I am a married woman in her thirties, who happens to be childfree, (if not by conscious choice, definitely by circumstance). I could claim to belong to a growing, somewhat controversial group called DINK, or dual income no kids. DINKs get a bad rep though, often portrayed as selfish, self-centered consumers with the unnatural, character defect of not wanting or needing to procreate. While I haven’t signed up for the Meet-Up groups, liked the Facebook Fan page, or subscribed to the numerous blogs on the topic, my current lifestyle may grant me instant membership. To this, I reply thanks, but no thanks.
As if one doesn’t have enough socially imposed identity labels to live up to on a daily basis, why would I wear this one and all of the connotations that come with it whether they be positive or negative.
The real question and one that I am not certain there is an answer to is, why is there a need to create this lifestyle label in the first place? One: haven’t there been married couples without children throughout time immemorial in all of the cultures of the world? People assumed a couple could not have children and never mentioned it, lest it were a sensitive subject. Two: aren’t DINKs just the Yuppies of the new millennium who have decided to forgo childrearing? Why the need to label this lifestyle choice, or consequence, so specifically is beyond me.
The other part of the DINK lifestyle label that baffles me, is why is it such an affront to people with children? No one used to care. Perhaps because DINKs have come about in the current climate of Attachment Parenting, or as Bringing up Bebe author Pamela Drukerman calls American parenting, the “Child King Syndrome,” that it’s as if the general parent population, feel like DINKs are rubbing their freedom and financial stability in their collective faces. I’ve perused the websites and I see how some DINK couples are portrayed like they belong to the most exclusive of country clubs. On the other hand, perhaps DINKs are products of the “Child King Syndrome,” as well. Warded off from having children after witnessing their friends deteriorate under the terribly high expectations associated with current Middle Class parenting. (I specify Middle Class because let’s be real, a population on survival mode is not concerned with a “parenting style.”)
So while I am not a self-proclaimed DINK, I do share in that feeling of extended youth the DINK Lifestyle website mentions, because I do not have children yet. I am not afraid to proclaim this out loud and I think this may also be part of the controversy. The No Doubt song of my early 20’s, Simple Kind of Life says it best, “the longer that I wait the more selfish that I get.”
DINKs argue that they are not selfish but rather selfless and demonstrate an impressive array of reasons stemming from environmental, emotional and financial, as to why they do not want to have children.
I am selfish. The kind of selfish that I am though is not based on a narcissistic need, but in a newfound maturity that propels me to ask for more out my career, my relationships and from myself. For this, I have needed more time as a married woman with no kids. This type of selfish is often demonized and my asking for and actively pursuing more, confronts social norms. As a thirty-something woman, (and let’s face it, expectations on the female role have not changed that much), wanting more should also include wanting children. And I do. I just don’t have them yet. Can that reason be enough, or will society force me to create an identity label to explain my particular lifestyle choice as well? Perhaps dual income no kids yet, or DINKY for short?
By: W. Castellanos-Wolf