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.

Respectfully, I’ll write what ever I like. It’s your responsibility to attempt to understand them and post accordingly. It’s not my responsibility to spoon feed you basic concepts.
While we’re offering unsolicited “advice”, you might want to refrain from the insults when you can’t understand simple points.

If you want to cosplay as a lass from Rotherham, you "might want to refrain" from sounding so very obviously southern and middle-class. But, nowt so queer as folk. You do you. Or perhaps, "you".

You think women from Rotherham don’t know the word “refrain”? Or can’t go to university and get MA?

Are you just here for a fight?

I’ve noticed that you’re not here to refute a single one of my arguments, that’s for sure. Did the 1960s benefit women, or didn’t they?

That’s because I never disagreed with them. You assumed I did, incorrectly. Then berated me for your incorrect assumption.
Then continued to insult me because of your incorrect assumption.
Then accused me of lying because of your incorrect assumption.
Then told me everyone in Rotherham is too thick to know the word “refrain“ while sneering at me for (you incorrectly assuming) I’m southern and posh.

You’re a bit of a mess.

You're still evading the question. Sexual freedom, good thing or not?

I don’t connect with the quote at all.

For me it’s about cost. If I could maintain exactly the same lifestyle I’d have one more!

It’s not “freedom”
That’s my whole point.

And what we had before was freedom? I repeat: women never had "standards" to lower. Men controlled them, then as now.

This is so true! I remember seeing a photo of a pretty young woman in a miniskirt with a caption that was something like "this is your grandmother. She wore miniskirts, partied hard, and probably smoked weed".

What we DID get, along with the choice to have sex outside marriage, was: access to the professions, birth control, and parity in education. Oh, and they shut down the asylums for unmarried mothers, too. What we didn't get was childcare. There's a reason for that: keeping mothers dependent kept men in charge.

Taking aim at sexual freedom is a low and weak shot. To become a reality, it depends on financial freedom. Who knew?

Can't blame everything on men. Women are sentient beings.

And yet, people used to blame everything on women. Husband playing away? Not cooking well enough. Had a baby outside marriage? Sl*t. Want to go to university? Dear me, what will they imagine next?

Women are, indeed, sentient beings. It's time we had the means to live like them.

And, in a puff of unreason, our friend from Rotherham disappeared. The idea that women had agency before the 1960s is indefensible. And she knows it.

You don’t need me here. You’re perfectly capable of arguing with yourself.

Well, when all the other side can do is re-badge MAGA dogma as feminism, then I agree: things do look a little unbalanced.

My chauvinist father used to tell me that a man's greatest enemies are his children. I could not understand the meaning because he was a dedicated father, however later on I understood. He grieved the money that went into our lives, education etc....

says it all

Sorry, that was the message

I am Balkna gran in the UK, two daughters married here. They grew up on a vineyard, woodland, ponies, waterfalls. Completely safe, someone touch them, their father would kill him

now, the grandkids have to be ferried everywhere to fancy soft plays, expensive playdates, the mother compete who has a bigger house, bigger car, the kids need expensive clothes, as much play dates as possible, to be popular. What a lot of shite. Open the door and send them out to play, in track suits and wellies

My daughters wanted desperately marriage, kids all that. My two nieces though did not, actively so too. We had money to be comfortable, my sister got married and left the family business and her husband never worked as hard as my husband. All their daughters remember was that never ending money talk that money is never enough. By the time they were 18, the kids were sick of hearing it and only 1 married but keeps herself child free. The other niece never bothered marrying or having a boyfriend or impregnating herself, even though both have now prestigious careers/lifestyles in Austria - the thread is real, it is not generalisation

This sentence in the OP is relevant: ‘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’. Why would anyone of either sex willingly take on a burden they don’t need to take on? I expect most people who really want children don’t consider them a burden and, IMO, those who do should reconsider having them because they are optional, not mandatory.

Don't be daft.
I'm working class Welsh, but I speak English with native level fluency and shock horror, and use words like 'refrain' or 'aforementioned', especially in writing. I've always had a wide vocabulary.

The English love to put themselves into class boxes. Break out of them!

Catherine of Aragon ?
Queen Vctoria ?
Red Joan ?

There is plenty of evidence of female autonomy prior to 1966. The middle class housewife subjugated to her husband is a post war phenomenon.

None of those women exercised the same autonomy that men possessed. The first two gained all of their power from their class, not their sex, and each had very little control over their lives. Red Joan’s cover came from her low public status as a female. This, btw, was a technique often used by the KGB. For political women, undercover work was often the only option. Had Joan been male, she would have had far more choice over how to engage in politics.

Sexual freedom and political freedom come from the same place: economic freedom.