View this post on the web at [link removed]

Whenever you post anything on social media, you have to be prepared for criticism. But even when you expect it to be ugly, the depths of the vitriol are sometimes surprising. Every now and then—including in the last few weeks—couples with jobs but no children (better known as “dual income, no kids,” or “DINK”) become a target of ire, and viscerally nasty ire at that. But the vitriol volleyed at DINKs isn’t just particularly harsh, it’s also quite misplaced.
The DINK lifestyle is on a meteoric rise (full disclosure: I’m currently one myself). For one thing, more and more adults in general want to remain childless. According to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey [ [link removed] ], for instance, 44% of childless adults between 18 and 49 planned to never have children—up a full 7 percentage points from when the same question was asked just three years earlier. Meanwhile, couples without children are already by far the family unit with the largest net worth, and that net worth is growing [ [link removed] ]faster [ [link removed] ] than other demographics. In 2018, the average net worth of a couple without kids was around $292,000 (in 2022 dollars), but by 2022, that number had skyrocketed to $399,000.
But you know that phrase “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”? Well, of course, that often seems to be a foundational pillar of social media, and many DINKs are not immune to that. The latest social media spotlight on DINKs comes courtesy of a viral TikTok [ [link removed] ] in which a couple talks back and forth about the benefits of not having kids—being able to go out to eat every night, play 18 holes of golf when you want and not needing to hire a babysitter. The couple do seem to have made the video with some self-awareness: They conclude the video by pointing out one of the dark sides of DINK life—they’re “going to get asked at every family event what we are doing with our life.”
The video has certainly gotten people’s attention: In a little more than a week, it’s racked up more than 6.4 million views. But it’s also attracted a firestorm of comments [ [link removed] ]—both positive and negative. And it’s the negative ones that are particularly shocking: “This is just sad. Acting like you’re better than people because you probably hate your life and self.” “You also will die scared, alone and no one will care and no one will remember you. Good luck with that.” “Thousands [of] years of bloodline, wars and hard times of your familes [sic] ends with two people being imature [sic].”
But it’s not just anonymous internet commenters who are letting their thoughts be known. Father of 11 Elon Musk took to X [ [link removed] ] to weigh in on the video: “There is an awful morality to those who deliberately have no kids: they are effectively demanding that other people’s kids take care of them in their old age. That’s messed up.” One piece published in The American Spectator [ [link removed] ] goes so far as to say the DINK lifestyle is “just plain selfishness” and “defeats the purpose of human relationships.”
“Awful.” “Selfish.” “You probably hate your life.” To be honest, while some of DINK opponents’ arguments are indeed valid (it is, of course, true that if no one has children, our society will die out), it’s the palpable anger that’s so surprising. After all, if you think someone wasting their life and missing out on the greatest joy possible, wouldn’t you react with pity and compassion rather than personal attacks? And while videos like the one I mention above do flaunt the DINK lifestyle, its makers aren’t demanding anything. Frankly, the intensity of the anger does suggest a level of jealousy of the freedom DINKs have.
Furthermore, DINK opponents sometimes portray a view of family life as seen through rose-colored glasses. The charge, for example, that to be a DINK is to guarantee that you’ll die alone with no one to take care of you implies that having children means having someone beside you in old age. But children are no guarantee of free caretaking. In fact, in today’s America, families are frequently estranged—in fact, more than 1 in 4 Americans [ [link removed] ] is currently estranged from a family member—or separated by long distances. Children (and even parents) have often made a choice to live their own lives rather than living in a close, multigenerational family unit.
Painting such an unequivocal happy picture of having kids not only doesn’t capture the highs and lows of being a parent, but it also prods people into potentially seeking a family situation they don’t really want—which isn’t good for prospective parents or children. Pressuring people who don’t want kids into having them is a terrible idea: Children deserve their parents’ full commitment, and that’s not something that simply materializes from the coercion of online commentators—nor should it.
Finally, despite what the American Spectator article suggests, being a DINK is often not about making choices. While polls show that many DINKs don’t ever want kids, there is a sizable minority (again, 44% of all childless adults, according to the 2021 Pew survey) that cites serious reasons—finances, infertility or other health issues or finding the person with whom you want to raise children—that keep them from having kids even though those children may be very much wanted.
I may be no expert on human relationships, but there is something I do know: No one wants to be told that their life is worthless or immoral because they don’t have kids, particularly when the circumstances affecting their decision of whether or not to do so may be out of their hands. While DINK critics are often careful to distinguish between those who are childless by choice and childless by circumstance, the fact is, one simply doesn’t always know the real truth about what’s going on in a couple’s life—even those who post on social media. But even those who’ve decided to forgo having children because they don’t want them shouldn’t have to justify that decision to anyone. Living in a free society is all about being able to shape your life your way, whether it be about choosing a career, a place to live or a family arrangement.
