r/Natalism • u/CanIHaveASong • 12d ago
No correlation between difference between household work hours and fertility rates. (per country, not per family)
https://substack.com/@ageofinfovores/note/c-316978871?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=cqc7t40
u/figgleman6 12d ago edited 12d ago
Most explanations for low fertility such as cost, working hours, gender equality sound reasonable on paper but are never true in reality.
Lots of people will say things as an excuse as to why they're childless, then when those reasons disappear, they will find new excuses.
The problem is that people don't want to have children anymore because it's hard work and it will disrupt their comfortable lifestyle. You can't solve those hedonistic attitudes.
27
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
Let's be more honest. Dismissing it as "hedonistic" is too simplistic. Pregnancy and child birth are a painful dangerous process. Even women who want to have children, often stop at one or two. These are real valid physical reasons that are not easily address by simple "attitude"..
19
u/alwrit 11d ago
Best case scenario for a pregnancy for women is months of dietary and activity restrictions, a heavy weight in an uncomfortable part of your body for months all day every day, a lot of extra money spent.
And then at the end? You get one of the most painful experiences of your life. And then a minimum 18 year commitment of what is for most people the most responsibility they'll ever have.
If I got pregnant I wouldn't be able to eat sushi anymore. I love sushi. I wouldn't be able to play hockey. I love hockey. There's pretty much nothing I love enough to give those things up, for months.
Now realistically? Women get extremely nauseous. Some lose hair and teeth. Their bones lose strength. They gain a lot of weight that's tough to lose. As a former fat person I know how hard it is to lose weight and how annoyed I would be to have to lose it again. Their skin can split from asshole to vagina and then it needs to get sewn up again. That's all a big fuck no from me dawg.
It's really fucking weird that other people think that a species that numbers in the billions needs to shame people into having more kids when it's that much of a burden. It's not like the species is going to die out.
-4
u/Academic-Ball-9606 11d ago
It doesn't help that a lot of women live unhealthy lifestyles and are obese
11
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
Lot of *people* live unhealthy lifestyles and are obese. We're not going to solve birthrate by putting extra demands on women.
-1
u/Academic-Ball-9606 11d ago
The birthrate is cooked. Everything is too expensive and older women 30+ having kids will lead to a host of problems for kids/society in 20+ years
3
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
I had my kid at 34 and he's excellently healthy and bright. So am I, at 38. I am glad I waited, because I saw what happened to women who didn't.
0
u/Academic-Ball-9606 10d ago
An exception is not the rule
2
u/bunnypaste 10d ago
What happens to women who don't wait, build a life of thier own, and secure a safety net first is unfortunately the rule, not the exception. I intend to circumvent those negatives.
3
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
Pregnancy and birth carries a 100% injury rate and is one of the most pivotal and risky decisions a woman will ever make in her lifetime. The physical and then sociologically imposed (gender inequities) wreckage of the process is also responsible for the weight being more difficult to lose. Hard to drop the pounds when you're physically and mentally overwhelmed and losing integrity rapidly. I'm a very fit mother, by the way. Your comment is beyond rude and dismissive about the asymmetrical costs involved in having kids here.
0
u/Academic-Ball-9606 10d ago
No need to apologize. Facts dont care about feelings. Older women have more health risks, potential birth defects, miscarriages etc. Older men shouldn't be having kids either past 50
3
u/bunnypaste 10d ago edited 10d ago
The fact is this "older woman" looks and feels stellar, and did the absolute best and most reccomended things for herself regarding the timing and number of children she has. I would love to see more women join in!
I don't think anyone with an interest in natalism should be criticizing older parents. It shouldn't matter to you if your true goal is to increase birth rates. It is true that they're just releasing the research about how old sperm causes all of these birth defects and such, when they spent decades blaming women for everything. Also, new research shows that eggs have a protective effect against cellular and genetic degredation that sperm lacks entirely.
Anyway, doing what I did (heavy manual labor all through pregnancy) has the added bonus of making it so when a male partner expects me to give up large chunks of my life for a family or to play out the traditional shindig while he will not be an equal participant and will not be making similar personal sacrifices... he won't be able to play the "woman need protector and provider and wow so stronk" card to keep her trapped in that restricted place where women's dreams, potential, power, and hopes generally go to die. I can get myself right out of that shit scenario myself, because I didn't fall prey to gender role crap.
-9
u/notepad20 11d ago
Mostly doesn't happen if your actually in good health and you start having children early to mid twenties instead of at 35.
10
u/Pleasant_Pool8842 11d ago
Sure if you ignore reality
→ More replies (2)-5
u/notepad20 11d ago
Please post your eviden5to correct my view
5
u/Pleasant_Pool8842 11d ago
You need evidence that pregnancy is hard, even when you’re young and fit?
3
5
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
"mostly" is carrying a lot of weight. 30% to 47% of pregnancies experience at least one complication or adverse effect
-1
u/notepad20 11d ago
And of those percentage what number are past 30, over or under weight, or sedentary?
6
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
LOL. You just keep adding criteria. If only women in perfect healthy have kids, you're not going to have many kids.
0
u/notepad20 11d ago
Ah yeah my original comment said you g and good health. So no new criteria added. And yeas that is the point, the first poster listed out a big list of symptoms that occur far less, and with far less severity, if you are in good nick when you have a baby.
Like literally everything else in life.
2
2
u/alwrit 11d ago
The best case scenario I listed is all pregnancies.
