Why women aren’t having babies

[SmudgeHughes]

I saw a young woman post this on social media recently and thought it was so well-expressed that I had to share.

‘The problem isn’t that men want more children but that too many men want them without restructuring their own lives to carry the burden of parenthood.

If men matched their desire with an equal willingness to parent like taking the night shifts, booking the appointments, shouldering the career sacrifices then women would be more open to the idea.

Until then, women are simply refusing to be the ones who pay the highest price for someone else’s dream.

That’s not selfishness but wisdom hard earned through centuries of women being told that family is everything only to find out that "everything" really meant everything is theirs to do.

Women are increasingly unwilling to subsidize men’s dreams with their own exhaustion. They are making rational decisions about their capacity and saying no not because they don’t love children but because they know love alone doesn’t neutralise burnout, stalled careers, unaffordable childcare or the silent erosion of identity that comes when one partner carries the bigger share of parenting.

So when men say they want more children women hear something different like, I want the idea of more children but I haven’t accounted for who will actually raise them.

It’s similar to someone who dreams of a puppy without calculating who will walk it or clean the accidents on the rug. Women have woken up to a truth previous generations often swallowed.’

There was more; just thought it was beautifully expressed.

The other thing that people don't want to talk about is the fact that if you truly relinquish 50% of the parenting, it means you have to relinquish 50% of the "say". It means that if dad has a different idea about how to routinely settle baby, you have to give that equal weight to your own opinions, experiences and values.

It is said that the fertility rate is heavily tied to the marriage rate, and that the number of children in a family hasn’t changed all that much, it’s that people aren’t pairing up as much as they used to

Depends on the country - marraige in Asian countires is heavily tied to kids - so yes low marraige rates are a the first barrier but much less so in fact I think we had more kids born out of marriage than in in last few years.

Cohabiattion in Europe is much more stable than in USA - so your much more likely really disadvantage in USA if you have a child out ofside of marraige.

Also if you look at UK numbers from ONS- it is family size. I've seen similar for Indian there more a one and done movement there as well.

Japan issues seem to have started in 90 when deomgraphically they should have a baby boom - just due to number of fertlie young adults - but that didn't happen - mainly econcomic reason somthing to do with US and now when the survey young adults money not the top reasons but what has crept up is fear about parental demands.

Chile the counrty with the fastes falling fertlity I think it's now the lowest - it's happen fairly fast there 42% drop in last decade.

I think for previous generations of men, marriage was a means to an end. A way to get regular sex, meals cooked for you and some social status. They don't need that now...it's far easier to get casual sex, they have a huge choice thanks to the internet . Household chores and cooking are not so labour intensive anymore... convenience food is everywhere. I know so many attractive, lovely single women who would have been snapped up decades ago and now can't even find a nice steady boyfriend.

It was a societal expectation, people were demonised the minute they got to an age that people felt they should be married with kids.

My mum and dad married when my mum was 17 & he was 21, this was very late 1960's and suspect my mum was accidentally knocked up with the eldest of us at this this point, my paternal grandmother forced the wedding I think and picked my mum's outfit which she hated and ripped all the wedding photos up. Although they stayed together until dad died 9 years ago, I think she was too much of an opposite to my dad and he had a lot of hard work being married to her, she wasn't ideally suited to motherhood but it was expected so they had two more of us before she had a hysterectomy at about 30.

Just seen another thread of women consoling each other because they've had a baby and within weeks or months or months of the baby being born, the dad has walked away from the relationship.
I think that's another good thing so many people are really soul-searching nowadays as to whether kids are for them rather than realising too late in the day. I can't imagine what it's like for these women being left in the lurch with a baby like that! Both parties need to talk about these things and what life is going to be like once a baby comes into it.
A friend of mine was in a situation where she had two kids to her partner and before the youngest was even a year old he was not really wanting to be about, he'd go to work far earlier than he needed to for his shifts, he'd talk about wanting to look for jobs for ex soldiers in Saudi. Eventually it turned out that he was having an affair with a woman at work and the break up was extremely messy, it got to the point where he couldn't have access to the kids because he'd suddenly decided to steal the kids passports and start threatening to take them - which then traumatized the kids who thought daddy was going to kidnap them in the middle of the night. He was undoubtedly full of shit because he didn't seem to want to be a dad up to that point.

