"No Babies?"--NYT Magazine article about declining birthrates

[Lydia Leftcoast]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html

The article notes that women have entered the paid workforce in increasing numbers all over the world, which is cutting down on childbearing, BUT that the declines in the birthrate, down to 1.1 children per woman in some cases, are sharpest in countries that don't provide any services for employed mothers, namely "traditional" societies such as Italy and Greece in Europe, and Japan and South Korea in Asia. Countries with good social services for parents of young children, such as Scandinavian countries, or flexible work patterns, such as the U.S., have the highest birthrates. Expectations that fathers will participate in the daily work of childrearing, as in Scandinavia and, to a lesser extent, in the U.S., also keep birthrates from falling.

(I note the contrast between my own father, whose role in our lives seemed to be limited to brief interactions between dinner and bedtime, and my brothers, who did a noticeable amount of diaper-changing, bath giving, getting kids dressed, and other routine childcare chores.)

So paradoxically, it's the "family values" countries that are losing population and ending up with a serious imbalance between the young and the elderly populations, and the "feminazi" countries that have higher birthrates.

The article didn't mention this, but the countries with higher birthrates are also friendlier to single mothers. This has been a huge change in the past 20 years in the U.S.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I don't understand what the "news" is here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Well, it's a refutation of the right-wing blather

and all the hand-wringing in Japan about falling birthrates. The official view of the middle-aged men who run Japan is that modern young women are lazy and selfish. Actually, they're just sensible. There are too many men who expect women to be their unpaid servants, even if they work full-time, hence little motivation to marry; a strong stigma against single mothers, and in most communities, no place to put the kids while Mom's at work.

[Iris]

14. yeah, see what happens when you give those little bitches choices?

The nerve of them to look out for themselves!

:sarcasm:

[PDJane]

3. Women who have a choice

Will usually choose to have one or two children. It is access to birth control and education, not the need to work, that keeps the birthrate to a reasonable level. Women do work, and women have always worked, both inside and outside the home. Work is work, and the fact that it's unpaid doesn't mean that it isn't done and isn't needed.

Birthrates in the US have remained high because there is a lack of education and a heavy emphasis on religion, not because of flexible work times. Yes, a spouse's help with the family does help. Truthfully, however, the folks who have the most children don't have spousal help as a rule.

[kestrel91316]

4. Am I the only one who thinks declining birth rates would be a GOOD thing??

I mean, it already is gonna take several Planet Earth's worth of natural resources to provide all humans with a very basic acceptable standard of living, let alone an American 1980s standard of living.

I guess they really AREN'T teaching basic math in school anymore.

[ikojo]

5. No, you are not alone....I, too, think it would be a good

thing for there to be fewer humans born. My mom had seven kids and with only five of those kids having children, she still has 15 grandchildren...

1st son had two kids
1st daughter had three kids
2nd daughter had two kids
3rd daughter had three kids
2nd son had four kids and adopted his second wife's son, so he really has five kids
4th daughter (me) and third son (my now deceased younger brother) had no children.

[defendandprotect]

6. Agree . . .

It's been made into a taboo subject ---
There was a time in the 60's when most of this was understood --
Then the propagandists/brainwashers came in and gave everyone amnesia--

Especially as people begin to understand Global Warming, I would think that the
birth rate will fall dramatically. That would be ANOTHER reason why they would
have done all they could to keep the public from understanding what was going on..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. The article actually touches on that

It tells of cities in Germany that are planning to shrink their communities in a planned manner, either razing buildings and creating more green spaces or tearing down their modern buildings and reinventing themselves as historic tourist centers.

[kestrel91316]

8. People are starting to think the future will NOT be brighter than the past,

and a lot of them are simply choosing not to bring children into such an uncertain world.

We NEED fewer people on the planet if we want them to have a halfway decent standard of living.

[enlightenment]

9. I signed on to the ZPG movement in the early 1970s -

haven't changed my mind since. If people want large families they should adopt. If adoption is a pain in the arse, then they should be fighting to make it less so, rather than breeding like rabbits.

Just read a story on BBC about Charlotte Church, 22 years old and quite wealthy. She and hubby have a 9 month old. She's pregnant again - and charmingly giggles about wanting a rugby team's worth of kids. Isn't that special. I'm sick and tired of the argument that because someone can financially afford to have a herd, they have a right to have a herd. I'm sick of the media turning women who have litters into celebrities - if human women were supposed to have five or six or seven at a time, we would do it naturally. I'm sick of people glorifying men and women who breed well into their 50s and beyond - if nature thought that was a good idea, 70 year old men wouldn't need Viagra to keep it up long enough to impregnate the 20 something they're shagging.

oops. ranting. apologies.

