Childfree Ideology as a Manifestation of Hedonistic Life Strategy of Modern Russian Youth on the Example of Students of Siberian Federal University

Fen'vesh Tat'yana Anatol'evna PhD in Philosophy Associate professor, Department of Sociology, Siberian Federal University 660041, Russia, Krasnoyarskii krai, g. Krasnoyarsk, pr-t Svobodnyi, 79 fenves@yandex.ru Other publications by this author     Bolsunovskaya Ekaterina Student, Department of Sociology, Siberian Federal University 660041, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Svobodny Ave., 79 ebolsunovskaia@sfu-kras.ru

Zabelina Ekaterina Yur'evna PhD in Philosophy Assistant, Department of Philosophy, Siberian Federal University 660041, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Svobodny Ave., 79 anilebaz.e@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Relevance

The childfree phenomenon appears in Europe, where society is more loyal to later marriages, trying to focus on career and self-development ^[2]. In the 1960s and 1970s, the contraceptive revolution took place in the West. At this time, new hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraception appeared ^[3]. This meant that a woman could not stop moving up the career ladder because of an unwanted pregnancy.

The emergence of Childfree was also facilitated by the second wave feminist movement developing in Europe and the United States, where there was a broader understanding of inequality ^[4]. Issues related to violence against women and freedom of decision-making concerning a woman's body were raised here. It was also invested in the drivers of the sexual revolution.

Within the framework of this movement, children were seen as an obstacle to obtaining well-deserved rights and freedoms. A woman could already work where previously it was impossible due to gender inequality. It was not a complete refusal to have children, but a contract with the society, where the following idea was laid down: "My family is free of children, but when I get everything I need for a comfortable existence, then we will be ready for the birth of a child in the family" ^[4].

In Soviet times, our state had contracts that defined the rules of interaction between women and men in society, as well as their responsibilities and the principle of division of labor between them in certain areas. According to one of these contracts, a woman "working mother" had to do work not only in production, but also take care of her children. The image of such a figure in Soviet propaganda was sufficiently defined, which contributed to the fact that the idea that a woman could not work completely disappeared ^[5]. The gender policy, which was supported in the USSR, meant that the family is an unequal relationship, only work helps to obtain equal rights and freedom regardless of gender differences. In 1932, the first nurseries appeared in the Soviet Union in order to alleviate the situation of working women. This type of institution accepted children from the age of 8 weeks ^[6].

The Labor Code of the RSFSR, which was adopted in 1971, had a chapter dedicated to the work of women, which guaranteed the inviolability of her rights. Thus, restrictions on working at night were imposed if a woman has a child aged from one to eight years old, and aspects related to sending a woman on a business trip were also highlighted. Leave was established due to pregnancy and after the birth of a child, the amount of benefits was indicated ^{[7, 8]}. Thus, more than 90% of women of working age were employed in various labor sectors. The level of professional training and qualifications of women was higher than that of men, but this did not allow them to receive more for their work than men, but women's emancipation became more pronounced ^{[9, 10]}.

A working woman has become necessary for the state, regardless of her social status.

At the same time, in the USSR, from November 1941 to January 1, 1992, there was a tax on childlessness ^[11]. The reason for the introduction of the tax was the large demographic losses in the Great Patriotic War. Thus, the authorities tried to raise the birth rate. On July 1, 1990, the tax rate was reduced for citizens whose earnings were less than 150 rubles, and on January 1, 1992, it was abolished. Childless men from 20 to 50 years old and childless married women from 20 to 45 years old had to deduct 6% of their salaries to the state.

In the Russian society of the noughties, there is a rapid justification for the absence of children who have fallen out of the system of value–motivational structure. It was the choice of a married couple or a woman – whether a child was needed or not. The low birth rate had several reasons, the most basic being default and crisis ^[11].

