To ask why dropping fertility rates are always blamed/measured on women?!

I’m so sorry that happened to you - it sounds horrible. I hope your obvious strength of character has allowed you to build the fulfilling and joyful life you deserve despite those experiences.

The party weren't targeting men with their benefits manipulations and limits though, were they? On a very generalised level, as the CSA/CMS had been consistently an utter failure, there was nothing really affecting the men 50% responsible for children - but making the women and their existing children suffer seems to have been extremely successful, particularly when you consider the rate of terminations also rose steeply as soon as the full extent of financial penalties directed specifically at women started to hit.

No they don’t - my kids don’t have a father, they have a provider of donor sperm but that provider has zero parental rights or obligations legally. Others may not have a father on the birth certificate for other reasons. But I can’t think of a way for a way for a child to have a valid birth certificate with no mother on it.

Saying all that - I think this is stuff is just technicalities. I agree with the overarching point I think you are making which is that whilst men’s lack of contribution to the process of having kids at every level probably is a huge part of the reason women don’t want kids in the same way as they used to, it’s always phrased in the context on women making the choice (even if that’s only technically/directly true). I’d like to think that as we start to face a world where even the global population starts to fall that the response will be to improve things for women who have children - but there is a tiny part of me that worries governments go a bit more “handmaid’s tale” about it all as they search for “easier” solutions than improving the lives of women who do have kids.

I have no issue with the data being based on number of children per woman, because as lots of others have pointed out, that’s a more sensible and measurable statistic.

but I completely agree that it’s very frustrating that these stats and research etc, always seem to make it sound like, “oh, these silly little ambitious women, not taking responsibility for maintaining the population…”. The glib, ‘financial reasons” as an answer and not actually looking at the underlying issues that women are fully aware that they ar4 financially disadvantaged, made worse by children, with a society that doesn’t support the. Never mind the complete lack of resources they have if their partner turns into a deadbeat etc.

or the bigger issue that women are making decisions that benefit the, - their health, their finance, their lifestyle - but without actually examining why they feel the need to do that.

I can't see the issue except we may not need all these extra homes we are building??

Surley less of us mean more to go around?
How did people in the past cope with far smaller populations? Countries now who are empty compared to us

I waited until my career was in order, then left my husband and now won’t be having any with my new partner. I’m double/triple at “fault”!

*MillyMollyMandHey
I guess it feeds into my rage at "Career women are having children later" type nonsense.

They do, on the whole though? Why does this give you rage?

Are men begging them to have children earlier?*

Why are you getting angry at a fact? Do you think career women aren't really putting babies off until they are sorted, it's just that they can't find a man to agree to have one? As that's not the case.

Seems like something you are taking very personally. It's literally a statistic.

I read the article differently. It uses the statistics involving women then discusses the reasons why without reference to the men or the women - eg “millennials” so it is considering why for both parties. It uses some quotes from women I guess but as a whole I think it is looking at the reasons why from both perspectives. Also it didn’t seem particularly judgemental to me

Birth rate : women give birth

not sure what is difficult to understand.

You're absolutely right, it is really annoying. Fact is I think some women are choosing not to as it's becoming obvious too many men just leave mothers of their kids to do every sodding thing while carrying on their lives as normal and funnily enough, women don't like that.

You are surely being deliberately obtuse?

It’s inevitably the thin end of a wedge that ends with the phrases “career women” and “delaying having a family”. As if all the conditions for child rearing were perfect.

And yes it’s our fault for daring to want to be in control of our own financial destiny and not wanting to spend 60 years wiping people’s arses.

Shame on us.

Because it doesn't matter what men do. If every man puts of kids until they're 50, we'll be fine. If all women do, there would be a population crash. If 95% of men went infertile, there would be ways of harvesting what's available to keep the population going. If 95% of women went infertile, we'd have a population crash.
You're looking for "blame" when it's about importance. Women are more important factors in this conversation

The fall in average male fertility rates has been widely reported.

A midwife?

What's your point?
You ignore every sensible post alerting you of how research data is collected. Nobody is stopping you from setting up a study to calculate birth rates among men. Do tell us how you propose to collect the data.

There are very simple solutions to the falling birth rate:

1. every man who has a child is made by that state to pay a proper fair share;
2. every child should allow parents to have tax deductions of 10k per child minimum;
3. childcare should be almost free universally or at least fully tax deductible up until secondary school age.

People with several kids could also pay less council tax.

There are so many ways they could incentivise people to have more children again.

Instead they have penalised successful women and people between 100-120k in earnings pay punitive taxes. That is exactly the kind of income you need to have 3 kids.

Those in charge seem unable to think
long term or have a plan to deal with the demographic crisis.

Is it not kind of a good thing? Our population is still rising because of immigration and a decent percentage of that will be immigration where it’s working age people with desirable skills (so good for economy and tax now) rather than rolling the dice on babies and their future potential and tax income in future - plus not as many children to spend money on educating / child benefit etc?

Your anger is misguided.

Birth rates are falling, men cannot be central to the study in demographic changes because they do not give birth. Only women can.

You have to measure fertility rate by how many children women have because of maternity certainty I. E. You definitely know how many children a woman has had, there is no way of knowing for definite how many children men have (unless you were to DNA test the entire population, and that would be really expensive)

It's as though the deliberate decisions of the conservative government to ensure that women did not have more than two children if they were in need of benefits was meant to ensure that women did not have further children.

Strange, that.

I guess it feeds into my rage at "Career women are having children later" type nonsense.

They do, on the whole though? Why does this give you rage?