A longer and wandering post about the "involuntarily childless", social policy, and men

All the British papers this weekend were focused on the "fertility crisis."  The Observer warns:

Britain is suffering a baby 'shortage' with potentially disastrous consequences as work pressures force young women to shelve plans for a family, according to dramatic new research urging an £11bn campaign to boost parenthood.

Women have not turned against becoming mothers and, if they could have the number of children they actually wanted, more than 90,000 extra babies a year would be born, according to calculations by the respected think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research.

But the report says the professional and financial penalties of childbearing - a mid-skilled 24-year-old who gives birth will earn £564,000 less over her lifetime than a childless counterpart, as motherhood narrows her career options - mean many are delaying pregnancy until it may be too late to conceive.

The 'baby gap' emerging between maternal desire and reality now threatens a demographic crisis as too few children are born to support future elderly dependants, the study warns.

On the one hand, we've been hearing this sort of thing in the USA for a while now, though our demographics are certainly different from those in the UK and in continental Europe.  On the other hand, let me make it clear that I liked the tone of the report in the (gently leftish) Observer.   So much of the debate about marriage and motherhood in this country seems to involve social conservatives bemoaning what they see as the "selfishness" of younger women today.  In the American argument, feminism is often blamed as a chief culprit for declining birth rates; women seduced by false notions of independence and autonomy peddled by those of us in the feminist establishment are robbing themselves and all of society of the product of their wombs.

But the argument in Britain, at least in the responsible press, is couched in different terms.  The opening line of the article quoted above blames not feminism or individual women, but "work pressures" and the "professional and financial penalties of childbearing" as the source of the problem of declining fertility.  Even more importantly, the study that the Observer and other British papers relied on bases its claim on the desires of real women.  According to this British study, women would want to have more children -- and perhaps have them earlier -- if the financial and professional costs to childbearing weren't so high and so disproportionately born by women.

One of the goals of feminism, of course, is to make motherhood a choice.  Freud -- and many social conservatives in the culture wars -- claim that biology is destiny; to these folks,  it is only through motherhood that a woman realizes her fullest potential as a human being.  According to this perspective, an unused uterus is a tragic missed opportunity that a childless woman will invariably deeply regret as she moves past her reproductive years.  Feminism rejects that claim, even as it honors those women who do choose to be mothers.  Yes, I'm well aware that from time to time, some isolated voices in the feminist community have expressed hostility towards all reproductive behavior, but they are in the minority.  Feminism objects to legal, cultural, or social compulsion towards motherhood, not towards motherhood that is freely and eagerly chosen.

So on the one hand, part of vital feminist work has to be ensuring that women understand that they do have choices.  It is important to make clear that happiness is possible outside of a relationship with a man, or outside of bearing children.  Heck, this is even a biblical position!  Paul encouraged young women not to marry or have children, recognizing that what matters above all else is a relationship with Christ, not with spouse or children.

At the same time, we've got to be equally concerned with making motherhood a more viable option for those women who would like to have children while also having professional lives outside the home.  While some women who express a longing for children may be doing so to comply with family or social expectations, others are no doubt expressing a powerful internal desire.  It's a desire we've got to listen to, and as the British report suggests, a desire we need to respond to in concrete ways.  From the Observer article:

Jenny Watson, head of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said the 'baby gap' partly reflected women changing their minds or not meeting the right man. But she added: 'It should tell us that we don't have a very family-friendly culture, and it should concern us.'

Britain has 'too many women remaining involuntarily childless', the report concludes, while high fertility and early childbirth is 'systematically associated with severely reduced prospects'.

So encouraging early marriage and large families (the conservative suggestion) isn't, in and of itself, an adequate response.  The conservative argument is that what the report calls "reduced prospects" are really just the trappings of success in a materialistic society.  Women should come to terms early with the notion that they will have to make hard choices, and "reduced prospects" are the inevitable price that must be paid for the far more sublime and enduring delights of bearing and raising children.  Feminists respond by rejecting what they see as a false dichotomy; only in a society where there are no communal and governmental responsibilities for helping families raise children will women be forced to choose between motherhood and independence.

I'm haunted by the phrase "involuntarily childless."  I think of my own students, to whom I often pose the question: "when is the right age to have children, and how will that fit into your future career plans?"  Many of them don't take the risk of infertility seriously (it's amazing that many do assume that getting pregnant at 38 is going to be every bit as easy as getting pregnant at 18); others don't yet grasp how brutal the demands of simultaneously pursuing motherhood and career can be. Of course, we who teach have an obligation to be honest with our young women about biological realities.  But we also have an obligation to get them to question a system that forces the sort of unhappy choices that so many women seem to be making according to this British study.