Further, there is such a phenomenon as "decretophobia", which was provoked by the crisis of 2008 – 2009 ^[12]. The majority of the unemployed were women, which was 60%. Entrepreneurs began to form staff more carefully, where pregnant women, single mothers and those with a child under the age of three had no place. If earlier, the state took full responsibility for the financial support of such women, then in this situation it is unprofitable for private entrepreneurs to be the guarantor of legal protection and the policyholder of their employees. The ideal age for a woman to have children, according to WHO, is from 25 to 35 years old. In view of this, in order to stay in the labor market and make a profit, a woman had to work. Marriage and motherhood began to be postponed for 7 to 10 years.

Emancipated politics has played a significant role in shaping the current values of youth. Society is becoming not only a consumer society, but a society of rapidly developing hedonism.

Also, the percentage of people who refuse to form a marriage relationship at the age of 28 is growing, which is mostly reflected in conscious childlessness ^[13]. In Russia, the number of marriages has been declining for more than half a century. In the 50s and 60s of the twentieth century, this figure was 12-12.5 marriages per 1000 people, which was caused by the great desire of the post-war generation to create families.  In the second decade of the 21st century, the number of marriages in Russia began to fall sharply and in 2018 reached its minimum of 6.2. This figure remains to this day. Choosing a free future for young people does not give partners the confidence in these relationships to have children together.

However, now we can note that childfree is not so much a sign of freedom and independence, as a sign of striving for a trouble-free life, to avoid difficulties. Childfree becomes not so much an ideology and philosophy of emancipation, as the ideology and philosophy of hedonism inherent in modern consumer society. Many people who follow the rules of this phenomenon do not understand the origins of this movement and its ideology. We can assume that the active spiritual intervention of this movement distorts the process of forming the value-motivational structure of a personality. This tells us that the structure of family values is undergoing a serious transformation.

In traditional society, there was a clear pattern of family life, where it was given an important place. The type of family was expanded, and devotion to the family played a significant role, the interests of the family were considered as a priority in relation to the interests of an individual. A hedonistic life strategy is being formed in modern society. 

By hedonism, we define the process of elevating pleasure to the rank of the highest good and meaningful life value, which ultimately forms an egoistic personality type. Hedonism is associated with the problems of today, as it is a marker or indicator of life strategies.

The emergence of ideas of this value trend dates back to the philosophy of Ancient Greece. One of the first representatives was Aristippus, who defined the highest good as the achievement of pleasure ^[14]. A person's feelings, in his opinion, convey his moral state. Thus, Aristippus divided sensations into light and stormy ones. The lungs include pleasure, which must be sought, and the other avoided. The author noted that pleasure can be not only clear and fast, but also, if accumulated, it can bring more joy and satisfaction over a longer time interval. 

Epicurus defines pleasure of three kinds – natural and necessary for human life, natural and not necessary for life, not natural and not necessary. Thus, a person should strive for the first kind. The author considered pleasure to be the only good, and the desire for this in man is conditioned by his nature. Epicurus mentioned that only through pleasure, a person can achieve the ultimate goal of life – this is the happiness that a person who lives in harmony with nature receives. At the same time, in order not to satisfy unnecessary needs, it is necessary to avoid cities and markets ^[15]. The author believes that it is necessary to determine one's needs and the measure of pleasure, since dynamic pleasures, which include vanity, drunkenness, etc., can lead to suffering – physical and moral pain. Moral pleasure, in his opinion, brings more benefits – it can be self-knowledge, friendship, art.

 This trend also attracts the attention of many more modern authors: in the 20th century, Sigmund Freud, as the founder of psychoanalysis, based it on the principle of hedonism. The psychologist noted that every person is a hedonist by nature, starting from infancy. But the principles of society do not allow a person to constantly fulfill his needs in the shortest possible time. Therefore, reality controls a person's enjoyment. Thus, getting pleasure is a completely natural process that is dominant in the regulation of mental processes, based on this, it is quite clear that society should strictly regulate the sphere of pleasure ^[16].