Thank god - it’s time men stepped up

I think that's another good thing so many people are really soul-searching nowadays as to whether kids are for them rather than realising too late in the day.

I'm always surpsied by posters who are very late in age and length of realtionship before they raise having kids and then don't always get the answer they want.

I think it's possibly lucky position to be in when you know definite no or like me a very definite yes.

I was looking early for someone who also wanted kids on a timescale I'd be happy with and number I wanted - and I ignored conventional widom not not raising it early in relationship so we both knew what kind of relatonship we could have. Lots of things could have gone wrong but even then I'd have had pleanty of time to move on and I was also building career so worst I could late 30s early 40s have at least considered going it alone from off.

I think many more people men and women fall into yes want kids in right circumstances.

I think the brith gap guy was focused on these "involtary childless people" people who said they wanted kids but didn't end up with any.

Though a poster on another dicusion did point out if people were actually serious about kids wouldn't they have actually done more to faciliate having them rather than waiting too long for it to just happen as many claimed they did - though can image a few did have bad luck.

Carrie Bradshaw’s “If I really wanted a baby, wouldn’t I have tried to have one by now?” springs to mind.

I think for some, pretending it was all about not finding the right partner in time or not being able to afford kids is an easier narrative to tell themselves or those around them than they simply weren’t bothered about having kids and other accomplishments were more important to them.

I'm still not sure why that would explain why women aren't having children though?

If youre treating all money as joint income, obviously it makes sense that if one of the couple are going to reduce their working hours it'll be the lower earner. Which in many cases it would be the man earning more due to the gender wage gap, but I think with that closing down over the younger ages, it would be the woman earning more pre children in many cases
But obviously whoever drops their hours basically takes the career and pension hit for years.

Are you saying it's because women don't want to take the hit? Which makes sense, but the original post made it sound like women just like using the men's money and having more free time on their hands, which I think is generally untrue, but also wouldn't explain why women aren't having children?

This isn't snippy, just genuinely trying to work out what you are trying to say

Sadly true to some extent I think : more men than one likes to think seem to see women as food & sex dispensers. The phrase, 'Men give love to get sex' springs to mind.

Obvs plenty of men are not horrible like that, but too many are.

Shame that when the situation changes, many men are shown to apparently not value having a romantic companion.

I don't really get this though : how is your husband 'pulling his weight' if you do 90%? If you both work full time but you do 90% mo of the childcare/housework etc, how IS that 'pulling his weight'?

I don’t do any housework and I don’t iron that was a non negotiable pre children because we can afford the help and I work full time. He does more of that (the inbetween stuff) than me. There are a hundred other things, outside of the work that comes with children, that need doing.. and he absolutely pulls his weight there! I was referring specifically to the load/work/organising around having children.. and no he doesn’t pull his weight there but that’s ultimately my choice not to fight it.. If I turned around and said “I can’t do this anymore I need you to take x/y/z” he would.. But I am also acutely aware it’s fallen on me because of ‘gendered norms’, and my willingness to take it on and not fight it. Like I said perfection is rare! But it is a conversation that continues, and like I say he may not do it 90% of the time but if I’m away with work or with friends etc.. he just steps in and does it.. so it could be much worse!

Yeah I’m confused too. How does women’s desire to live off a man’s wages and work less / have more free time (which is utter bollocks) explain why they’re not having children? Typically the only couples where one partner works part-time or not at all are couples with children.

MN is notorious for people getting their decades mixed up though, so it’s quite possible that that poster is confusing the 2020s with the 1970s.

Also how can the household income be higher when one partner stops working? It makes no sense whatsoever. The women who are remaining child-free in greater numbers are typically educated, high earning women and often the breadwinner in the partnership. How would such a woman sacrificing her career increase household wealth? I mean you just have to look at the tax system and how much more a couple earning £75k each take home vs a single earner on £150k. There is no financial benefit either to women or a couple of one person stopping paid employment, kids or no kids.

