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.

I agree

The point is that some women don't assess the long term consequences but follow what seems like the path of least resistance in the short term.

men who have difficulties in making themselves attractive to women may often also have similar difficulties in making themselves attractive to employers

This was a really great comment @Whothefuckdoesthat

The point is that some women don't assess the long term consequences but follow what seems like the path of least resistance in the short term.

Most people learn the consequences of behaving like that in childhood. How sad for the unwanted children that anybody could take such an irresponsible and selfish approach to bringing a human being into the world that they are responsible for raising. It's certainly not something we should be attempting to excuse.

I thought the MN mantra was not to have children you can't afford ? Surely this is just that in action ? Just for men (hence it being "news") ?

Also agree with others that the ‘rich man marries poor woman’ model is usually based on a ‘deal’ that the man will bring the money and the woman will bring the domestic labour and most of the parenting responsibility. You may or may not agree with that deal but I can see how it might work. Unless poor men are offering the same deal why would rich women (the group mentioned most likely to be childless in Finland, together with poor men) be interested in literally doing it all.

That isn't what the article says at all. It says wealthy women are the LEAST likely to be involuntarily childless.

In Finland, the wealthiest women are the least likely to end up childless involuntarily, whereas low-income men are the most likely

I agree!

It's a positive thing for women that we can choose who to have children with much more so than in the past. And I don't think it's unreasonable to want a partner who can contribute to the household at an equal level

But some people do take that approach, seeing pregnancy as something that "just happens". For women who have chosen men that they actually want to settle down with and actively TTC it's not an easy mindset to get your head around. I don't think it necessarily means that they will go on to be bad mothers though.

My point is that there are likely to be some dysfunctional men who can only realistically have babies with women in similarly dysfunctional situations. Maybe these women are getting less likely to go along with these pregnancies now it's easier to get an abortion. Maybe the use of longer term contraception is preventing more of these unplanned pregnancies.

😂😂😂

@WhatNoRaisins you mean that contraception and abortion are robbing those poor men from having children.
Even though the situations isn’t ideal (they struggle to just live on their own)
Even though the woman might not want a child herself anyway (hence contraception etc…)

And that’s supposed to be … something bad?

A friend sent me a broadsheet article the other day about “young women leaving men behind”. The article included a litany of ways men are being trodden underfoot by ambitious women who outperform them at school and university and go on to earn more than them. It mentioned that this means women no longer need men for financial security and often choose to delay or not have children which is causing a crisis for men.

I’m really sick of the message that women’s progression has caused men’s regression. I mean how dare we actually make a success of our lives when men are suffering?

As for low income men without children..I’ve yet to meet a man of any income level who was particularly bothered about having kids. I think most would be perfectly happy without them.

More like empowering the women not to have to do something that will make their lives a hell of a lot more difficult.

That isn't what the article says at all. It says wealthy women are the LEAST likely to be involuntarily childless.
In Finland, the wealthiest women are the least likely to end up childless involuntarily, whereas low-income men are the most likely

But the situations aren't equal - men can't make their own baby and women can. It's apples and oranges.

No woman needs to be involuntarily childless (assuming they are fertile).

This has the potential to become simply another version of "incel" in men who think that the world - and more importantly, women - owe them everything they could wish for.

If a man wants to be a father, he needs to be a decent man and a good partner. Many men just couldn't be arsed.

I’m really sick of the message that women’s progression has caused men’s regression. I mean how dare we actually make a success of our lives when men are suffering?

This - brava @Eastie77Returns

It just shows how much men assume that the world will revolve around them.

What do you notice about the kids? Are the problems to do with poor finances or poor parenting? Can good parenting do a lot to combat a bad start? Just very curious.

Women have come on in leaps n bounds with education, financial independence & travel in the last 50 years and so we don't need to marry the first man who comes along, that's why a lot of men are single and childless against their will in my opinion. They didn't have to try so hard years ago to make something of themselves or bring anything to the table. Now that they do the poor achievers and the lazy remain single.

Oh dear.

So, what? We should all just lend deadbeat men our wombs to cheer them up and bring children into the world who then have as a father a man who is incapable of sustaining an adult relationship sufficiently for any woman to have considered procreating with them to be viable option, and is incapable of planning and executing a successful plan for his own life, let alone having shown himself to be capable of providing for and raising to adulthood another human being?

No thanks.

Maybe they should stop the "woe is me" and raise their standards so women don't universally reject them.

@Eastie77Returns What it really means is that men have to keep up if they want to attract a woman who doesn't actually "need" them, which is perfectly fine, IMHO!

I disagree that most men who choose to become fathers nowadays aren't bothered about having children, though, especially now that it's increasingly acceptable to be childfree. I'm 50 so most of my male friends who are fathers made the decision in the last two decades. Those who did are involved fathers (except for one crap one); those who remained childfree have also made the right decision.

It's so much better that the old social pressures to reproduce have disappeared. DH and I are the only ones in our families to choose to have children, our siblings are childfree.

It’s socially acceptable for women to be on their own, to not have children now as well.

I know at least four men maybe more who have not had children and then in their forties upwards have decided they want a divorce and given their wife a big payout and then gone on to marry a younger woman and have at least three children with her.

The original wife is then in the difficult position if she wants children is near the end or already at the end of her child bearing years.

To be fair, the original wife may not have wanted kids.

Apparently statistically, women are now more likely than men to not want children.

You are just assuming the man has the means to attract a 30 year old when he is 50 etc - what about poor/ low income men - or men with disabilities

To be fair, the original wife may not have wanted kids.

In that case a man who did want children shouldn't have married a woman who did not. Using someone as a stopgap, preventing them having a lifelong relationship with someone else, then ditching them in midlife is obviously dreadful behaviour.

Maybe they should stop the "woe is me" and raise their standards so women don't universally reject them.

Oh - I totally agree - I was saying that there's really nothing to be drawn from comparison.

Of course wealthy women aren't being involuntarily childless - they can make their own children, and they have the money to do so without relying on the good will of a man

Poor men don't - they can't grow their own baby, and they can't afford to do anything about that (not that they should - buying babies is flat wrong) - they entirely rely on the good will of women.

And since plenty of poor men do have children, it's just that more poor men apparently can't or won't make the effort to get that good will.