In his work, Jean Baudrillard "Consumer Society" draws his attention to hedonism as a product of the type of society of the same name. The author emphasized that consumer society has turned into a form of myth, which "has its own myth in itself." A new human species is emerging – Homo Economicus, which aims to seek happiness and give preference to what brings them maximum pleasure ^[17].  Baudrillard noted that the living space that forms modern society shows people that there is no need to strive for something and unite, since all the benefits are available, and they give a constant sense of pleasure from interaction. Consumption has become the value of people's lives. 

A sufficient number of scientific articles have been written on the topic of hedonism, which consider the development of this orientation as a problem of modern society. Modern hedonism manifests itself, first of all, as a desire for comfort, to reduce the physical and spiritual costs of achieving it. From this point of view, we can consider hedonism as a desire to avoid suffering. In everyday life, it looks quite simple – a person tends to avoid everything that prevents him from having fun. We can also include children in the category of these phenomena, as a source of suffering and displeasure.

Hedonism as a value choice, reducing all manifestations of the social to pleasures, impoverishes spiritual life. In this sense, hedonism, as an ideology and philosophy, poses an existential threat to society, coming into conflict with the social order. It forms an egoistic personality, unable to support the function of reproducing a cultural pattern.

Childfree is one of the manifestations of hedonism. Unwillingness to take care of others also refers to one of the forms of obtaining and preserving one's own well-being and pleasure.

In general, researchers agree that childfree is not only people who deliberately do not have children, but the ideology and philosophy of consumer society, the axis of which is hedonism.

The study of this phenomenon, the identification of the principles of choosing life values and trends in this area will help to successfully establish the criteria that form the idea of childfree.

There are also personal psychological problems that prevent a person from becoming a parent, and he refuses due to the moral component. For some, this is due to the lack of a family formation model when, as an adult today, he was a child. 

In the autumn of 2022, the Russian State Duma introduced a bill prohibiting the dissemination of childfree ideology among children. It was noted that the supporters of this movement form destructive social behavior, which will negatively affect the formation of the future of the younger generation. 

If we consider the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the spread of the childfree phenomenon, then we can conclude that people who create families should remember that the birth of children is one of the main goals of a God–ordained marriage union.

Thus, the birth of childfree is associated with the development of technology, medicine, the transition from a traditional to an industrial society, and later to a consumer society. What led to changes in family life: the need for a large multi–generational family has disappeared, since the hedonistic philosophy and ideology of consumption forms a single person striving to satisfy his personal needs without taking into account the interests of other people. Of course, it should be noted that the formation of the childfree phenomenon is an ambiguous process, people can abandon children for various reasons, however, we assume that hedonistic life strategies are one of the most important factors in the formation of this phenomenon.

Research to identify adherents of the Childfree ideology occurs regularly and in different societies. 

In 2020, a study was conducted by the NAFI Analytical Center, where the following results were obtained: almost half of Russians (46%) aged 18 to 45 years do not plan to have children ^[18]. This is most often explained by a difficult financial situation and lack of housing, loneliness, health problems or the fact that a child will interfere with a career. Many wealthy, educated people are unwilling to sacrifice their comfort. When children were the highest value, the lack of necessary conditions and work did not stop the family from having children, but now there are many reasons not to have children.

Among the popular reasons are the lack of desire to have children in the near future, poor housing conditions, and wages. Natalia Chistyakova, a senior researcher at the Institute of Regional Economics Problems ^[19], added in comments to the study that childlessness is now not only declared, but also discussed, and the younger generation of modern Russia has a childfree mindset. In the existing generations, the proportion of women who have finally decided not to have children is growing. People would be willing to have children if they had ideal living conditions

Thus, the concept of childfree is very broad and can be interpreted both as a social group of people united on the principle of voluntary childlessness, and as a political movement (such values, which run counter to traditional ones, imply the defense of their rights, including by political institutions).

