcasm, but it's obviously not everyone's cup of tea). But make no mistake, this is an academic book which tackles some very difficult issues including, but certainly not limited to: the work of social researchers; the 'militant' childless; the organisation of the workplace (and Western society more generally), anti-feminists, and even takes aim at the accessibility of academic writing.

The central argument of Cannold's book is that a large proportion of childless women are 'circumstantially childless'. She starts by outlining the decline in fertility in Australia and the United States, and the current rise in age at birth. This is in turn linked to the effect delays in childbirth have on ever having a child. She argues that many women are childless by circumstance, and they are a group that no-one wants to talk about (and this includes the women themselves). From this point onwards, Cannold respectfully describes the different types of 'childless by circumstance' based on her findings from qualitative interviews. She describes their situations, their relationships, their workplaces, and exposes as false notions of 'selfishness'.

The circumstantially childless are described as 'Thwarted mothers' and 'Waiters and watchers', and these are the topics of Chapters 2 and 3. Thwarted mothers are women who want to be mothers, are at the end of their reproductive years, and are finding the situation difficult. These women are generally childless because of an absence of a partner (or one who wants to become a father). Cannold argues that these women find this situation distressing and sometimes embarrassing, as this situation highlights that they are without partner, and have little reproductive choice. These women may leave partners who express no interest in children, and may also (usually as a last course of action), find alternative ways to get pregnant. The other type of circumstantially childless is the 'Waiters and watchers'. These women generally want children at some stage, but are keenly aware of the impact children have on women's lives, so they are waiting for the right time, the right partner, and the right support. Cannold correctly argues that 'childless by choice' advocates--which are a group that makes up only a small proportion of childless women--dominate the childless debate. However, Cannold's analysis points out that childless by choice advocates are not the only reason we know so little about the circumstantially childless. Social researchers themselves are guilty of overlooking this important group. Up until now, women (and to a lesser extent men or couples), and their child status, have been viewed by social researchers as fitting into three groups: (1) those who have children; (2) those who choose not to have children; and (3) those who are involuntarily childless (primarily due to reproductive constraints). Furthermore, in some cases our third group of women are presented as 'childless by choice' women by some social researchers (Cannold, p.48-50).

Cannold is right, where is the research that takes an 'honest but compassionate look at the lives of childless women: some of them chosen, some of them not' (p.25)? In my own research I have only come across one researcher that has described choosing childlessness as a modern myth (McAllister, 2000). McAllister described the women she interviewed as 'certain', 'accepting', 'ambivalent', and 'decision taken for me'. There are some parallels between this research and the work of Cannold, but Cannold's book gives a thorough exposition of 'thwarted mothers' and 'waiters and watchers', what stands in their way, and what we can do to make attaining motherhood easier.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 describe the roadblocks that would-be mothers face. It's proposed that these are the 'myth' of the good mother, men's involvement, and the organisation of the workplace. Running through all these chapters is a critique of the way Western society is organised. In many ways this is difficult territory that Cannold covers. But she is right, if the barriers to motherhood are reduced, waiters and watchers may not need to reconcile the pros and cons of motherhood, which in some cases ends in women walking away from it. Women list what is expected of a good mother in our society today. They 'know' that good mothers don't work, or at the least, good mothers reduce their work. They also 'know' that good mothers are patient, ever present and are financially and emotionally prepared. These images of the good mother need to be challenged, not just because they are blatantly false, but because women will never measure up, and waiters and watchers are particularly susceptible to these images.

What the popular discourse also trots out at regular intervals is that it is women who are leading the fertility decline. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the fertility decline was attributed to women, and a Royal Commission was held (RCDBR, 1904). Current commentary may also include the role of workplaces or government in explaining a decline in fertility (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 January 2005), but very few question the involvement of men. This is despite the fact that men are important in fertility matters and in raising children. Demographers have been signally the importance of men in fertility decisions for some time now (see Goldscheider and Waite, 1992; Matthews, 1999; Green and Biddlecom, 2000). Cannold writes that women want a partner with which to raise their children, and increasingly, they want a hands-on partner. And guess what? Men want that too. A recent survey of Australian attitudes finds that when asked whether, A father should be as heavily involved in the care of his children as the mother, 90 per cent of Australians agree (Evans and Gray, forthcoming).