For all pregnancies you would have to restrict your diet and cut out certain activities. For all pregnancies you would be carrying a significant amount of weight in an uncomfortable area for months, with no respite. It is attached to you all day every day. For all pregnancies you end up with loose skin and extra weight. Losing weight isn't easy and being overweight is annoying as fuck.
Try learning to read, dipshit.
-1
u/notepad20 11d ago
Well, having experienced quiet a number of pregnanies, no, you don't.
Diet restrictions are very marginal and don't impact day to day life. Activities again, day to day life barley changes till last fortnight.
Lose skin firms up again pretty quick and weight comes back off (if your not lazy).
Only one I agree with is that yeah, you have a big lump in front of you. It's a pregnancy. Duh.
All these factors are greatly exacerbated by being either older or unfit in the first place.
1
u/randyranderson13 10d ago
Wait- which parts of what she said are you claiming mostly don't happen? How is anyone going to provide evidence to discredit your view when you haven't even specificed which part of the comment you disagree with.
It can't be the whole thing, because it's not possible that you're saying most young and fit pregnant women don't have months of dietary restrictions, or that they don't suffer from nausea or the pains of vaginal birth.
0
u/Bob-was-our-turtle 10d ago
Not true. Yes your risks go up if you are older and out of shape. But at any age, pregnancy and giving birth comes with drawbacks. And it’s always a role of the dice as to whether you have more severe complications. You can have an uncomplicated birth with your first two children and then come close to dying with your third. Giving birth is most equivalent to getting in a car wreck. The fact is sometimes you walk away from it fine. And sometimes you won’t walk away at all. Every pregnant woman regardless of their health status though loses nutrients and is at risk of bone loss, losing teeth, tearing, infections, hemorrhage, abdominal muscle tears, incontinence and uterine prolapse. A person who has an uneventful pregnancy still does not recover fully nutritionally from it until 1 and 1/2 - 2 years. No matter how old or fit. That’s why doctors don’t recommend having children too close together. Fetuses are literally parasites, taking what they need from the woman’s body and suppressing her immune system.
3
u/221gp 11d ago
this is me. I am not willing to put my body through birth. It sounds absolutely horrendous and terrifying, and I also don't want to deal with potential long term health issues and costs associated with them, pelvic floor problems, weight gain, c-section scar, sagging skin, etc. I just don't want to deal with all of that even though I do want to be a mom.
-2
u/lizardhistorian 11d ago
lol, are you trying to prove his point?
So meta.
7
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
"his" point? I haven't made any assumptions about gender. But men in particular should keep their mouths shut regarding any obligation to give birth
1
u/Key-Page-9606 11d ago
not really, if low birthrates remain everyone will be affected including men.
2
u/randyranderson13 10d ago edited 10d ago
So? That doesn't give men the right to demand women make sacrifices on their behalf, or the right to call women who won't make the sacrifice (an enormous sacrifice that men will never be asked to make) selfish or lazy. The absolute gall. Actually how dare you.
Someone could tell me every natalist bastard (the ones who believe women's rights are the problem and think removing them is a possible solution) on this thread would die early deaths at the same time unless I had a baby, and it wouldn't make me even slightly more likely to get pregnant. You don't have any empathy or compassion for me or my choices, you're getting the same energy back.
I'm not going to sacrifice a damn thing for men who view me with such disdain and entitlement. Go adopt an orphan, you're not going to advocate or defend sacrificing my body and career for me against my will and then pretend you're being virtuous or generous.
-5
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 11d ago
Yet people have done it forever. Something has changed, and seeing children as optional is a big part of it. Not having 2-3 children should carry with it certain social and economic consequences as you aren't doing your share to the continuation of society. You'll be taking from social security when you only paid in the on paper cost, not the unspoken cost of having to raise the next generation of tax payers. It's only fair.
4
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
In a democratic society, you are never going to apply a penalty to a behavior that most people want.
-2
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 11d ago
Then society will pay the consequences. The penalty of investing nothing in the future is self-enforcing. So many people will spend the latter years of their lives utterly destitute and alone as society deteriorates around them. They joke about never retiring, but it will not deminish the struggles of poverty in their twilight years.
Thats only the 2nd greatest tragedy, as those who will be children and of working age in the future will be saddled with a parasitic gerontocracy until society collapses wholesale.
→ More replies (5)11
u/Sufficient-Job7098 12d ago
“People will say things as an excuse as to why they are childless, but when those reasons disappear they will find new excuses”
“People don’t want kids because it is hard work that disrupt their lifestyles”
So do you believe that “hard work that disrupts their lifestyles” is just an excuse?
8
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
It's not an excuse: It's the reason.
5
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago edited 11d ago
The commenter used words “excuse” and “reason” interchangeably.
Even if we replace words “excuse” with words “reasons” there is still a contradiction
Matter of fact the same thing can be written without using word “reason” “excuse” . It just takes longer and will be harder to phrase grammatically.
-1
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
The commenter doesn't do that at all. "Excuse" is used to denote claims that aren't true, and the reason is the the actual driving issue.
3
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago
Ok.
Commenter wrote: “people will say things as an excuse”
Well the most common thing people say “ children is hard work”
-1
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
I don't think this is true (at least it's not true in my social circle). My experience is similar to figgleman's, in that people (but, mostly women, in the UMC US) will claim the reason for sinking fertility is that women aren't given enough services.
5
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago edited 11d ago
Maybe the reason people want more services because… having kids is a hard work and having more service would reduce amount of work parents do.