Having studied the research on this topic, it can be concluded that the number of Childfree followers among young people is increasing. The reason for this, most often, is that people are not ready to be parents and take responsibility for the child. 

Methodology

 Childfree as an ideology is one of the manifestations of a hedonistic life strategy. Childfree is a position of voluntary refusal to procreate, the so-called conscious childlessness. Due to the negative population growth rates in the Russian Federation, this topic is important enough for research among the young population. In order to study it, we have formed analytics in the form of judgments based on popular beliefs around the birth of children as a phenomenon. 

Thus, the judgments reflect the level of awareness of young people about the childfree phenomenon, the sources of information and the circle of people with whom they are ready to discuss it; the evaluative component of this movement, as well as the willingness to act in order to spread childfree beyond their circle of communication.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the ideology of childfree as one of the manifestations of the hedonistic life strategy of youth.

To achieve the purpose of the study, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1) Determine the attitude of the youth of the Siberian Federal University up to and including 28 years of age to children;

2) To study the judgments and opinions of young people about personal life values;

3) To determine the life guidelines of young people;

4) Analyze the youth's perception of children based on the results of a questionnaire survey.

The object is students of the Siberian Federal University aged 17 to 28 years inclusive.

The subject of the study is young people's ideas about the role of children in their personal lives.

This study is a pilot one, the tasks set can be fully solved only by continuing the study (initiating the main study), as well as subject to the correction of judgments and the expansion of the sample. The judgments for this questionnaire were based on the course work (only the theoretical part. including a literary review) on this topic. 

The respondents were selected randomly, using the method of achievable units. A total of 279 respondents were interviewed. All respondents are enrolled in a higher education program. The ratio of respondents by gender was 64% female and 36% male. 

The majority of respondents (48%) were in the age group from 18 to 20 years old, inclusive, and are not married.

The second largest number is the age from 21 to 24 years inclusive (32%), followed by up to 18 years (14%). 6% were respondents aged 25 to 28 years inclusive. 

Thus, all the age groups that we were interested in were covered. 

The marital status of the respondents was divided into three groups, which is explained by their age characteristics. 56% are in an unregistered relationship, 32% are single, 12% are married. 

Respondents were offered a number of judgments that relate to attitudes towards children. It was necessary to indicate the degree of agreement with them from absolutely agree to absolutely disagree. 

The results of the study

14% of respondents absolutely agree with the opinion that children decorate life, 23% agree, 37% disagree and 22% absolutely disagree, 4% find it difficult to answer. The majority of respondents disagree with this judgment. The degree of disagreement may mean that some respondents have a negative attitude towards the presence of children in their lives. 

The second judgment, "the end of personal life," was approved by the majority of respondents. So, 28% absolutely agree with him, 33% agree. There is a share of those who disagree with 13%, and absolutely disagree with 20%. 6% find it difficult to answer. It should be noted that a sufficient number of young people believe that they can engage with their personal lives only if there are no children in it.

Everyone puts their own definition into the concept of family. For some, these are parents, for others it is a loved one nearby, perhaps even a circle of close friends. A full–fledged family is the unit of society where a child must be a prerequisite, this is exactly the judgment presented to the respondents. Thus, 12% of respondents absolutely agree with him, 24% agree. 38% of respondents disagree, 20% absolutely disagree, and 6% find it difficult to answer.

Most people want to be happy. To do this, you need to find the source of your inspiration to receive such emotions. Undoubtedly, a child can be a reason to be happy. This opinion was fully approved by 21% of respondents, 26% partially agree, 7% find it difficult to answer. But most of the respondents disagree with this and look for happiness elsewhere. 18% absolutely disagree with this option, and 28% disagree. Most often, for such people, happiness is the process of getting pleasure, perhaps they see in his favorite business or endless pleasure.

