Half of British women reach age 30 without having a child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

A lab scientist working on Covid or any number of diseases. Also climate change. Glad you think women are just walking incubators and child care workers.

If that’s what you got out of that post, I feel absolute pity for you.

Being a mother is not the most important job any woman can do. It is NOT a woman's job alone. There are fathers, aunts, uncles, neighbors, grandparents, church members, teachers, and community members who also act as "mothers." You don't get that child rearing is a community based activity, not some mantle a woman has because of her uterus. Birthing a child does not make a woman a mother and there are more ways women can contribute to society. In fact, wasn't the person behind the covid vaccine a woman? I am sure she will tell her kids about her achievements one day. Because women are NOT one thing. And if you don't get that, you can crawl into your hole.

For most women, motherhood is easily the most important accomplishment of their lives. It's hard to deny that women seem to have a biological hardwiring that predisposes them to be the primary childcarer. It does not mean having children should be the only focus of a woman's life, and fathers should be heavily involved too. But, frankly, the whole idea a woman can give birth and then expect a whole "village" to jump in to help raise the children is both clueless and impractical. Most people have very limited interest in other people's children. A teacher or neighbor can never replace a mother. Even aunts and uncles are not the same as your own parents. The nuclear family model is one that provides the most support, and going from all sociological studies in modern nations, nothing can ever come close to replacing the strong support of a nuclear family arrangement - assuming, of course, it is a good one, and that is not always the case.

The delayed births in Western nations seems to be correlated with rising cost of living more than anything else.

You just described social changes resulting from the industrial revolution, which began in 1750. Humans have been around much longer than that. Communal arrangements were the norm for millennia.

Nuclear families have been around for millennia too. I would refute your assertion communal arrangements were the "norm" outside hunter gatherer societies that functioned as a single clan unit. There has always been a distinct difference - in all civilized societies - between the nuclear household and the surrounding community and context. The concept of a nuclear family with a mom and dad and their children is ancient and as far back as ancient Greece Aristotle talked about how the family unit was the core base unit of society, the "atom" of society.

Frankly, for all your idealizations of some hypothetical village raising your kids, I'm not sure if you really want that. Because do you know who has the closest communities of network support via family and churches and neighbors? Conservative people... somehow I suspect you don't want conservative Republican voting people having a say in how your kids are raised....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

Thank god for COVID. Few more years of variants circulating and we won’t have to worry about too many elderly anymore.

I hope nobody’s around to take care of you when you’re elderly. Horrible attitude.

[Anonymous]

Pretty much all the parents I know, mothers and fathers, consider their kids and their role as parents to be much more important than their jobs.

DH and I are both attorneys, both work full time, and both find our practice areas reasonably interesting and rewarding. But at the end of the day, we work to live, not live to work. Our kids are a million times more important to both of us. This is normal, as far as I can see in my circles, and not at all exceptional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much all the parents I know, mothers and fathers, consider their kids and their role as parents to be much more important than their jobs.

DH and I are both attorneys, both work full time, and both find our practice areas reasonably interesting and rewarding. But at the end of the day, we work to live, not live to work. Our kids are a million times more important to both of us. This is normal, as far as I can see in my circles, and not at all exceptional.

Um. Okay. Did you have your kids before you turned 30? Because that's the only part of your story that's relevant. Nobody said anything about not loving your children.

(People were objecting to some stupid person who said a woman's highest calling is to be a mother, because barf.)

[Anonymous]

Londoner here, and when I had my first at 30, I was the youngest mum in my mum's group by about 8 years. 7 others in the group, and central London so that probably skews things quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Londoner here, and when I had my first at 30, I was the youngest mum in my mum's group by about 8 years. 7 others in the group, and central London so that probably skews things quite a bit.

You aren’t an eastender tho.

[Anonymous]

Don’t you agree we must work to disrupt the nuclear family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you agree we must work to disrupt the nuclear family?

Nice strawman. No, we don't need to disrupt the nuclear family, but it's stupid to rage about people not having enough children and also deny that different family structures deserve support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you agree we must work to disrupt the nuclear family?

Failed Troll has failed again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

As problematic as this post is, I agree somewhat. Not only because of weight - but also because of fakeness. Way too many Kardashian-type fake body parts and overly made up Instagram wannabe looks. People in the past were more naturally beautiful.

Speaking for myself, I’m conventionally attractive, but I think more by a modern standard than traditional beauty. I’m big into fitness and weightlifting. Not as traditionally feminine as women 60 years ago.

I’m sure you look great and amazonian but if you are under 5’7, the whole anglo/American gym weightlifting women trend just makes you look like a cartoon character.

Mainland euro women are always roasting how American women are “sporty”…and it’s not in a good way.

LOL. My wife is Spanish and her sisters and neices are all thin because they still smoke like chimneys and drink the equivalent of slim-fast instead of eating.

To each their own, but I find that kind of lifestyle to be insufferably dull. I love working out. Gym, fitness, and resistance training is fun and fulfilling, and I enjoy protein-rich, savory foods. The idea of never exercising and never eating just sounds boring. I'll take my more masculine-ish buff body and accept not being traditionally feminine and dainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judging based on my family, friends and acquaintances, I feel it's the case for every developed country.

This is a key sign of a failing country. You cannot keep your population numbers as sustaining with this. You are on your way to being Japan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging based on my family, friends and acquaintances, I feel it's the case for every developed country.

This is a key sign of a failing country. You cannot keep your population numbers as sustaining with this. You are on your way to being Japan.

Well, then you should lobby your representatives for more immigration or more family friendly policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging based on my family, friends and acquaintances, I feel it's the case for every developed country.

This is a key sign of a failing country. You cannot keep your population numbers as sustaining with this. You are on your way to being Japan.

I would say the average age of my friends having their first kid was between 31 and 37. It's not the end of the world to have that happen. We all have between two and three kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much all the parents I know, mothers and fathers, consider their kids and their role as parents to be much more important than their jobs.

DH and I are both attorneys, both work full time, and both find our practice areas reasonably interesting and rewarding. But at the end of the day, we work to live, not live to work. Our kids are a million times more important to both of us. This is normal, as far as I can see in my circles, and not at all exceptional.

Um. Okay. Did you have your kids before you turned 30? Because that's the only part of your story that's relevant. Nobody said anything about not loving your children.

(People were objecting to some stupid person who said a woman's highest calling is to be a mother, because barf.)

I was responding to that person also, to say that her point is not unique to women. In my experience, fathers also see fatherhood as their most important role. So yeah, I disagree with her too.

[Anonymous]

Good job GB! Malthus would be delighted!

Next: Africa and Latin America !