The poorest men are most likely to be childless against their will

[Socktopusses]

Really interesting article on BBC News today - especially interesting points around wealth and demographics - the poorest men are most likely to be involuntarily childless

link: BBC article

I'm child-free by choice - but being female, I've always had the comfort of knowing that if I changed my mind, I could have a child by sperm donor, on my own and I'd solve my own problem. (Fertility dependent of course, but in theory). It's up to me, basically.

I've had plenty of discussions with my female friends who want children but are struggling to have them, both those struggling with physical fertility - and single female friends who haven't met the right person at the right time and don't want to do it by themselves.

But I'm ashamed to say that outside of the couples I know undergoing IVF, I've never really thought about childfree-not-by-choice men and what it must be like for them. Particularly single men - who in theory could become fathers but don't have the circumstances. They can't just 'do it by themselves', and they're also not even acknowledged in the statistics.

Do you know any single men who long to be fathers but aren't? Just thought it was interesting.

Interesting.
I guess it does boil down to men typically being the providers. This is nature and it can't be changed.
That said, most women I know look past income as long as they are a kind, decent person who would be a good father.

@FruitFlyPie

absolutely not true. I know of couples and it definitely the man who wants or wanted kids more than the woman. After all when they don’t have to be pregnant and give birth etc it’s pretty easy to want it isn’t it?!

I know several men who are childless due to various circumstances but not choice. Probably more than women.

A guy whose marriage broke down without children (They had tried for kids). As a result of the divorce he had a breakdown and moved in with his parents as his home was sold during the divorce. Once his mental health recovered enough to think of a relationship he was getting too old to be of interest to someone keen to have children, and living with elderly parents doesn't make someone an attractive prospect, and he could never have afforded to get a place alone. He's been on the council house list for decades. Then his parents became infirm and he became a carer.

Another friend just never met someone suitable. Again worsened by financial and domestic circumstances. Job loss and unemployment forcing him to move back with family and unable to afford to move out until he was mid-forties, now fifties and unlikely to meet someone who wants kids. A bit shy and awkward but a lovely guy who would be a loyal and reliable husband/father.

One who met the right person but they already had one child and didn't want more due to having had s traumatic birth and due to having reached the stage where their child was becoming more independent and didn't want to go back to babies/toddlers. He is a great step-dad but would very much have liked his own.

I can think of other examples too but their circumstances largely overlap with the above.

I do worry that this narrative is very much feeding into the ‘incel’ mentality which is really very damaging, and pretty frightening.

Biologically, we are filtered to choose the best mate possible. Be that finding appealing physical features, or a provider, bright thinking etc.

I know men who want kids too, but if they didn't have them, they'd be fine with it.

This - I thought the article was interesting in that it was one of few to actually try to unpick it from the male perspective as so much of the narrative is around female fertility as that is all that is measured. It would actually be v interesting to see the male stats as I imagine there will be a far greater spread - more men with 5+ kids and more with none.

Broadly, I think it's good that they're looking at men as part of the overall discussion of fertility and birth rates.

This article slightly annoyed me in that it was very sympathetic to these poor men who have no moeny and can't have a baby whereas last week there was a distinct tone of "those selfish women who are choosing not to have babies for financial reasons". I appreciate that it's different biologically but it is a bit annoying. We all KNOW that finances are a huge reason for people (men and women) not to have children. When it's men who can't have them we're all boo hoo but when it's women, it's a CHOICE they make.

It was an interesting read, but cobbled together.

The evidence base is one study in Norway, that it doesn't link to, saying men on the very lowest incomes are more likely to be childless. Doesn't say whether they're comparing like with like. It was 'highest earners' and 'lowest 5% of earners' so we don't know if the highest earners are 5% or not. We also don't know whether those lower earners were happy about it or not.

Then they interview one British man, who's very unlikely to fall into the lowest 5% of earners.

Agree! It also reeks of entitlement. Yes I’m ugly and poor and horrible but a woman should bear me a child because I’m a man and I want one.

Hmm, I know lots of men in their 20s on benefits (patients of mine, so chronic health conditions as well as low income) who seem to have had no issues getting multiple women pregnant. They are conventionally attractive, pleasant people, which obviously helps.

Yes if you are 50 and have no job you are probably not going to be that appealing to a 25-30 year old woman, but being 50 is a large part of this - you just don’t have a massive income to offset that.

In my family and friendship groups, the number of men who were poor/ unemployed and the partner wealthy and successful when they met far outweigh the traditional couple where the male is the higher earner. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of one, for the rest the woman is the higher earner/ home owner

I am married to a man with a much lower income. Here is the really really important point..... from the moment we met, it was obvious that while his earnings were low, he was still ambitious, hard working, interesting and more than willing to be in an actual partnership with me. But this makes him unusual.