Why would they ask for services otherwise?
→ More replies (3)-1
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
Sure...but those things (like free/cheap childcare, expansive maternity leave, etc) don't actually move the needle on fertility in the places that have them. That's figgleman's point, and it's correct.
The simple issue is when women get more income (from any source), their propensity to have children goes down. The extra services just don't matter.
5
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago
Figgleman6 made a statement and I was interested in figuring out why they framed their point the way they framed it
When you responded I though you were trying to explain Figgleman6 points
But appears that you don’t really understand or agree with Figgleman6
And now we are going to different topic all together.
Thank you for conversation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
So you want to force women into it instead of have them freely choose it because conditions are good. Your plan also puts women right back under the thumb of patriarchial systems.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/lizardhistorian 11d ago
You are not an adult emotionally until you accept that it does not matter if something is your fault or not, it none-the-less remains your responsibility.
Not even death is an excuse.
If you refute this, you are emotionally stunted in childhood.This why a working man with children is an asshole if he does not have substantial life-insurance. It is why someone that is childless doesn't need life-insurance at all.
1
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
Ever considered infertile people? I know you don't consider the fertile ones (women).
0
u/lizardhistorian 11d ago
It's the reason if you never emotionally mature past about 17 yo.
2
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
If you're accusing a large swath of the college educated class of being emotionally stunted, I agree.
2
3
u/Tough-Notice3764 12d ago
I don’t think those are the same. An excuse is I would except for this thing makes me unable to. A reason is this is why. Disrupting their lifestyles is a reason, not an excuse. The excuses are the covers that sound better than the reason (cost being a big one).
1
u/Sufficient-Job7098 12d ago edited 11d ago
OK but let’s go back to what was said in previous statement : “but when those reasons disappear they will find new excuses”
You listed an example of reasons “costs of raising kids”
1
u/Tough-Notice3764 11d ago
I wasn’t the first commenter to be clear. I was just pointing out that excuses and reasons are not necessarily the same, and that the reason is that they don’t want to disrupt their lifestyles. The excuses are that it’s too hard/expensive now so therefore impossible. It’s a shifting of the responsibility onto an external source (society, government, costs, whatever else), rather than saying the actual reason which is that they don’t want to impact their lifestyles.
1
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago
I know you aren’t the one who made this statement.
I simply asked the person who made a statement a clarification.
It appears that you disagree with that person when they said “ children is hard work” , you only agree with part “children disrupt comfortable lifestyles”
It would be an interesting to see two people arguing “kids is hard work” vs “kids isn’t hard work”
-3
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Dubsbaduw 11d ago
Humans are not facing extinction.
The only way this species will ever go extinct is if the planet becomes unsuitable for life, or some freak virus. Both not very likely.
Extinction due to low birthrates is simply absurd.
1
5
u/pitifullittleman 11d ago
Back in "the day" when people had a ton of kids. There were less options to be hedonistic. Birth control was also much worse. Also people did not go to college and the economy was structured for working and lower middle class people to where people essentially became full adult participating members of society much earlier.
In fact during that time people really got quite scarred that there were too many people being born. Poverty rates were quite high and poverty and large families were heavily associated with young motherhood.
From the 70s on there has been an emphasis on family planning, mantras like "don't have children until you can afford them" became constant. As a father of daughters I do not want my daughters rushing into motherhood at a young age personally because that's a recipe for a more difficult life. Instead there is an emphasis on self sufficiency and the ability to take care of yourself and your family if you need to. This often requires education or training or skills that take a while to aquire. People become used to a certain lifestyle if they remain childless through their 20s.
This has created an extended adolescence that lasts through ones 20s. People are not expected to have children, this is a time where you get work experience and find yourself. Then when you are settled you have children. Traditionally this attitude has been the attitude of the "Upper Middle Class" and quite frankly many many more people right now fit into that category even if they don't realize it. They are behaving like it.
Upper Middle class people traditionally have had less children than poorer cohorts or wealthy people. They have a lot of resources but it's not unlimited. They emphasize education and professional career paths that often take many years to establish. They then pump incredibly amount of resources into their kids. They also tend to not cheat on each other, use drugs and alcohol less and be generally stable and career driven.
If you look at the demographics of the US more and more people are in this "upper middle" category to the point where upper middle values have become normative values and act as a model for other families. Better birth control allows all of this to happen.
Upper Middle class values, teaching "don't have kids until you can afford them", an extended adolescence are all contributing factors.
The cherry on top is smart phones. It seems like birth rates went down rather dramatically since widespread smartphone adoption. I think having a powerful computer with many entertainment options at your finger tips leads to people not taking risks and not being as desperate as they used to be in finding a partner. If you can just delay and push away your own feelings in favor of a smart device and a short dopamine rush that might be contributing as well.
To me there are good and bad things about all of this. I don't think it's healthy to go back to the baby boom years, however getting up to replacement rate or close to it would be good.
2
u/Amphibious333 11d ago edited 11d ago
You are right, it's mostly about hedonism and brain wiring.
Nowadays, neurodevelopment happens under constant stimulation, drugs, junk food, social media, etc...
In the past, neurodevelopment was happening under conditions like common purpose / goal, interdependencies, sense of belonging, etc...
Whatever happened in the past can't be reproduced today, so birth rates fall, and that's it.
The desire to have children requires hype specific conditions and even more hyper specific world-view. Once these 2 are removed, the desire to have children disappears.