The study suggests a variety of responses:

The Institutes for Public Policy Research urges government intervention to raise the birth rate by making working parenthood more appealing to both mothers and fathers.

It advocates free nursery places for two-year-olds, paternity leave paid at 90 per cent of a man's salary, and three months of paid parental leave to be taken at any point before the child is five, with one month reserved for fathers. That would cost up to £11bn a year by 2020 - about £183 for every British man, woman and child.

As a pro-feminist man, I'm especially heartened by the call for greater paternity leave.  If government policy is to be effective in creating a culture in which women can "have it all", it's clear that fathers will have to be a critical part of the solution.  The rewards for men -- particularly in terms of a closer and more intimate relationship with their very young children -- are obvious, and, to my mind, exciting.  I'd love the idea of taking a semester off -- at 90% pay -- to stay at home with a future child while my wife worked full-time.  I haven't had children of my own, but I know how I feel about the little ones who belong to my family and friends. I've never accepted -- not for a damned second -- that my biology makes me less inclined to nurture and love, and I'd love to see more policy that honors that potential within me and within other fathers.  With greater commitment from the state and from fathers, we can help to move past the dilemma so evocatively described in the IPPR study.

Comments

[djw]

Mr. Bad, Coontz is one of the most respected social historians of American family life we've got. I've only just begun to read her most recent book, but from what I've seen it provides extensive documentation for most, if not all, of the specific empirical claims/factoids from the article.

the 'marriage strike' is a euphamism that we men call our increasing hesitancy and refusal re. fatherhood and marriage.

I've asked you this before, so I don't expect it'll do any good to ask again, but I'm sure I'm not the only man out there who'd be just thrilled if you'd refrain from using the word "men" when you really mean "men's right's activist" or "anti-feminists" or "men who view the world the way I do." Also, does referring to a trend as a 'euphamism' (sic) somehow mean you get to assert it's an actual phenomenon without providing non-anecdotal evidence? As you correctly asserted, trends can have any number of causes...

[Mr. Bad]

ricia said: "The justice system has been and is in fact responsible for that, that is what they do and get paid to do - make laws and legal policies. much moreso than the various politico's elected to sit in office. BOTH of which are primarily and overwhelmingly composed of men ages 45 to 104."

ricia, you obviously don't understand how the U.S. government works. Please research it and learn about it before you make any more uninformed statements.

In fact, it is not the judicial branch that makes law (i.e., legislation), it is the legislative branch, i.e., Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate. The judicial branch interprets the law; it does not (or at least should not) make the laws. As for the Executive branch, it is my understanding that they are charged with executing the law.

Now, as for the fact that most legislators are men does not in any way mean that they are not feminists nor do men's bidding instead of women's; all it means is that the majority of the voters believe that those men are the most qualified and capable for the job, despite the pressures of political correctness. And in fact, those men are quite deferential to women and feminists, so your argument does not withstand close scrutiny. It's like saying that Ann Coulter promotes feminism simply because she's a woman.

[Mr. Bad]

djw said: "I've asked you this before, so I don't expect it'll do any good to ask again, but I'm sure I'm not the only man out there who'd be just thrilled if you'd refrain from using the word "men" when you really mean "men's right's activist" or "anti-feminists" or "men who view the world the way I do.""

djw, if you want to ask a question then please do so. However, for the life of me I can't find an interrogative anywhere in the above sentence. That said, I must acknowledge your obvious superior writing talents because you haven't misspelled any words in that impressive single-sentence run-on missive.

[Mr. Bad]

djw said: "Mr. Bad, Coontz is one of the most respected social historians of American family life we've got."

Ah, respected by you maybe, but "we?"

Now, what were you saying about presuming to speak for others?

[ricia_pd]

hhmmmm. so firstly you've stated it's because of feminists that the law is interpreted and executed as it is, after arguing that the laws upheld are unfair, and now you're argueing that those who instate and execute laws are indifferent to feminists.

in the end, if i've got this right. it looks to me that we are actually in some kind of agreement here... at least in so far as who to blame for family law injustices. despite your first statement and despite my ignorance surrounding the US legal system.

; )

[djw]

The question/request is obvious from the admittedly inelegant context.

Second point: Fair cop. I'll rephrase: "She's widely regarded (correctly, in my view) as one of the leading social historians of the American family today."

[Rainbow]

Of course, woman would be encouraged to have more children if having a child did not mean that the father could control your life, ruin your career and ultimately snatch the child when he decides to dump his wife/mother of the child. Thank you no fault/no alimony divorce. Women might have two or more if Daddy was a cheating, lying, boozing scum.