In short, we all should have more compassion and understanding for one another, especially when it comes to how and why people live their lives the way they do. And while our society could certainly do more to encourage people to bring children into their lives, bullying is certainly no way to go.
Meanwhile ...
What I’m watching: It’s the most wonderful time of the year ... a time for family, food and a good old-fashioned Twilight Zone marathon, a New Year’s tradition for many, including my family. I’ve been a Twilight Zone fan since I was a kid: Not only does it have a uniquely spooky feel to it, but the show also has some of the best writing you’ll find on a TV screen—all while handling weighty topics ranging from nuclear war and the sins of our collective past to beauty standards and loneliness. It also has those wonderful opening monologues by the show’s creator, the great Rod Serling.
The New Year’s Twilight Zone marathon has run for nearly 30 years on the SyFy Network, but if you’re without cable, or you don’t want to commit to the best part of three days in front of the television, here are a few of my mostly lesser-known favorites that are worth checking out (you can stream all of the episodes on Paramount+ and Amazon’s Prime Video). Don’t worry—I won’t ruin the endings!
·       “The Obsolete Man.” There’s a lot of talk these days about classroom “book bans,” but what if we did really live in a society where all books were banned? That’s the idea behind “The Obsolete Man,” where a librarian in a future totalitarian society is being put to death for the crime of—yes, you guessed it—obsolescence. He is allowed, however, to choose the manner in which he’ll be executed—and that’s where the fun starts. The episode makes a bold statement on the dangers of an all-powerful state
·       “Deaths-Head Revisited.” Fifteen years after the end of World War II, a former SS captain returns to the Dachau concentration camp for a visit, where he meets a man he recognizes—and who will also upend his life. Not surprisingly given the content, I find this one of the darkest Twilight Zone episodes. Not only is the story deeply affecting, but it has, in my opinion, the best closing narration from Serling: “All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes; all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers.”
·       “On Thursday We Leave for Home.” In the future (for the purposes of this episode, the year 2021), the people of a struggling 30-year-old colony on a desert planet are ready to move back to Earth. When a ship arrives from Earth to take the settlers back, everyone’s overjoyed, including Captain William Benteen (played by James Whitmore—remember Brooks from “The Shawshank Redemption” [ [link removed] ]?), the colony’s leader and de facto father figure. But as Benteen begins to realize the changes that a move back to Earth will bring, he has second thoughts, and he tries to convince the colonists to stay. One of the rare hour-long Twilight Zone episodes, this one provides some thoughtful commentary on community, independence and believing that some things will—and should—never change.
·       “The Night of the Meek.” Oh, this one always leaves me verklempt. A drunk, department store Santa Claus has seen the sad side of Christmas—as he says in one impassioned speech to shocked department store customers, “I live in a dirty rooming house on a street filled with hungry kids and shabby people, where the only thing that comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve is more poverty.” Then one night, he finds a magic bag that can produce any gift a person desires. As opposed to most Twilight Zones, this one has a happy and sweet story—one that will definitely get you in the holiday spirit.
Happy holidays! Discourse will be taking a holiday break starting this Friday. So this is our final Editor’s Corner of 2023. We’ll begin publishing again—by posting another Editor’s Corner, as it turns out—on Tuesday, January 2.
Discourse has had a wonderful and eventful year—highlighted by the move to Substack, welcoming thousands of new readers and continuing to build our great stable of writers. My fellow editors and I are endlessly grateful to you for every essay you’ve read, every time you’ve shared something from Discourse with others and every kind word you’ve sent our way.
We’re excited about our plans to grow even bigger and better in the coming year. Indeed, we’ve already started: For example, you may have noticed that we’ve just begun publishing new essays on Saturday, something we’ll continue to do going forward. In the months to come, we’ll be announcing more changes that we think you’ll like.
On behalf of the entire Discourse editorial team, I wish you the happiest and most joyful of holiday seasons and the brightest of new years. We’ll see you back here in 2024!
New This Week
Martin Gurri, "Delusion and Retreat [ [link removed] ]"
Andrey Mir, "Blissful Ignorance [ [link removed] ]"
Bryan Gentry, "Disagreeing To Agree [ [link removed] ]"
Alexander Stevens and Caleb Jasso, "How Will the Israel-Hamas Conflict Affect Oil Prices? [ [link removed] ]"
Tevi Troy, "Grieving the Orthodox Way" (will publish Friday)
Gary Hoover, "Building My Book Collection—Again" (will publish Saturday)
David Masci, "Gun Ownership As a Hedge Against the Chaos [ [link removed] ]"
From the Archives
Zachary Shore, "What's Driving Putin? [ [link removed] ]"
Martha McCaughey and Scott Welsh, "Viewpoint Diversity Run Amok [ [link removed] ]"
Martin Gurri, "Christ, Christianity and Christmas [ [link removed] ]"

Unsubscribe [link removed]?