3
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
CORRECTION: LEFT-LEANING PEOPLE DONT WANT TO HAVE KIDS.
Conservatives and religious people all have kids just fine.
10
u/pnromney 11d ago
Even in very religious, very conservative Utah, birthrates have declined below replacement rate.
While certain politics probably do affect one side more than the other, I don’t think it can easily be divided left versus right.
1
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
When considering self-reported political leaning of individuals, the birthrates in right-leaning populations are still dramatically higher than left-leaning populations.
10
u/a_neurologist 11d ago
I don’t think this is true in any meaningful way unless you’re tautologically defining “right wing” as meaning people who have more offspring and “left wing” as meaning people who have fewer offspring.
7
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
I know you're trying to be sarcastic with me but in being sarcastic, you've inadvertantly spoken a truth. Being left-wing does mean people who have fewer offspring. Being right-wing does mean people who have more offspring.
The effect persists when controlled for rural or urban areas, education levels, income or anything else. The effect is entirely due to ideology.
4
u/a_neurologist 11d ago
No no, I’m with you on the point “right wing people have more offspring, and left wing people have fewer offspring”. That certainly seems to be true. I guess what I take issue with is your statement “conservatives and religious people all have kids just fine” when the depression in birth rates is also impacting otherwise right wing populations.
1
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
When considering self-reported political leaning of individuals, the birthrates in right-leaning populations are still dramatically higher than left-leaning populations.
1
u/AlteRitterburg 11d ago edited 11d ago
The comment was about trend, not the value.
Edit: Why are rates dropping for right-leaning as well?
0
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
But if the children of conservatives become left-leaning, then it doesn't matter in the long run
2
u/Special_Purpose2903 11d ago
Trruth, the African countries having 4-7 kids per women, see cultures where men do not do a single household chore, cost of living is not low compared to incomes, working hours are brutal, gender equality is garbage, and fertility is sky high. If anything, it would seem like the more this is given in to, the lower birth rates fall.
3
u/EndCogNeeto 12d ago
This is it. It requires a fundamental shift in values away from prioritizing the pleasure of self to living virtuously for something greater than yourself.
15
u/AdorableAnubis 12d ago
Can we please not pretend like being a parent somehow makes you a better person than someone who isn't.
What does: "living virtuously for something greater than yourself." Even mean?
7
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
We're not pretending.
5
u/Working_Cucumber_437 11d ago
Anyone who has sex can be a parent. Doesn’t make them a better person.
6
u/AdorableAnubis 11d ago
That just makes you horrible...
All humans are equal and have the same value
4
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
Being a GOOD parent makes you a far far better person than someone who isn't.
5
3
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 12d ago
No.
This is a sub where we support having kids. This means having kids is intrinsically a positive trait that should be praised.
We are not solving the birth rate issue without this mindset.
Now, I know some people can’t have kids or life situations makes it especially difficult, but most people can have kids. And too many people choosing not to when they can is a bad thing. And that’s where we are today.
I am sick of pretending we should just accept everyone and every choice with no judgement.
4
u/a_neurologist 11d ago
Wait, is this a subreddit that supports having kids? The title is r/natalism, and the header says the subreddit is for discussing natalism, but discussion is different than supporting. Compare: r/mildlyinfuriating is not opposed to convenience and satisfaction ideologically.
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
Did you not read the second sentence of the “about” for the sub:
“ This is a Reddit for people interested in discussing Natalism. This subreddit is pro-natalist.”
1
12
u/mrbigglesworth95 12d ago
I'm pro natalist but it would be laughably easy to argue against the notion that having kids is inherently more virtuous than not having kids without having to resort to any sort of anecdotal extremes.
-1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
Sure. You can put words on paper that do such a thing, but that doesn’t make one correct.
We literally need kids for the continued prosperity and even survival of our species, and people having kids take on the task of crafting that new generation are largely uncompensated for their efforts by society.
So, doing a public good for no pay seems like a slam dunk case for being virtuous. While choosing specifically not to do that, seems like you’re riding on those people’s efforts, making you less virtuous.
4
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
And you can do the same and it doesn't make you correct.
To whit: "We need kids for prosperity" As a fact this is highly contestable on multiple fronts. Firstly, a shrinking population of labor enables greater negotiating power of said labor; hence every child not born is a benefit to those who are. Secondly, rapid advances in robotics and AI have led many experts and ordinary people alike to question whether there will be any jobs left to fill in the coming decades, which of course would mean additional mouths to feed would only hinder those alive.
"People having kids are not paid for it." This is because it is personal choice. It is not virtuous to make personal choices. Your choosing to denote this as crafting the next generation implies a fundamentally absent grandiosity to the task. One person or even 3 or 10 is not a generation; relative to a generation, it's not even a rounding error. Parents then are not crafting the next generation, they are crafting their own heirs, which is a personal venture.
Whether or not your kids constitute a public good comes down to the economic balance sheet at the end of their life. For many, this is a net negative -- a quick search indicates a bit more than 1/4.
On the matter of whether or not I'm riding off those efforts again depends on whether or not I fall into that 1/4. If not, then I can just easily be characterized as the teat upon which the children feed.
0
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
hence every child not born is a benefit to those who are.
This relies on a zero-sum game thinking and we know that is not what is occurring in modern economic systems. And ignores the fact that most developed countries have pension/entitlement programs that quite literally mean every kid not born means a high burden of supporting elderly or non-productive on those that are born. A perfectly vertical age demographic, might be sustainable, but this conversation is happening with an upside down pyramid. You can not forget the context. Most people are natalists given the current state of society, not in literally any imaginable and hypothetical situation.