The main concern for children lies with the parents and is a very expensive category about budgeting. Thus, analysts of the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper estimated that on average about 9 million rubles are spent per child over the age of 18 ^[19]. The judgment that was presented to the respondents was "waste of money". 28% absolutely agree with him, 31% agree, 19% disagree, 17% absolutely disagree, but 5% find it difficult to answer. This opinion may be due to the fact that young people who are still receiving higher education do not have a stable source of income and do not have enough hours to work, and cannot fully provide for someone else.

The state is trying to financially help in ensuring the birth and maintenance of children, there are various payments, allowances, which are both one-time and monthly. For example, starting from February 1, 2022, the amount of payment is 20472.77 rubles, and there are also increasing coefficients ^[20].

 This judgment is called: "children are an additional income from the state." 13% of respondents agree with him, 8% absolutely agree, 34% disagree, 37% absolutely disagree, and 8% percent find it difficult to answer. Thus, respondents do not consider the amount of money they receive at the birth of a child to be significant when drawing up a budget allocation plan. Perhaps some are not sufficiently aware of the possibilities that can be used.

The judgment that children should be exclusively the care of the state received more positive responses from respondents. 17% of respondents absolutely agree with him, and 34% of respondents agree with him. But there is also a percentage of people who disagree with this – 13%, 29% disagree with these, and the rest find it difficult to answer. This may indicate that a person does not want to invest in the formation of a personality and thinks about his own comfort.

Since the survey was conducted among respondents who are still receiving higher education, it is necessary to find out their future goal and what they see as a continuation of themselves. "Children are my future" - this statement was indicated for evaluation by the respondents. 17% absolutely agree with this statement, 37% agree. 8% find it difficult to answer, but 28% disagree with this, and 10% absolutely disagree. It cannot be said that the respondents completely refuse to have children or do not see a goal in them, but there is a category of people who have not yet formed a clear attitude towards children.

Responsibility is an integral part of our lives. And a child is an additional concern that must be met by clear actions on the part of parents. The eighth statement stated that "children are an unnecessary responsibility", where the respondents needed to understand whether they would be able to take it at the birth of a child and whether it was necessary for them. 7% absolutely agree with this, 22% agree, 30% absolutely disagree, 32% disagree. 9% find it difficult to answer. 

When children appear in the family, the life of the parents changes, now it is necessary to take into account the circumstances associated with the child. Also, for women, this is the moment when it is most often necessary to be at home with a child on temporary care leave. At the same time, a moment of unstable life of parents is formed, especially in the first years of the baby's life. Children are a factor in an unstable life – this statement was presented to the respondents. 17% of respondents agree with him, 33% absolutely agree, 24% disagree, 16% absolutely disagree, the rest find it difficult to answer. It can be noted that not everyone sees children as an obstacle in life planning.

Children can be helpers when their parents' age does not allow them to perform certain functions or fully provide themselves with all the most necessary things. Parents can see their children as support and support. Also, a secure old age. 24% agree with the last statement, 16% absolutely agree. But 30% disagree, 26% absolutely disagree, and 4% find it difficult to answer. Thus, respondents may see a sense of security in other people, especially if they are their children.

Children can be a supportive criterion for family well-being in society. Children can serve to preserve family values, ideals and traditions. The eleventh judgment was "a way to preserve the institution of the family in any society." 23% of respondents agree with him, 16% absolutely agree, 7% of respondents find it difficult to answer, 34% of respondents disagree, 20% absolutely disagree. Most of the respondents do not believe that a child helps to preserve the institution of the family.

Love has many manifestations and directions. People can love for something and for some purpose. A child is an object of selfless love. The majority of respondents agree with this statement 57%, 21% of respondents absolutely agree, 22% disagree. Here, in fact, the majority of respondents see in the child a desire to love.

When people decide to start a family, it seems to them that they will always be together. But it happens that misunderstandings occur and family happiness collapses. A child can be an opportunity to keep a partner. 15% of respondents agree with this, 6% absolutely agree, 43% of respondents disagree and 28% absolutely disagree, 8% of respondents also find it difficult to answer. It can be noted that children do not serve as a reason to keep a family for the majority of respondents.

