Social infertility: why birth rates hit an all-time low and the real reason for the rise in male childlessness

[WanOvaryKenobi]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp81ynn7r4mo

Interesting article in the BBC.

Very interesting, thank you. I think young people are also reluctant to bring children into a world which may be suffering catastrophic climate change by the time those children grow up (or earlier). My sons have certainly expressed this as a major concern.

Ironic given how much better the world is today than it was even fifty years ago, 150 years back and it's night and day.

I think this is part of the problem. Often the people who have the resources emotionally and financially to have children decide not to have them.

150 years back people believed in progress and improvement. 50 years back there was concern about possible nuclear war but still a belief that we might avoid mutual assured destruction. But if the world does not change very rapidly indeed climate change will destroy us and young people can see the political will to make the necessary changes is not there.

Children now expect parents to sacrifice their lives for their children and there is no expectation of any gratitude from the children. Why does anyone choose that?

it's not even slightly true. The prevailing feeling, that everything is getting worse, that children do not respect their elders, and it's all a bit shit dates back to the very earliest records we have, so no doubt actually goes back to the first camp fire.

I think we've made parenting hard for ourselves. The expectations on mother's in particular are so intense. Attachment parenting for 6 months+. Gentle parenting requiring the patience of a saint
Pressure to nurture and make all activities child-focused. Crippling guilt on returning to work. It's no wonder if women who are on the fence decide it's not for them.

I've found it much harder than my own mum did because for her it was perfectly normal to leave us to our own devices all day or, at most, take us to see grandparents or round the shops as she was already planning to do. Soft play, doing something like a craft with us, or even playing with us was a rarity.

Convenient claim but rubbish. 150 years ago many elderly people lived with their children, 50 years ago there was still an expectation that this would happen - now that rarely happens unless a child wants to inherit the house. Children live with their middle aged parents with no expectation that they will contribute, 50 years ago you'd have been ashamed not to contribute, 150 years ago you probably handed over your entire paypacket.

I think an awful lot of this is to do with housing. Young people simply can't afford to buy a house and settle down. Between about 1950 and 1990 it was normal for people to marry in their 20s and either buy a house or find somewhere decent (eg a council house) to rent. That just isn't happening now.

Another factor is women going out to work, pursuing a career and enjoying a social life in their 20s, and, quite reasonably in my view, not wanting children until their 30s. But that increases the likelihood that relationship breakup means they hit their 30s without a partner, and then at some point fertility starts to decline - and the rest is inevitable.

Another thread in Chat on this albeit with a different slant
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5200053-the-poorest-men-are-most-likely-to-be-childless-against-their-will?page=6&reply=139474826

I think it’s really interesting and I think you see a lot of the things mentioned in that article evidenced on posts here on MN.

There is always the posts and comments about not having children with a man who isn’t financially stable, there’s a pressure and emphasis on a man needing to be able to provide to be “worthy” of being the person to have kids with.

To an extent I can see the reasoning though, as a mum you have maternity leave, SMP is pitiful so the only way it is affordable is if your partner can afford to keep the bills paid while on maternity leave, and then even after that with the cost of childcare many mum’s end up going part time at work & reducing their hours so again there is a pressure on their partner to be able to pick up the slack.

"he had been hit by “all the things that affect fertility outcomes – economics, biology, timing of events, relationship choice”"

"Hadley has interviewed other men in Britain who are childless, not by choice".

Imo not an appropriate framing. If you don't have kids because they seem too expensive, it's still a choice. Plenty of people who are poor have kids (and too many kids at that, as harsh as that may sound). Same if you think the environment is going down the drain, still a choice.

Whereas if you cannot find a partner to have a child with, that is something that quite clearly fits the "not by choice" descriptor a lot better.

See I disagree with this- “If you don't have kids because they seem too expensive, it's still a choice”.

There are absolutely people who don’t have kids because they can’t afford to. Couples who both work average jobs and need both salaries to keep the bills paid can’t afford to lose 1 salary for months while mum has a maternity leave. Couples who need both jobs to keep the bills paid can’t afford to spend £1200+ on nursery fees because they don’t have that spare after paying the bills, but they also can’t afford for one parent to reduce hours or stop working so that those nursery fees aren’t needed because as previously stated, they need both incomes to keep the bills paid. How is that a choice, really? Can’t afford childcare, can’t afford to reduce hours to avoid paying for childcare because both wages are needed to keep the bills paid, so… what do they do? Where is the choice there? You can’t choose not to pay your bills?