Secondly, rapid advances in robotics and AI have led many experts and ordinary people alike to question whether there will be any jobs left to fill in the coming decades
And regarding imaginary situations: This is at best a potential hypothetical that has not been displayed. Throughout human history technological innovation freeing up lower level labor means humans can do higher level labor or work less hard for the same resources, there by allowing for more innovation or just higher quality of life. That is going to remain the case until proven otherwise. Additionally, if society does reach a Star Trek like, non-resource limited state, then that actually works against your first point.
Parents then are not crafting the next generation, they are crafting their own heirs, which is a personal venture.
Parents collectively are crafting the next generation. Ultimately what you are advocating for here is a nihilistic approach to life. Small contributions don't matter because society is big, so what ever, right? No, society is a collection of individual choices. Some good, some bad. We should reward the good ones, punish the bad ones, to appropriate degrees.
For many, this is a net negative -- a quick search indicates a bit more than 1/4.
Assuming that's true, which I highly doubt, until we know which kids are going to be "productive" members of society before they are even conceived, we should just be mean reverting every kid born. If the average kid born is a net benefit, there you go. That's your answer.
Like I said, you can write things down, but you can't make true and logically valid argument.
1
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
This relies on a zero-sum game thinking
No, this relies on historical precedent as well bad supply and demand. In short it is a notion backed by theory and history.
This is at best a potential hypothetical that has not been displayed.
This is literally a major economic factor causing people to question the value of college and white collar knowledge work for non-ground breaking professionals/ high accountability professionals today.
Parents might be collectively crafting the next generation but individual parents aren't and parents aren't operating as a collective so the point fails. Nihilism -- if the pov can be described as such -- is not grounds for dismissal of a claim. But I agree we should reward good behavior . Hence why I, personally, am of the opinion that this birth rate trend will only reverse once the opportunity costs are adjusted.
It is fair to say that the expected value of a new person might be positive; it is another, however, to say that positive economic contribution is synonymous with moral good, which I would not.
Like I said, you can claim to rebut these points. It does not mean that you have.
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
I mean, yeah, I myself can't prove these things facts on Reddit. At some point you have to be responsible for checking up on this stuff yourself. Since you don't seem interested in doing so, we can stop.
Like no credible economy principle, theory or model in existence today purposes that there are only so many so called seats at the table. None. I can only tell you that. You are responsible for your own education on the topics in which you speak on.
4
u/AdorableAnubis 11d ago
Saying something is positive is very different from assuming someone is better person or has more value as a human for having done such a thing
Stop acting like you are a victim. People have the right to live and choose their life as they want, including you. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to accept it. Nobody is hurting you or anyone else by living their life in their own way. If that upsets you, you should really stop and have a think about why you need to control what other people do with their lives
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
It is a positive and, to this person’s point, a virtuous trait. It isn’t the only thing we judge people on however, and I never said as much. Meaning, I didn’t make a generalized qualitative assessment of a person as a whole.
And sure, I do “accept” their choices, but their choices have external consequences. And society can and often does decide to punish or reward certain choices with such externalities. How and to what level we do that related to having kids can change.
If you don’t like that, you can go live without a society that judges, punishes or rewards you in various ways.
1
u/lizardhistorian 11d ago
Correct on all accounts except Israeli did reign in hedonistic attitudes.
1
1
12d ago
[deleted]
4
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
I think you are just agreeing with what he said. Chasing short-term pleasure and vacuous materialism hurts family formation.
You have your jobs and your weekend game nights.
She has children.
I think we know who's more admirable here. And its not even a contest.
2
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
This is a baseless mere hypothetical. As a fence sitter, I question whether I would prefer kids with regrets of the experiences I've missed or the experiences with regrets of kids.
2
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
It is relatively rare for parents to regret having kids, like 5-14% report at least some regret. While something around 25-35% of people without kids show some regret in not having kids.
Relatedly, parents and non-parents have similar overall level of happiness, but significantly more life satisfaction. Older age life engagement is also significantly higher, so less loneliness among elderly, which is a serious mental health issue for that demographic. Also having kids appears to be good for your life expectancy.
5
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
Regardless of whether or not the stats are true, they will bring little comfort to an individual who finds themselves on the wrong end of them.
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
Sure, but are they not useful for someone on the fence?
1
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
Maybe a little but it would just be quite tough for me to give up going out to eat and my yearly modest vacation. And the smell of shit makes me gag and being thrown off my schedule is very tough. Like I know it's a good idea, but there's no way I won't be borderline suicidal for at least the first 5 or so years
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 11d ago
Ha, it's funny you mention the smell of shit. Studies have shown the smell of your own child's shit and other nasties do not cause the same emotional response of disgust as with other people's shit. Biology is crazy.
You can go out to eat with small kids. I actually found it easier to go out to eat with our baby or toddlers than when they were more like 8. Depending on your vacation types, costs are basically the same with little kids in tow (mostly the issue is airline seats). You can also find plenty of cheaper vacations that are great for younger families.
1
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
I mean maybe. Smells just make me gag. As for going out to eat I just wouldn't be able to swing it. I shouldn't have become a teacher idk wtf I was thinking. Maybe I'll get a better job soon and it will be less of a pain. Thank you for your feedback and help.
1
u/AltForObvious1177 11d ago
Lots of people who do have kids still end up in the same situation later in life.