[Rainbow]

Sorry, if Daddy was NOT a philandering, lying, drug taking, dead beat, thieving scum than maybe a mother might be interested in having more than one child. For many women, one child is a one-way ticket to lifetime poverty. and of course, most men would not be interested in marrying a poor, single mom so that is another reason to keep to one child.

[The Gonzman]

Of course, woman would be encouraged to have more children if having a child did not mean that the father could control your life, ruin your career and ultimately snatch the child when he decides to dump his wife/mother of the child. Thank you no fault/no alimony divorce. If Daddy was not a cheating, lying, boozing drug taking, dead beat, thieving,scum than maybe a mother might be interested in having more than one child. For many women, one child is a one-way ticket to lifetime poverty. and of course, most men would not be interested in marrying a poor, single mom so that is another reason to keep to one child.

Of course, men would be encouraged to have more commitment to marriage and family if having a child did not mean that the mother could control your life, ruin your career and ultimately snatch the child when she decides to dump her husband/father of the child. Thank you no fault/no alimony divorce. If Mommy was not a cheating, lying, boozing, drug taking, dead beat, thieving, slut than maybe a man might be interested in having more to do with her. For many men, a child is a one-way ticket to lifetime of heartbreak and poverty. and of course, most women aren't be interested in marrying a poor, single father so that is another reason to keep away from marriage.

Hmmm.

Allrighty, ye believers in equality, who would be just as quick to condemn a woman for rubricizing "men" as a group - and who were real quick to object earlier - I'm waiting. Have been for a while.

Or is it a "Free Pass" to a sister in ideology?

Or do you really believe both statements to be inoffensive?

I also didn't miss the "patriarchy" reference earlier, even though it's been a scant few months since someone claimed "*Oh, I don't know ANYONE who still uses terms like that anymore!*"

[evil_fizz]

Allrighty, ye believers in equality, who would be just as quick to condemn a woman for rubricizing "men" as a group - and who were real quick to object earlier - I'm waiting. Have been for a while.

What are you waiting for? Someone to tell you both to knock it the hell off? This "No, it sucks more for me!" is doing no favors to anyone's argument. It's just making it harder to have a discussion in which we acknowledge that life can suck for everyone and it can be bad in particular ways based on gender.

The real problem with the "ex-wife as manipulative, theiving slut" and "ex-husband as dishonest, philadering abandoner" back and forth is that it detroys the discussion. No one's getting a free pass. It's just too exhausting criticizing everyone constantly for making the same inane points.

[The Gonzman]

Also, does referring to a trend as a 'euphamism' (sic) somehow mean you get to assert it's an actual phenomenon without providing non-anecdotal evidence?

According to "Why Men Won't Commit: Exploring Young Men's Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage," a study released by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University:

Top 10 reasons not to marry

1. Men can get sex without marriage.
2. They can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying.
3. They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.
4. They want to wait until they are older to have children.
5. They fear that marriage will require too many changes and compromises.
6. They are still waiting for the perfect soul mate, and she hasn't appeared yet.
7. They face few social pressures today to marry.
8. They are reluctant to marry a woman who already has children.
9. They want to own a house before they get a wife.
10. They want to enjoy single life for as long as they possibly can.

Awful lot of print and other media wasted on the whole idea of "The Marriage Strike," djw, for it to be dismissed as "merely ancedotal."

Here's my take, djw: I point blank refuse to engage in any romantic relationship which obliges me legally in any way." This includes co-habitation, marriage, joint accounts, parenthood, adoption - you name it. The way things stand now, the only really equal relatonship in which the participants have the same rights and protections is just such a relationship.

Right now, as it stands, in any of the relationships I am in, the only thing a party has to do to end it is to stop calling or stop answering; since I don't so much as leave, or allow to be left, a toothbrush there's not any real necessity for even a "Sorry, buh-bye" email if one doesn't want.

[rainbow]

Your right, marriage and parenthood is not a safe for either decent men or women. Society will have to rethink rewards and punishments for the faithful, selfless and nurturing as opposed to the sleazy, selfish and thieving in order to see the smiling faces of happy, fed and secure children in its society. It has nothing to do with "choice" and everything to do with "fear."

[Mr. Bad]

evil fizz said: "The real problem with the "ex-wife as manipulative, theiving slut" and "ex-husband as dishonest, philadering abandoner" back and forth is that it detroys the discussion. No one's getting a free pass. It's just too exhausting criticizing everyone constantly for making the same inane points."

