...most of the freedom I had before kids, I never used. I paid for it in loneliness, but I never used it.
Paul's written a lot of smart stuff, but this might be the smartest.
I took a lot of steps to protect my freedom before getting engaged to my partner, and I realize now that was a shitty tradeoff. Freedom was an unexercised resource I had, which is to say it was largely wasted on me. I spent a lot of time being lonely - not alone, which implies by choice, but lonely - having no steadfast companionship and with no alternative to that.
That statement in the article actually turned me off quite a bit. Loneliness is not the opposite of having kids. Having kids is sort of an "easy mode" for filling your time[0]. So sure, if you don't have kids, and don't have a romantic partner, and and don't have friends, and attempt to go through life expecting that you and only you are necessary for entertaining yourself, yeah, you'll be lonely.
Earlier in life I often considered loneliness to be my biggest fear, but I eventually realized that loneliness isn't something that just happens to you. It's a choice. If you don't want that choice, then you have to put in effort to find and maintain friendships[1], find a hopefully-lifelong romantic partner, etc.
Beyond that, though, there are plenty of elderly people who are profoundly lonely because their children have families and lives of their own and rarely see them. Perhaps if they tried harder to maintain relationships outside their nuclear family, they'd be better off. Not saying all that is easy (especially with kids in the mix), but I certainly think it's worthwhile in the end.
[0] "Easy" in that your time will always be filled, with no searching needed on your part; I'm not suggesting that raising kids is easy.
[1] Being friends with parents (when you are not one) is hard, but it's worthwhile to make the time, and be flexible with your time since theirs often isn't.
I think it's smart in concept, but it feels like its a little too overarching.
Taken literally, it sounds like he's dismissing his relationship/marriage and saying he was lonely while in it, pre-children. I'm not going to try and extrapolate if that's what he truly meant or what the implications of such a statement would mean.
The sentiment, I think, would improve from removing kids and saying "I didn't take advantage of my pre-children freedoms and was lonely because of that."
It also raises an interesting question... If he had maximized those freedoms, how would that have affected his decision to have a child?
Paul's written a lot of smart stuff, but this might be the smartest.
I took a lot of steps to protect my freedom before getting engaged to my partner, and I realize now that was a shitty tradeoff. Freedom was an unexercised resource I had, which is to say it was largely wasted on me. I spent a lot of time being lonely - not alone, which implies by choice, but lonely - having no steadfast companionship and with no alternative to that.