I thought the article very muddled, skipping from men on low incomes, to couples who had money but wanted to make more and then found it too late to have children, and then differing statistics from different countries.

Impossible to take any conclusion from that.

But I can see that in the west, it isn't just the actual cost, but now the competitve nature of consumerism which has impacted what children are then conditioned to expect.

No longer (probably a myth) the happily large family where children accepted handme downs.

But in relation to men in the west, in previous generations most men wouldn't think about the consequences of having children as by and large the rearing of children would be done by women.

So can see that for some men (many of whom have not "modernised") they are trying to understand what their role should be.

I was just going to say the same thing, IwantToRetire, I agree that the article jumps between 'infertility' meaning physical infertility, and a variety of reasons why men don't have children, which are not physical. So no clear definition of 'childlessness'.

I thought there was an elephant in the room which wasn't being mentioned, i.e. men who have no problem 'having' children, so they are not infertile, but decline to stick around to parent them, allowing them to live a life of effective childlessness.

There are many different strands to the concept 'male childlessness', this article doesn't do them justice.

... so they are not infertile, but decline to stick around to parent them, allowing them to live a life of effective childlessness

Yes, I was going to post something about feckless fathers, but interesting perspective for them to see themselves as "childless".

Can I add, as a society what do we know consider to be 'grown up'

I few generations ago getting married and having children in your early twenties would be the norm and in line with your peers (perhaps mimicking the group around you) my husbands parents were married at 20 and 18 in the late 70's

I was married at 20 in 2006 (very unusual for an agnostic couple at the time) husband also 20
His older siblings were married fairly young I think he was keen to emulate

I could not imagine my DD married at 20!

Having babies is not directly related to marriage but their is little social pressure to 'settle down' there is also IMO an assumption that over 25 is grown but still young and figuring it out.

I think A LOT of previous generations were immature and still 'figuring it out' in their 20's but the norm was to do it anyway (possibly with help from older generations) but also watching their peers do it and (possibly) pretending to have it all together.

We are going through a cultural phase (on tv etc) of speaking our truth. Be it 'why mummy drinks' or 'motherhood' or even a lot of 20 somethings saying out loud 'I'm too young to have kids, I don't have my shit together'

How many average 20 somethings do have their shit together, housing is a nightmare, job security is low and they don't feel like adults yet and we don't treat the twenty somethings as adults do we??

Christian societies usually have more children but we are no longer Christian. Part of being Christian is about having hope and faith in the future which we also have given up on as I see in some other comments. I am 56 and my four children have given me alot of joy but was lucky to buy a house when they were affordable and my career has been put on the back burner which I could afford to do.

I think there is a fairly serious problem in society around the idea that young people need to be mature before they do things like get a job, contribute to the household in a serious way, settle down, have kids.

It starts in childhood but really comes to fruition in young teens where parents don't think they have the maturity to go out alone, be out of contact without a phone, or have a job.

The problem is this - responsibility drives maturity. If you don't give kids serious responsibilities they do not mature.

Part of what made people into responsible adults with a stake in society, capable of raising kids, was becoming parents in their early to mid 20s. Being out of school and supporting themselves and others. Having more responsibilities than fun dating and going on trips with friends.

The problem with this argument is that there are absolutely people who have kids that they can't afford.

Re poor men most likely to be childless. I guess that could be because many women prefer to marry men with lots of money so they can have kids and give up work?

Maybe the dearth of decent men has got something to do with it? Women no longer have to get married, either to be “respectable” away from the family home, to have any form of independence (however ersatz) or to have a child. Decades ago, I should imagine that most men could get married if they wanted to, there would be a woman somewhere who was desperate enough (or trapped, if she became pregnant out of wedlock) to think he was the best worst option.

Nowadays women have a choice and why would you put up with someone who isn’t on a similar level intellectually, or who has the same cultural values as you in terms of equality? I’m not saying that those in the article fall into this category, but you’ve only got to look at incel culture or indeed some of the posts on MN to see a significant group of men who still don’t respect women and want a 1950s set up. Fuck that shit.

Women have a choice and they choose not to settle for a crap relationship. The men in question have only got themselves to blame for that.

100 percent agree with this. I tell dh if I lived in the days where kids were kicked out to play all day and come back for tea id have had 6. I have 1 and I never did co sleeping and breastfeeding. No guilt about working etc. I still find it so intense. I'm knackered.