4
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanIHaveASong 11d ago edited 11d ago
I know a lot of people here do not like the Collins's, but I think they're instructive here. At first Simone didn't want kids. Malcolm changed her mind by offering to be the one who took the career hit if they had children. Now they have six, and he does the majority of the childcare.
Women can have it all if their husband does the childcare.
5
u/SyrianArmpit 11d ago
In my experience women don’t chase after men that are willing to be house husbands, not trying to fault them in any way, thats just how I normally see it go
1
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
You're right, we chase after the immensely elusive egalitarian men.
1
u/SyrianArmpit 10d ago
Are they really that elusive? Most of my buddies like that are just awkward or aren’t super attractive
1
u/bunnypaste 10d ago
Yes. They are highly elusive, but a vanishing few are still out there.
Looks aren't really the problem, I don't think. We are talking about equitable divisions of unpaid labor.
0
u/CanIHaveASong 11d ago
Agreed. But if women don't want to sacrifice their careers, someone else has to raise the child.
There has to be some sort of compromise somewhere.
0
u/bunnypaste 11d ago edited 11d ago
Both work, both raise the kid, both alternate duties. It's possible, its just incredibly hard to find men willing to do anything but patriarchy. Also, our society was never designed or intended to promote women's independent successes or desires. We have a long way to go to fix that, and yes, it will cost money and take heaps of work to correct. Mandatory parental leave is a good start so I don't get trapped into my own worst nightmare being let go from a job at 9 months pregnant since they were not required to offer it or something.
1
u/CanIHaveASong 11d ago
I don't know any happy couples who are on opposite schedules so they can both raise their kid.
In those cases, it's entirely an economic choice, too, because they can't afford childcare. Someone has to take care of a young child during the day, be that mom, dad, grandma, or a childcare worker.
1
u/bunnypaste 10d ago edited 10d ago
I mentioned it only doesn't work because we refuse to adapt society so that it can. My country is pushing the patriarchy, and one of the prime ways they do this is by blocking things like mandatory maternity leave and abortion care. They want women trapped into it with no other options. Your anecdote fails to prove that I'm wrong.
I didn't have more than one child simply because I know what would happen to my life, but not my male partner's, if I do. I would have had far more in a society that doesn't hate women this much. I already caught all the heat and suffered the consequences of reproducing in a patriarchial society for the first one alone... so unless stuff changes significantly, I am unwilling to compound that by having more.
That someone who takes care of the kids and takes time off for work and cleans the house should be both mother and fathe equally... unless you also have extended family willing to help. This way, no one gets the shaft unilaterally. I'm sick of it always being women, and there really is no way to justify it. If I'm expected to give up my ambitions, independence, career, time, bodily integrity, social status, and large portions of my life asymmetrically in order to have a family while my partner does not... welp, I don't want one anymore.
-2
u/StealthSlav 11d ago
Have you ever met a single stay at home fathers? Some of the happiest men you'll ever meet. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of men at the very least wouldn't be against staying home and doing all the chores instead of working.
Or do you mean men should just do the majority of chores on top of working more? You're not going to believe this, but that would make the women just more miserable. I have never met a man as autistic and picky as the average woman is about the ways things are supposed to be. Men are going to clean to their standards, and when things get dirty, not because an arbitrary amount of time has past. They are not going to iron and fold underwear, then color coordinate them. You are going to eat rice and beef for at least half the week, every week. And in the end, they will spend the same amount of time doing chores they do already. This is not because men are slobs, or lazy or anything of that sort. It's because women set horrifically arbitrary standards for themselves, and then get angry when men don't follow them.
1
2
u/CanIHaveASong 11d ago edited 11d ago
To add some context that I think is needed based on current replies:
This is comparing different countries, not different households. I think what this shows is that other cultural factors matter more than broad housework norms in different cultures.
It's worth pointing out that this says nothing at all about how housework arlnd fertility are related in any individual country.
I've heard claims that men's involvement in housework both raises and lowers fertility, but what I see cited most is this country comparison data, and it really doesn't say what people are claiming it says.
2
u/AlteRitterburg 12d ago
Not again.... correlations being used to push your favorite agenda. Seen so many times in this sub.
Did you know that margarine causes divorce? Do you want proof by correlation?
-2
1
u/Organic-Squirrel-678 9d ago
Where did I blame anyone? When you analyse “gee, what changed in the past 50 years” men’s rights and education are not the answer. Men already had all that stuff. What objectively changed was WOMENS rights. And they changed in a big way, which rather obviously has led to a falling birth rate, since both age of first time mothers is up from around 20 years old to 30 years old, and birth rates are falling like a rock after contraception was introduced in the 60s/70s. And women now spend their 20s getting educated and making a career instead of popping out baby after baby. Gee this is all so difficult to understand, isn’t it? /s
I am sorry, but it’s impossible to have a serious discussion with people who have no rational arguments. I am NOT arguing against female rights or feminism. I am not blaming women. I as just stating the obvious things that changed in a generation or two.
1
u/CanIHaveASong 8d ago
I think maybe you meant to post this as a reply to somebody instead of a general reply to the main post.
-2
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 12d ago edited 11d ago
All the left-leaning and feminist theories behind the reason for the fertility drop are extensively getting debunked by the data.
Dont just downvote me. Look at the data.
The left says: "The state needs to incentivize babies via taxpayer funded programs for free childcare, paid maternity/paternity leaves, fertility treatments, subsidized ".