We all know that too often, men are STILL doing much much less at home/with children. At least with men who earn a decent living, that uselessness at home is often mitigated. But women are, understandably, a bit unhappy about having to be the bread winner AND the person who does everything else.

Also I don't think men want children the same all encompassing way many women do. So a childless man wouldn't be that bothered by it.

These two statements don't correlate. Even if it is true that men don't want children in the same encompassing way as women (I don't know if that is true to be honest, but even if it were), that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not bothered, surely? There's a gulf between those two options and I assume lots of men reside in it.

My local playgroup is full of first time Dads in their 50's.

Yes, a 50 year old man is likely to have to bring more to the table than average to attract a woman of reproductive age, occasional outliers notwithstanding. A man with no job and money could potentially still fall into that category, if for example he were very attractive.

Yep, this just the natural extension of “why won’t supermodels have sex with me? I don’t want a fat or ugly girlfriend, despite being fat, ugly and also rather unpleasant myself”.

Now supermodels are not only expect to fuck these men, but also bear their children?

Should beautiful billionaires be the only ones having kids?

If so I have a feeling that you aren’t either

I'm actually starting to feel a bit irritated about this as well. All these 'poor men, no one wants to have a baby with them" based on what is, as has been pointed out, pretty thin evidence.

Statistically, women KNOW that if things don't go well, they are more likely to be left literally holding the baby - practically, emotionally, financially. Single parent families are overwhelmingly women. How often on here, when a woman is having a baby with a man but isn't married and it's his house, his income etc, do we all shout at her to get married so she has at least SOME protection should things go pear shaped.... because we all know there's a good chance it will.

So actually, if a low income man can't find a woman to have a baby with. Or a man with other challenges, I'm sympathetic to him, but it's not women's problem. We have the right to assess the risks and beneifts of any relationship and if we think the risks outweigh the benefits, to decide to walk away.

SIL's ex also earnt less than her. And he used to point to my DH (her brother) and say she was a hypocrite because she was giving him a hard time while thinking it was okay for her brother to earn very little. But he's a wanker so he never understood the difference, outside of earnings, between him and DH. In our house, DH does much of the childcare heavy lifting while I'm working. I didn't potty train our children. I didn't do all nights when they were babies. I don't take complete ownership of washing and other household tasks. I don't drive the children around all over town for their activities. For our halloween party yesterday I didn't do the decorations or the outfits or cook them party food, nor did I tidy up after. The list is ENDLESS....

@FruitFlyPie

and I know women who are the same - if they had a child, great but they’re really not that bothered if it doesn’t happen.

Also @OnlyTheBravest - it's not about income, kindness or anything like that IMO. It's the entire value proposition. Lower earning men don't step up domestically and/or sacrifice their careers the way their female counterparts do.

The lower income men I dated had very basic cooking and cleaning skills. I'd rather be single than bear the children, make the money AND do the lion's share of the domestic work (even though the man tries to be 'equitable' on the surface).

At least a high earner can afford to outsource the drudgery even if he doesn't do it.

@Puppalicious "
I seriously doubt many poor 50 year old men could pull a 30 something to have kids with. They wouldn’t be seen as an attractive partner at all"

I'd like to think this was true. Unfortunately, life and Mumsnet tell me differently.

Ah very good - congratulations on the internalised misogyny.

How dare a woman want to choose a partner they would like to have kids with and not settle for any man they find unattractive just because said man wants kids? Of course I must be ugly! What a terrible outspoken woman I am 😂

Yes, I know one man, now in his 50s who wanted a family. Earned mid-20s. Nice chap.

We had a shared hobby and I know he wanted a closer relationship but he was just so 'ineffective' which was probably why he was a low earner. I didn't avoid dating him because of money, but couldn't imagine having a child with someone so lacking in initiative. So hopeless at taking decisions.

Failure to find someone to have a family with, is not just down to money.

The children will ultimately pay the price for growing up poor, especially since social safety nets have been steadily erroded since the 70s. Who want so raise children who have to miss out on a lot of childhood experiences and will have significantly fewer opportunities to make something of their lives.

Heck, there are plenty of young people who can't even afford to move out of their parents' house and start their own lives. These parents had every reason to believe their, now young adult, children would end up doing better than themselves , but the opposite is true.

I think that's maybe it. Pregnancy and breastfeeding aside there is no reason why a woman can't be a breadwinner and a man the primary caregiver.

I think maybe it's that a lot of women don't have enough faith in a man actually stepping up to this. Honestly despite all this equality men are still a minority on school runs or toddler groups in my experience.

Like people say it's not unreasonable to do a risk assessment and decide it's not worth the risk of ending up having to do everything yourself and not even having the income to make up for it. Or it might be a practical thing like if home ownership is important to you but you need two incomes over a certain amount.