If it wasn't the case that it's only when men says such things that people like you protest I might be convinced that your pleas for civility are sincere. However, since you-all let women say these things without objection, and only when the likes of Gonz or I turn the tables do you find the energy to object, I'd say that you are indeed giving women a "free pass" on these sorts of comments.

rainbow said: "Your right, marriage and parenthood is not a safe for either decent men or women. Society will have to rethink rewards and punishments for the faithful, selfless and nurturing as opposed to the sleazy, selfish and thieving in order to see the smiling faces of happy, fed and secure children in its society."

You're correct as far as it goes, however, you're failing to recognize that given the bais of the so-called "family" court in favor of women and against men, in general marriage and parenthood is a lot safer for women than it is for men. And yes, as always, YMMV (i.e., your mileage may vary).

[Vacula]

Mr. Bad, evil fizz said that after a mirror argument between a man and a woman. Usually people don't pounce on the first few comments and Gonz had brought up his experiences before. You're seeing what you expect.

[alexander]

So you do benefit, regardless of your status as a breeder or an abstainer. Further, kids ARE members of society all on their own; their parents choices are irrelevant to the fact that they exist here and now. Careful expenditures for children in the here and now (vaccinations, education, poverty initiatives) prevent future societal problems.

If you feel this way then there is nothing to stop you from voluntarily contributing your own money to whatever programs you would think support children.

But you have no right to use the power of the state to force people who do not believe this to contribute. As usual, feminists do not allow for dissent.

And as usual, feminists are not happy unless they have the government come in and use force to make people do things. How does this square with feminist claims to be against violence?

Do you feel it is justifiable for the state to jail tax protestors?

Similarly, if you believe in family leave, then there is nothing to stop you from starting your own business and giving people as much time off as you think is just. Or paying them $100/hour.

I would like feminists to tell me why they believe the primary solution to every social problem is to give all power to the state.

The interesting thing is that for all the talk about liberation, feminists are little more than shills for total state power.

[alexander]

So you do benefit, regardless of your status as a breeder or an abstainer. Further, kids ARE members of society all on their own; their parents choices are irrelevant to the fact that they exist here and now. Careful expenditures for children in the here and now (vaccinations, education, poverty initiatives) prevent future societal problems.

If you feel this way then there is nothing to stop you from voluntarily contributing your own money to whatever programs you would think support children.

But you have no right to use the power of the state to force people who do not believe this to contribute. As usual, feminists do not allow for dissent.

And as usual, feminists are not happy unless they have the government come in and use force to make people do things. How does this square with feminist claims to be against violence?

Do you feel it is justifiable for the state to jail tax protestors?

Similarly, if you believe in family leave, then there is nothing to stop you from starting your own business and giving people as much time off as you think is just. Or paying them $100/hour.

I would like feminists to tell me why they believe the primary solution to every social problem is to give all power to the state.

The interesting thing is that for all the talk about liberation, feminists are little more than shills for total state power.

[alexander]

Top 10 reasons not to marry

I know a lot of single people. The number one reason they do not get married is that they have tried and gotten rejected.

[Arwen]

Alexander, that's silly. Feminism is not the opposite of libertarianism. It's not feminism that motivates the above suggestions. It's governance in the long term. People evolved societies for a reason: much like the ants and the bees, there's a method to our societal madness. One of the things societies do for the long term is attempt to mitigate their own land use and support their specializations - Easter Island is an example of this not done well, and the Greenland Innu is an example of this being successful. (Diamond's Collapse is a great primer of historical societal comparisons with interesting theses.)

That has less than nothing to do with feminism.

[Arwen]

If you'd like a free market feminist, Linda Hirshman writes somewhat from that perspective. Not all feminists believe in government solutions; not all good-governance advocates are feminists. The left wing doesn't speak for all feminist women. Interesting conflation, though. It hadn't even occurred to me.
I know of at least one libertarian feminist who wants access to guns and abortion to be worldwide, and then she'll do the rest, thank'ee.

[Arwen]

Just for alexander, I went and found ALF.org - the association for Libertarian Feminists. I'm no libertarian, but there you go.
There are a lot of feminists who are also socialist/social liberals and we'll talk about government social programs - but feminism is not predicated on that exclusively. I'm not going to do a whole long history of movements of the financially disempowered and why social liberalism ends up addressing "minority" needs, but there are a bunch of different stripes of feminism. So what you dislike so strongly regarding governance is social liberalism, or secular humanism, perhaps: there are many non-feminists who are liberals, and some feminists who are non-liberal.

[Moncler Pas Cher]

La doudoune Moncler sont gilets coupe-vent et résistant à l'eau consomment que l'essentiel n'ont pas l'intérieur de l'isolation

[Coggoolaament]

Visit us contemporary to grasp more facts and facts regarding Visit us now to buy more facts and facts regarding Kalendarze książkowe