Think people mean this sort of situation:

Mother earns £35k - take home pay £2200 after tax/pension:student loan
Father earns £60k
Nursery costs £2k per month per child

If she continues working after they have a child, the family are making a net loss once you include all the incidental expenses of working - running a second car, petrol, lunch, office-appropriate clothes.

Also how can the household income be higher when one partner stops working? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not sure if it what PP was on about but childcare costs.

Reduced payments out of household income ie childcare costs which can be that high not just in pre-school years but round school hours in primary especially if there are multiple kids.

So doesn't increase overall income just make more disposible income in short term often with long term costs to that parents via pensions and possibly career progression.

It's why some higher rate tax people in Scotland found cutting hours when higher tax band came in - ie working 4 days not 5 meant they were much better off. The avoided higher tax band, got extra day with child - which many posters in this situation liked - and saved a day of childcare costs and work costs like travel in.

In the very short term, there may be a small net loss (but not really if you consider pension and NI contributions which are valuable), but dropping out of work will damage earning potential and set someone back in their career, so it will absolutely not increase household wealth in the medium and long term. And that’s before getting into the vulnerable position it leaves the woman in when she makes herself financially dependent on a man.

It’s just a complete nonsense to suggest that women are sitting back and letting men earn because it means both more money and more free time. If you’re quitting to save on nursery costs you’re becoming a full-time parent to young children - there’s nothing relaxing about that.

I agree and as I out-earn DH by a significant amount it would never apply to me - I was just clarifying what people meant.

And for some people with multiple kids or lower earning potential (ie not in a career-job anyway so no trajectory to affect), the hit to family income can be too high in the short term to be affordable, even if it would be better in the long term to stay in work.

Something that I think is talked about a HELL of a lot more now is birth injuries / the physical impact of pregnancy as well as post-natal depression. It’s not that anyone ever thought it was a walk in the park, but the heightened awareness of tears, incontinence, piles etc. is certainly food for thought for young women who may have spent their 20s and 30s prioritising health, fitness and self-care and don’t want to throw all that down the drain, while the risk of PPD would be very offputting for those with a history of mental health problems.

Yes, esp as stuff like PND and mental health generally was more taboo before. A bit like how menopause is discussed much more now.

Also the NHS maternity care is by much research getting worse and worse.

Oh it's something that definitely needs to be acknowledged more, it's like the anti abortion mob, they see it as absolutely acceptable to force a woman to carry an unwanted child and give birth to a baby they knew they wouldn't cope with and the anti abortionists don't acknowledge the potentially horrific consequences to the mental health of the mother and maybe down the line, the child.

Friends used to tell me my partner that we should go against our instincts of not wanting a child and try it because we might feel different once it was born! What if we didn't! And if I ended up with PND! There's always a rose tintedness about the babies and assumption that they wouldn't be born with any complex needs or disabilities which would make a bad decision even worse!

Even when they do work, women with children earn £302 less every week than men with children: one-third less per week and almost 20% less per hour, according to analysis based on ONS data.

this sort of comparison kinda annoys me though because a lot of women choose to step back a bit in the workplace. Like I chose to remain on the so-called ‘mommy track’ that means no real promotional opportunities and a leave by 5 mentality and I couldn’t give a shit if other people think I’m letting down the side or whatever.

I get that but why does the mommy track have to mean the end of promotions? Sure if you work fewer hours you make less money but you're still gaining experience.
Why can't your wages/responsibilities increase with a 20, 30, 35 hour per week job the same as in a 40, 45, 50 hope per week job? I think it's just because of tradition and assumptions, which can and should change.
A normal working week used to be a lot longer - I think 6.5 X10 hour days was fairly typical until the late 19th/early 20th century. If that can change, why can't part-time senior/management track roles become an option?

If I am already cutting back on work obligations, why would they give me more work obligations or increased responsibilities?

Doesn’t make sense.