[Triana]

11. THANK YOU - I've also been in ZPG (now known as Population Connection)

since the 70s. People need to get a clue and stop breeding so much. Just 'cause you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD. I also get annoyed with the rabbit-like breeders who won't adopt instead. Making more mouths to feed while others that are already HERE - are starving.

IMO, that is the epitome of selfish. They say women who don't want to have babies are selfish. My response has always been that people who have them instead of adopting are selfish. There are millions of kids on the planet who haven't got much chance of a decent life. A truely moral person who wanted children would help one of those, instead of creating another life for the planet and society to support.

Pffft!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Oh, I totally agree

If I had been financially able when I was younger, I would have adopted.

I suspect that the people who are so eager for other people to have children are the ones who wrote anonymously to Dear Abby when she asked her readers, "If you had it to do over again, would you have children?" and told about how they regretted it. (I think about half the respondents said they regretted having children.)

I also remember reading an article in Discover or Scientific American a few years back about a woman anthropologist who had made a career of investigating fertility patterns around the world, and she found that everywhere she went, even in the Third World, even in countries with high average family sizes and extremely pro-natalist cultures, women seemed to think that two to four children was the ideal number. (I suppose the men in those cultures thought, "Ten or twelve children, all boys, if possible.")

The immediate concern in Europe and East Asia is supporting the old folks. However, this problem will correct itself over the years, as the large numbers of old folks (including us baby boomers) die off in the next twenty to forty years, to be succeeded by a smaller number of old folks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Agree 100%!!

I still marvel at the fact that I'm considered "selfish" for not procreating, and even get to enjoy higher taxes for it. WTF? What is WRONG with this picture?!? If anything, I should be rewarded for not adding another wasteful human to the planet. But nooooo, I live in a back asswards country where birth control ISN'T covered by many major health plans but fertility treatments ARE.

:wtf:

[MountainLaurel]

13. Nope, it's not just you

I think a lot of people fall into that category, though not nearly enough.

[Triana]

10. We have a population problem. This planet cannot sustain us. And yea, NO babies...

...we're humans, not breed sows. People had better stop worrying about "low birthrates" and start getting concerned that the planet we parasites (aka humans) live on is already unable to sustain our numbers. We're collectively sitting here like a bunch of dumb monkeys, gleefully sawing off he very branch we're perched upon (the earth).

Duh. Low birthrates? GOOD! Lower them some more, K?

Women who have a CHOICE, sometimes don't have kids because they don't WANT them and if they don't WANT them then it's best that they not have them. There is nothing psychologically "wrong" with these women. I DO see a lot wrong with a society that forces motherhood on women just because they have a uterus and are physically capable of pregnancy. We're physically capable of jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge too, but most of us don't do that just because we "can". THAT attitude is exactly what got us to the point we are now on Planet Earth - depleting the place due to overpopulation. Why? (Dohhh, 'cause we can...at least until we destroy the only place we have to live - doohh.) Jeeeze.

Outside that "little" problem, women can and should be able to decide for themselves - with NO pressure from anyone - what they want to do with their bodies and their lives. And deciding for themselves and having freedom of choice about that (whether it includes children or not) is the most responsible and mature thing to do - for women and the society / world they live in.

That's why choice is a good thing. There are too many people who have babies just because they can or because that's what they're "supposed" to do or are "expected" to do - society damned near forces it down women's throats (or should I say up their uteruses). If we don't have children, it's ASSumed there's something "wrong" with us. To the contrary, there is something RIGHT with us - that is that we bothered to THINK before starting a family. Nothing wrong with that.

Some women didn't give in to the pressure and took the choice to do what they wanted to do with their lives and for some of them - that didn't include being a Mom.

All that said, I'm not surprised that in countries where working women are more supported when they do have children, where husbands typically pitch in, and childcare and flextime is available, birthrates are higher.

BUT - the Fundies like them wimmin at HOME - barefoot and pregnant - NOT at work in pumps and pregnant. Ya gotta excuse 'em - they're a bunch of control freaks. And again, those types of "doh" - controlling attitudes about women and children - likely has the opposite effect of what they're trying to achieve (which is apparently gross overpopulation of the planet with more fundies - damn the environment, full speed ahead).

Suffice to say I think we all need to start encouraging smaller/no families (no-child families) worldwide.

I DO think, however, that working mothers need all the help they can get in the form of flextime, equal pay, and childcare - whether childcare is employer-provided, personally paid and employer or government subsidized, or provided by family members/spouses.

[Nobody]

15. Fortunately we are in no danger of extinction

With over 6 billion of us, we should be good for a while.

You want to single-handedly populate a planet? Find one, move there, and start rutting.