One barrier to involved parenthood is of course the workplace. Cannold convincingly argues the shortcomings of the organisation of the workplace for both men and women. From the casualisation of the workforce, to the expectations of the committed worker, to the lack of progression of part-time work, Cannold describes the potential effect these have on would-be parents.

Cannold has some suggestions on the way forward. These include shifts in workplace hours and a ground roots movement of substantial proportion. It is suggested that women and men work together in a ground roots movement that demands recognition of parents' contribution to society. Although she refers to the 'use it or loose it' policies that encourage men's parental participation in some European countries, Cannold does not recommend this as a potential way forward in Australia. Schemes like these have the effect of providing recognition of men's familial roles and institutionalising expectations of men as fathers, and seem a positive way for encouraging discussion on constraints to men's involvement.

One argument in Cannold's book is that women (and men) know about the female reproductive system, specifically, they understand age-related infertility. Certainly the women she spoke to knew that there are biological constraints to getting pregnant. But is it really the case that women know about when fertility starts to decline, and how rapidly it does decline? Sylvia Ann Hewlett (2002) in her study of professional women found that most young women believed that they would be able to conceive into their forties. Recent comments in the media would suggest that Australian demographers also think that women may not have been fully aware of the limits of reproduction. Both Peter McDonald (Legge, 9 April 2005) and Rebecca Kippen (Masters, 27 June 2004) have recently commented in the media that the current debate highlighting the effect of delaying fertility may have had an impact on increasing fertility, ergo, women (and their partners) did not realise that delaying fertility could lead to no children.

What, no baby? is a significant contribution to our understanding of childlessness. In particular, the reconstructing of our notions of childlessness to include the circumstantially childless is a major contribution. For academic research, it opens up a black box and challenges the ideal of choice. For policy it highlights a group that will respond to the removal of societal constraints. Given the subject matter, this book will have its critics. I note that one said Cannold 'grumbles' (Arndt, 22 February 2005). I certainly didn't find a grumble in sight. What I found is Cannold reaching out to all 'gorgeous' men to embrace the challenges and exhilaration of parenting.

Arndt, B. (2005). New cultural script has only bit parts for men. The Canberra Times. 22 February.

Evans, A. and Gray, E. (forthcoming). What makes an Australian family? In

Wilson, S., G. Meagher, R. Gibson, D. Denemark and M. Western (eds.) Australian Social Attitudes: The 1st Report. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Goldscheider, F. and Waite, L. (1992). New families, no families? The transformation of the American home. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Greene, M. and Biddlecom, A. (2000). Absent and problematic men: Demographic accounts of male reproductive roles. Population and Development Review, 26(1):81-115.

Hewlett, S. (2002). Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. New York: Miramax Books.

Legge, K. (2005). Australians born lucky. The Weekend Australian. 9 April.

Masters, C. (2004). Baby boom predicted, Peak time for families. Sunday Telegraph. 27 June.

Matthews, B. (1999). The gender system and fertility: An exploration of the hidden links. Canadian Studies in Population, 26(1):21-38.

McAllister, F. (2000). Choosing childlessness? In Helen Wilkinson (ed.) Family Business (pp.127-133). London: Demos Collection.

Royal Commission on the decline of the birth rate (RCDBR) (1904). Royal Commission on the decline of the birth-rate and on the mortality of infants in New South Wales. Sydney: New South Wales Legislative Assembly.

Sydney Morning Herald (2005). Too poor for kids that's rich. 31 January.

Edith Gray, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University.