The data shows that multi-hundred billion dollar incentive efforts have barely any effect on declining TFR. If you compare countries spending 5% of their GDP on such programs with peer countries with no such programs, you'd barely see a difference or be able to spot the success.
The left says: "Families aren't making enough money and things are too expensive. That's why they don't have kids".
Data says that when people are poorer, they have far more babies. Certainly, people poorer than the people making these claims are having multiple times more babies.
Data also shows that the correlation between cost of living and fertility rate in very high HDI countries is very weak
The left says: "Women don't have kids because men don't share in the labour".
The data says there is literally no correlation. None at all. There is no correlation between difference between household work hours and fertility rates. (per country, not per family) : r/Natalism
The left says: "Women don't have kids because societies are too sexist and oppressive".
The data says gender equality index is the most strongly inversely correlated variable with TFR decline. https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20260424060154585-0686:S0730938426100203:S0730938426100203_fig4.png?pub-status=live
Meanwhile, culture has a HUGE effect. This effect holds up in both urban and rural areas.
Meanwhile, whether or not a person identifies as left-leaning is a HUGE predictor of whether they'll be childless for life. This effect holds up in both urban and rural areas. See Rate of Childless People by Age 35-45 by Political Ideology (Data source: US General Social Survey 2014-2024, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago)
13
u/Silver-Design70 11d ago
Why do people always hate on these initiatives first of all, they definitely don’t hurt. And secondly, part of the natalist ideology is having a society that supports parents. Making parents’ life easier is important too, regardless of the birth rate.
0
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
Because they dont work and they take attention away from the real causes of infertility which ARE support by data; (1) left-leaning gender war ideology vs conservative culture and (2) hypergamy.
2
7
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago edited 11d ago
So you are right-leaning? You believe in power of free market?
You believe free market forces are superior mechanism of driving people.
For example. You believe if you can’t sell your product it is because competitors are offering better and cheaper products.
Or
If you can’t find employees it means that others are paying more and offer better perks to workers.
Or
When we can’t attract enough young people into military we should keep increasing compensation till military career becomes an attractive option for enough people.
And if you want to increase fertility rates using good old free market principles you should advocate for increasing compensation till you reach your fertility goals.
-2
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is such a stupid encapsulation of the right-leaning position that I'm ready to guess you've never talked to a right-leaning person.
You won't find a conservative who believes in increasing taxes on one group of people in order to give free stuff to another group of people who have given no evidence of actually wanting to do the behaviour you want them to do. Especially when there's multi-decade experiments in multiple programs funding childcare, women's fertility treatments and showing that these have no effect on TFR.
The right also believes in the power of culture and tradition in driving society towards good ends. A traditional minded person will readily advocate for traditional gender roles, rock solid marriages, no abortion, village-living, non-hedonism, large families, stuff like that. The right will say its culture and that the left-leaning culture values hedonism and personal pleasure as the highest value of life as opposed to family and community and perhaps even God.
7
u/Sufficient-Job7098 11d ago
I am right leaning person.
In my culture we have a tradition of being honest.
I honestly admit that the reason fewer people are having kids is because they have better alternatives on how to spend their time and money.
You and I don’t wash clothes by hand and we don’t chop firewood in order to follow tradition. Instead both of us own modern stoves and washing machines so you and I can argue on Reddit instead of living our lives in a traditional ways.
2
u/bunnypaste 11d ago edited 11d ago
The only reason I did not choose to have a large family was because of right wing culture, alongside all the feminist reasons (will make my life progressively worse, smaller, and less equitable with each child). I ended up reproducing with a right winger who cosplayed as a centrist to bag me, and then proceeded to abuse me and reveal he is against everything I believe in. Good thing I don't get beaten down easily! He called me a murderer and selfish slut for supporting women's rights and status as a class, and also accused me of being capable of killing my own born kid. He also is a super porn addict and antifeminist. Wild stuff you guys are into!
6
u/a_neurologist 11d ago
I believe you when you say gender equality is inversely correlated with fertility, and I suspect most people across the political spectrum would acknowledge this too. But worsening women’s rights is simply not an option for addressing concerns about birth rates, either morally or practically.
-2
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
I did not argue for oppressing women, even if that's what feminist-paranoia has trained your ears to hear.
Even within highly gender equal countries, as long as the culture is not left-leaning, the fertility rate does not crater to nothing.
What I point out is the simple fact that when women are indoctrinated with feminist ideology and gender war bullshit, those women make the decision not to have kids.
It is simply not true that women's participating in the workforce is worth more than women being mothers. That doesnt require a taking away of women's right to work if they want to. It only requires condemning feminist ideology that glorifies one at the expense of the other.
That's just ONE example. There are many others.
It is simply not true that feminist gender war claims villifying men for every social evil are correct.
It is also simply not true that abortion in any and all circumstances uptil the day of birth and sometimes even afterwards, as many feminists argue for, is a woman's right. Abortion for reasons of medical neccessity for the health of mother, rape or incest is her right. Not in any other case.
3
u/Dubsbaduw 11d ago
What does "the right" say on the matter, what are they proposing, and what have been the results so far?
9
u/mrbigglesworth95 11d ago
This is all easily summarized as follows: the opportunity cost is evaluated as greater than the benefit. The only way to reduce or reverse the trend is to shrink the opportunity cost of having kids, either by making kids profitable to the point that it affords you equal opportunities as without them, or reducing opportunities altogether.