The next judgment was that children are a source of pleasant experiences. 14% absolutely agree with him, 21% agree. But the majority of respondents disagree – 43%, 22% absolutely disagree. We can note that not all experiences about a child are considered pleasant.

The appearance of a child before a person first took place in a professional environment can serve as a factor that will interfere with career development. "A failed career" was the fifteenth judgment. An almost equal proportion of respondents agree and disagree with him. This can be explained by the fact that men and women participated in the survey. So, the former can also work with a child, because, most often, the care of a child is entrusted to a woman.

The way society sees us is for some very important criterion. It is necessary that the position in society be as high as possible. Children can be the reason why a person cannot take place in society. More respondents disagree with this statement – 45%, 16% absolutely disagree, 9% find it difficult to answer. 18% absolutely agree, the rest agree. It should be noted that the child is not an obstacle for the respondents in the establishment and well-being in society. Perhaps this opinion was formed due to the fact that people did not face the impossibility of getting what they wanted from society.

 "Sleepless nights" is a definition often given by people when asking about a child. This is a natural process when people's lives change dramatically and the day ceases to be planned, because the child is unpredictable and something that was not planned may happen. 27% of respondents agree with him, 36% absolutely agree, 18% disagree, and 13% absolutely disagree. But 6% find it difficult to give a definite answer. But this judgment does not characterize a negative attitude towards children.

The desire to have at least one child in the family has always been welcomed in many societies. Accordingly, the presence of children in the family could receive approval from society, whether it was work collectives or a close circle of people. But now the assessments of priorities are changing, which may no longer be in favor of the child. 19% of respondents agree that a child is an approval from society, and 21% of respondents absolutely agree. But a large proportion of those who are negative about this statement – 39% disagree, 20% absolutely disagree, and 1% find it difficult to answer. This may indicate that in order to receive approval from society, it is necessary to develop in other directions.

The postpartum period is still a factor when a woman's condition is at risk. These can be both psychological and physiological abnormalities, which can negatively affect the child's condition. 46% of respondents absolutely agree with this judgment, 32% agree, 3% find it difficult to answer, 8% absolutely disagree, 11% disagree. With a high level of medical development, young people are still not sure of a stable state of health during pregnancy and after.

A child is always a risk. When the firstborn is born, young parents still do not understand which approach to parenting is more appropriate. Thus, a child is a responsible step with ambiguous consequences. 27% of respondents absolutely agree with this statement, and 19% agree. 34% of respondents disagree, 17% of respondents absolutely disagree. 3% find it difficult to answer. There is no consensus among the respondents, which suggests that some people can assess the consequences of having children.

Joyful emotions make a person's life more diverse and interesting, and children can be their source. 24% of respondents agree with this statement, 15% absolutely agree, 33% disagree, 21% absolutely disagree, and 7% find it difficult to answer. The majority of respondents do not see joy in the child, which indicates that the impression of them was formed under the influence of other situations where children caused discomfort to parents.

Many people plan the appearance of a child in the family, weighing all aspects of their impact on the lives of future parents. But there are situations when the appearance of a child is a surprise for young parents. This belongs to the category of unwanted pregnancy, this is the judgment that was presented to the respondents. 23% of respondents absolutely agree that the birth of a child is the result of an unwanted pregnancy, 36% agree, 17% disagree, and 22% absolutely disagree, 2% find it difficult to answer. This can be explained by the age characteristics of the respondents, their marital status and the fact that they are currently studying. It can be concluded that most have not yet planned the birth of a child.

It is necessary to understand that with the advent of a child, their interests may fade into the background. Because of the children, sometimes you have to infringe on your own interests. Some respondents absolutely agree with this – 32%, 13% agree, 18% absolutely disagree, and 30% disagree. There is a small proportion of those who find it difficult to answer – 7%. This tells us that young people do not have a common opinion about the needs of the child.

