Something I've noticed that's bothering me regarding the talk around birthrates

submitted by andrewjackson from self.GenderCritical

Birthrates have been low in western countries since the 1970s, if I'm not wrong. Recently, media outlets have been reporting on the 'jaw-dropping' crash in babies being born; seemingly, it's not just a first-world problem now. This is a good thing: it means women are more likely to be able to choose when they start their families, and the size of their families. It's a consequence of greater female education and the availability of birth control.

However, the phrasing of the article, and the comments following, are have bothered me. Suggestions that women aren't starting families because they want to 'chase after a career and travel'; how selfish of them, right? As if men don't do all of these things scot-free. The insinuation that women are selfish for a) starting families later, and b) choosing to get an education and a job first is mind-boggling. Most families can't afford to not work two jobs anyway; this, again, is blamed on feminism for introducing women to the work-place.

Essentially, people are very keen to blame women for not popping out the required 2.1 babies for the state. It's an issue if women would like children but are unable to have them because of economic/health reasons; that could certainly be tackled somehow (I'm not proposing that I know how). But to suggest women need to stop fucking around and find a suitable man before they turn 28 and all of their eggs die gives me creepy handmaid's tale vibes.

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I actually think this is the driving force between abortion bans, policing of women’s words with regard to their sex and the fact that even the democrats are having weak responses to the abortion bans, tells me they are working for their capitalist overlords. There is no reason to erase females unless you want to take their right away to control their own bodies. It’s why big corporations are so quick to adopt female erasing language. It’s why states like Washington will pay for maternity care but not child care. Because they want to make you into a baby making machine again. It’s the reason why big fortune 50 companies were giving 6 months of full paid maternity leave. It’s not to “attract women talent”, it’s to make us into incubators because once those women tried to come back they were fired for performance reasons. I’ve worked at several big name companies and it’s the same playbook. Their maternity leave initiatives are not a “win for feminism”. It’s a win for patriarchy. If they really cared about feminism, they would pay for childcare and make it free and pay women their fair share in terms of wage and earnings not to mention the vast amount of unpaid work women do.

Capitalism relies on young people to work long hours and burn themselves out. Older more jaded people are less likely to be controlled and don’t produce as much. When a population ages, the money making machine doesn’t produce as much. And that’s not good for stocks. How will they be able to afford their 5th yacht if you don’t sacrifice your weekend?

[–]missdaisycan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree with everything, but the ageism...

[–]tuesday 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

where's the agism? It's actually true, young people are easier to manipulate. This is noticed about young women all the time on feminist boards, how they fall for intimidating conjoling behavior from men that as we get older, we see right through.

Please don't do the thing where reality is phobic.

[–]missdaisycan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Older ... and don’t produce as much.

As I stated, I agree with most all of your points. However, perhaps if you're so lucky, someday you too will find this blanket assumption to be - not entirely accurate. Meanwhile, I'm still glad to have this forum to read diverse opinions. :)

[–]Realwoman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think childcare can replace maternity leave at all. It's cruel to force a new mother to separate from her baby and the US needs an actual maternity leave policy.

[–]Sun_bear 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's really a crisis of capitalism as well. It's extremely difficult to afford housing in many countries, add to that potentially expensive education and medical bills... then if you had a child there would be the cost of childcare as well!? Boomers are always saying people shouldn't have children if they can't afford to and now only the very wealthy can afford children.

[–]sisterinsomnia 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is always the women's fault, by the way. If there are too many children born, it is because those lazy women don't bother to prevent births, if there are too few children born, it is because those selfish women want to enjoy themselves. It is never anything to do with society or how the female gender role is set up.

So yes, indeed, men can pursue a career and travel because their gender roles allow them to combine that with being a parent, and their choices are not viewed as selfish but as the way to support the family.

These pieces about low birth rates always try to frighten and bully women into having children. It is always the stick that is used here, never the carrot. I found this fact informative about how societies in general view women's roles and the weird idea that women might be people with all sorts of life goals.

I have never seen a single critic of the low birth rates propose that men should start doing more child care at home, for instance, or strongly supporting paid child care and so on. So this leave the problem unchanged: If a woman has several children because of all the yelling at her, then it is she who will suffer later in reduced pension benefits and lowered earnings over your lifetime. In other words, she will bear almost all the costs of reproduction.

This topic is actually one of the best ones to learn about the deep anti-woman biases in most cultures.

[–]zephyranthes 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a good thing: it means women are more likely to be able to choose when they start their families, and the size of their families.

Where I am, it means women are less likely to be able to choose either, and really I don't know any country where the above holds true. I wanted to have my first child at 22, and at least 3 children. I'm now over 30, still childless. And we know it isn't just me because there was a cautious increase in births during the brief fat years. People (men and women) want an "intellectual heir" of sorts, not to have the woman carry a baby to term and pay a stranger to neglect it while both of them work full-time.

It if of course not up to the women to correct the birth slump. But the current situation is emphatically not good. It is not good that people "choose" not to have children because they (correctly) think having children isn't rewarding, it's a civilizational crisis.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women are always always always blamed entirely for the “falling birth rates”. There’s always an implication that we should be banned from employment and/or the ability to divorce in order to increase the birth rate

[–]msteacherlady 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Produce children to become soldiers for the war machine, produce children to be hands in the labor machine, produce children to be spenders in the capitalism machine.

All I wanted was to produce a single child to be loved by my family as I was. It seems that society has other plans for him when I see the weird discontent that our modern media has sewn in the minds of young people today, such as this trans nonsense. Children are being told that a parent's resistance to their transition is abuse and grounds for leaving the family. Sounds like cultish behavior to me.

[–]tuesday 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's even more odd because of the contradiction: overpopulation. We have about 8 billion people on the planet and most "experts" predict that it will climb to 10 billion before it starts to decrease. The ecosystem really really REALLY thanks us all for lowering the human population levels.