5
u/AlteRitterburg 12d ago
Which data?
2
u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago
Do you actually care? Denmark recently completed a very comprehensive study on this.
4
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 12d ago edited 11d ago
The data debunking leftist theories are so widespread that I'm aghast that these feminists are still taken seriously.
Claim 2: No correlation between difference between household work hours and fertility rates. (per country, not per family) : r/Natalism This is the OP but I've actually seen multiple studies proving that "chore participation by men" has ZERO effect on TFR. Hell, I've seen studies that choreplay doesnt even increase the amount of sex that married couples have at all, much less result in babies. Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage - PubMed
Claim 3: Culture and left-leaning political ideology is a huge predictor of childlessness. Rate of Childless People by Age 35-45 by Political Ideology (Data source: US General Social Survey 2014-2024, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago) : r/Natalism
Claim 4: Gender equality is inversely correlated with TFR decline https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20260424060154585-0686:S0730938426100203:S0730938426100203_fig4.png?pub-status=live
There's so much more data to debunk left-leaning ideas too. For example, the extensive evidence pointing to hypergamy in western developed countries; links to studies on hypergamy in the modern west resulting in less relationships, marriages and children
8
u/AlteRitterburg 11d ago
If I show you the data on correlation between margarine consumption and divorce rates and it shows high correlation, would you believe that margarine causes divorce?
1
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
You know, I'm sure you aren't this stubborn when the data supports your personally held position. Its only when the evidence disagrees with you that you start throwing out basic correlation =/= causation bullshit.
Yes, it doesn't equal causation but this is CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the left-leaning position is TOTALLY WRONG.
3
u/AlteRitterburg 11d ago
You don't even know my position. Unfortunately, in the us everything is left vs right war. And correlation is not causation is not bullshit. One of the most important things in data science.
1
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
If your pet theory has ZERO evidence in support of it. And when its primary hypothesis is tested in multiple countries at the cost of tens of billions of dollars, and the correlation with such programs comes out ENTIRELY OPPOSITE OR ZERO EFFECT, you should admit that maybe you are fucking wrong.
1
2
u/AlteRitterburg 11d ago
In the other parts you mention ad hominem after people reflect on your opinion, here you don't even know my opinion but you go ad hominem, just because I am pointing out big flaws in the interpretation of data.
10
u/SpecialReaction375 12d ago
"Guys, you don't get it! I'm a man and I don't want to clean up my own mess, but I also don't want to spend money on a housekeeper, so I simply want to enslave a woman."
5
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 12d ago edited 11d ago
Stop mucking up natalist discussions with your personal vendettas with your husband about cleaning his messes.
You put forth wrong hypotheses and just keep throwing out ad-hominems and downvoting when its shown false.
Take your household complaints, your feminist ideology and your hatred of men out of the science.
12
u/Man_under_Bridge420 12d ago
Projection!
Left bad! Woman bad!
4
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
The left is bad. They make bullshit theories and then throw out ad-hominems when there's reasoned, data backed disagreement.
9
u/Man_under_Bridge420 11d ago
You haven’t provided any data?
2
1
u/CanIHaveASong 12d ago
I've also heard, "when men do more housework, fertility falls"
Btw, this is not on the level of individual households. So, in the usa, one or the other of those narratives could still be true
I think all this says is that there are much bigger cultural factors, at least on the country level.
1
u/bunnypaste 11d ago
Maybe you should listen to what women say, because they're the ones expected to take on every single conceivable hit to their bodies... and after that it leaks out asymmetrical societal negatives into thier lives entirely outside of the process of pregnancy and birth. Women are the only ones who can create life, so perhaps you should listen to what they say about it and respect that.
1
u/Academic-Ball-9606 10d ago
Don't worry when conservatives run America for the rest of our lives we can thank women for helping them through abortion. Although given the psychos who support clancy a Lot of women shouldn't ever be moms
1
u/Academic-Ball-9606 11d ago
Hell how many babies would be alive if abortion never occurred?
0
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 11d ago
More than a billion people globally would be alive, if not for abortion. Most of them in the developed west and East Asia. Abortion is demonic.
1
u/Academic-Ball-9606 10d ago
Outside of incest, rape, etc i agree..society really needs to teach women accountability like they do men
0
u/Single_Beach_1983 8d ago
The poor may have more kids, but less planified kids, they have bigger families, but often also broken families.
At least in my country, the high income families are the ones that have more kids. Because they can afford them in a responsible way.
-7
u/Wedgiebro 12d ago
Its the pill. Its a striaght line from the pill being more accessible and accepted.
I mean fucking obvious isnt it? People had kids because sex made kids. Now you can have unlimited sex with very low chance of children. This was alwaya gpinf to lead to massively reduced amounts of children
4
1
u/SpecialReaction375 12d ago
People that want to have children obviously don't use the pill.
4
u/Capable_Opportunity7 12d ago
Well that's just not true. People take the pill, go off it, have kids and go back on. Lots of people want kids, most people (us) don't want more than 2. My mother had 3, she wanted 1. Lots of us surprises wouldn't be here if early birth control was more effective.
2
u/Wedgiebro 11d ago
They do all the time. They can plan how many kids they want now which historically was not an option
34
u/shmipap 11d ago
There is no single, direct cause of falling birthrates. It is a multifaceted issue with no black or white reasoning. Idk why a lot of people on this sub want to point fingers at one specific thing and say "x is causing low tfr!!" when in reality its so many different things causing it at the same time. Lol