Each person has a number of needs that must be met for a comfortable life. When a child appears, first of all, it is necessary to think about him. Accordingly, a situation may arise when it is not possible to meet their needs because of the child. 23% of respondents agree with this statement, 28% absolutely agree. But half of the respondents think otherwise, so 35% disagree with this opinion, and 14% absolutely disagree. These statistics show that equal proportions of respondents have two different points of view.

The meaning of their lives is different for everyone, but there are people who see it as an extension of themselves – in children. This opinion was approved by a smaller part of the respondents, 17% agree with it, 21% absolutely agree. 34% disagree, 28% absolutely disagree. It can be concluded that young people in most cases do not consider children to be the meaning of life and find it in other aspects of life.

Parenting can be burdensome for a person and take up a sufficient amount of time. Most of the respondents do not share this point of view. 32% of respondents disagree with this, 20% absolutely disagree. But 14% absolutely agree, and 27% agree. There are people who find it difficult to answer – 7%. But the proportion of those who agree with this point of view is not small, therefore, we can say that young people have an attitude towards children as those people to whom they do not want to pay their attention.

The child may limit the personal space of the parents. As soon as he is born, he needs to be constantly supervised, accordingly, personal boundaries are erased. 33% of respondents absolutely agree with this opinion, 26% agree, 9% disagree, 23% absolutely disagree, 9% find it difficult to answer.

Children can cause conflicts in the family, because parents or other relatives may have different views on the upbringing of a child and on certain situations related to them. Also, situations that constantly arise due to the actions of a child can provoke conflict. 24% of respondents disagree with this statement, 38% absolutely disagree, 16% agree, and 22% absolutely agree. Nevertheless, a significant part of the respondents are in no hurry to shift interpersonal relationships to the child.

When a child grows up, he begins to do minor household chores to help his parents. Sometimes it can significantly make life easier for parents and concentrate on other things. The child is an assistant in everyday life. 37% of respondents absolutely agree with this statement, 28% agree, 16% absolutely disagree, and 11% disagree, the rest find it difficult to answer this judgment. This opinion can also be formed based on your own experience.

The existence of children can improve the psychological climate of a couple. New emotions, a beloved family member and a common cause – taking care of a child can unite partners. But, there is also an opposite point of view when children can still ruin the relationship of their parents. 9% absolutely agree with this, 15% agree, 46% disagree, 30% absolutely disagree.

Every parent who loves their child and invests in his upbringing is very worried about him. So, a child can be an additional source of hassle, especially during adolescence. 25% of respondents absolutely agree with this statement, 23% agree, 31% disagree, 16% absolutely disagree. 5% find it difficult to answer.

Children are a gift from God. A significant part of respondents disagree with this opinion – 34%, 21% absolutely disagree. At the same time, 29% agree and 11% absolutely agree, 5% found it difficult to answer.

The possible refusal to have children, abortions, and abandonment without parents is a sin. The majority of respondents absolutely agree with this opinion – 37%, 18% agree, 9% disagree, 21% absolutely do not hold this opinion. Some of the respondents – 15% - find it difficult to answer. It can be noted that young people have a responsibility when planning a child.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents' responses as a percentage.

In this study, the childfree phenomenon was subjectively evaluated.

The conducted research has shown that the idea of young people about their own life strategies is personal in nature. People strive to free themselves from unnecessary worries, many do not consider the birth of children a priority when choosing the trajectory of their future. The main difficulties noted by the respondents are related to finances, career and great responsibility.

Such conclusions may be largely influenced by the fact that the majority of respondents are not married, but this, in turn, is due to the social factors of the respondents, including age. 

Further research will include tasks that determine the probability and underlying reasons for not having children; determining factors that could motivate people not to give up having children, as well as an analysiswillingness to act in order to spread the childfree movement. 

.