Millennial women are saying no thanks to parenthood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+2

This is spot on

Not for educated women. Sure the poor slob SAHM who lost her looks but never had brains… then yea spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

I know so many really solid, great marriages (involving great men) between people who met in their 30s. Including plenty where the woman has been able to SAHM or go PT (including me -- I SAHMed for 2 years and have been PT since).

All of the divorced I know involve people who married in their 20s. Granted, I'm sure that will change with time and more of the people who got married later will divorce. But I know a lot of divorce between people who married in their 20s. Especially early 20s. And the stats bear this out -- divorce rates are lowest for people who marry between 25 and 32. And the rate of divorce for people who marry after 25 is 50% lower than people who marry before.

Early marriage is actually quite risky.

The people I know who were married between 25 and 32 met when they were in college, grad school or at their first jobs. They found their spouse early but did not necessarily marry them until later, choosing to live together for a few years before getting married.

Same. The dating market favors women from teenage years through late 20s; after that, men have the upper hand. So best to get while the getting is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

I know so many really solid, great marriages (involving great men) between people who met in their 30s. Including plenty where the woman has been able to SAHM or go PT (including me -- I SAHMed for 2 years and have been PT since).

All of the divorced I know involve people who married in their 20s. Granted, I'm sure that will change with time and more of the people who got married later will divorce. But I know a lot of divorce between people who married in their 20s. Especially early 20s. And the stats bear this out -- divorce rates are lowest for people who marry between 25 and 32. And the rate of divorce for people who marry after 25 is 50% lower than people who marry before.

Early marriage is actually quite risky.

The people I know who were married between 25 and 32 met when they were in college, grad school or at their first jobs. They found their spouse early but did not necessarily marry them until later, choosing to live together for a few years before getting married.

Same. The dating market favors women from teenage years through late 20s; after that, men have the upper hand. So best to get while the getting is good.

You’re blind to reality if you don’t think the men in those relationships that started in the 20s doesn’t have an upper hand inside the marriage is making a woman miserable.

[Anonymous]

Probably a lot of reasons, including costs. However, I think there some less flattering reasons as well. First, I think millenials and younger cohorts have bought into a “forever young” mentality where they don’t fully appreciate that some doors close permanently. The same mentality causes them to over prioritize going to the latest restaurants or bars well past the age where they should be. Finally, I think a lot of them have bought into the idea that career success is the primary thing to achieve. I am sure that is rewarding, but on the other hand, who is there with you when you are old and retired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+2

This is spot on

Not for educated women. Sure the poor slob SAHM who lost her looks but never had brains… then yea spot on.

I'm sorry for breaking your ignorant stereotypes by being a SAHM with an IQ of 140, a National Merit Scholarship and a MD degree. I certainly have lost my young looks but still not bad for someone going through menopausal transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+2

This is spot on

Not for educated women. Sure the poor slob SAHM who lost her looks but never had brains… then yea spot on.

Nope. Educated, family-minded men are marrying educated women who are their peers in college and grad school. Some of these women will SAH after kids and some of them won’t.

[Anonymous]

Kids costs a lot (not just money wise) and having them isn't mandatory so if a couple doesn't want any, it's absolutely fine and they don't have to have an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

I think it depends on what you are looking for at this stage of life from kids. I agree that if you expect your children to provide you with companionships and daily friendship in your 60s when they are working full time and raising their own kids, you probably will be disappointed. All the women I know who are in their 60s rely on either their spouse or friends for companionship. Sometimes siblings. But not kids, other than the normal family gatherings (which depending on the person could be just holidays or dinner together twice a week, it varies so much). But people aren't leaning on their kids for companionships and that probably right. Their kids truly don't have the time, and need to be working on they own marriages and relationships with their kids.

But I do think the women I know in their 60s who have kids are, on average, more personally fulfilled than those I know without. Even if they don't have the best relationship with their kids. Because they still had the experience of motherhood, and experienced the shift in outlook it gives you. It's like going to college or living abroad -- it is a rich experience. I think we forget this because it's an experience that lasts a long time and that most people partake in, so we kind of take it for granted. But parenthood makes you feel things and understand things and see things that you wouldn't if you never became a parent. And that is why it is worthwhile. It just makes for a richer, fuller life experience.

Now, there are other, less common life experiences that you could have that could also make your life fuller and richer. As I said, you could live abroad. You could pursue the kind of challenging career that kids makes hard, or you could have multiple meaningful careers without the constraints kids put on you. You could devote yourself to a cause. You can have pets. You can renovate your own home. You could climb mountains. There are lots of ways to get a shift in perspective and deepen your understanding of yourself and the world around you. I definitely don't think having kids is required or the only way to live a full life.

But IME it's one of the most accessible, and one of the few that really packs the punch you're craving. I have had the experience of looking at my career from midlife and thinking "is that all there is?" I've never felt that way about parenting. It's just such a full experience. Lots of highs, lots of lows, lots of surprises and challenges to overcome. It's been a pretty good shortcut to meaning and fulfillment, at least for me and a lot of other women I know.*

*I think men don't always get this because they don't always invest in parenting as much even when they have kids, and they aren't always as good at understanding how the small moments that make up parenting add up to something profound. But the men who DO get this largely seem as changed by the experience as women.

I love this way of looking at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably a lot of reasons, including costs. However, I think there some less flattering reasons as well. First, I think millenials and younger cohorts have bought into a “forever young” mentality where they don’t fully appreciate that some doors close permanently. The same mentality causes them to over prioritize going to the latest restaurants or bars well past the age where they should be. Finally, I think a lot of them have bought into the idea that career success is the primary thing to achieve. I am sure that is rewarding, but on the other hand, who is there with you when you are old and retired?

When you spend the first 18 years of your life being hammered by your parents to study study study then yes you internalize the message that career/work is everything. And so you kind of need the free time outside of work to de stress from all the intensity of growing up. And you’re left with little interest of bringing a child into the world to put through that level of burnout. Life is short, we shouldn’t judge those who don’t want children. Just focus on raising yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably a lot of reasons, including costs. However, I think there some less flattering reasons as well. First, I think millenials and younger cohorts have bought into a “forever young” mentality where they don’t fully appreciate that some doors close permanently. The same mentality causes them to over prioritize going to the latest restaurants or bars well past the age where they should be. Finally, I think a lot of them have bought into the idea that career success is the primary thing to achieve. I am sure that is rewarding, but on the other hand, who is there with you when you are old and retired?

Omg yes. I have younger colleagues who are like YOLO I’ll start having kids when I’m 40. I’m like K. Enjoy going through multiple rounds of IVF and your kid being born from a donor egg, but no kite surfing five years in a row in Belize is totes worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird how angry it seems to make some people when a woman chooses not to have children. Maybe she wanted to but didn’t find the right guy (or didn’t find the right guy in time)? Maybe she wanted to but was afraid of burdening her theoretical offspring with heritable mental or physical illnesses? Maybe she hates kids? Maybe she lives kids but thinks she’d be a terrible mother?

Women aren’t choosing not to have kids AT YOU. This thread is bonkers.

On any individual level, you are right. But on a social/generational level, it is all our business. Because people with no family and kids will be more reliant on society and our tax dollars. Maybe it's because I come from a society with a strong emphasis on family. The expectation is that family takes care of each other. We don't rely on government help or policy. That attitude makes us, as a family unit, more resilient to the ups and downs of modern life and economic surprises. So yeah, when I see people freely choose to shun family (cutting off "toxic" family or not having kids when they can), I think it's selfish. And then when I hear all the people protesting for more government handouts and welfare, I get pretty annoyed. We are responsible for our own success and security in this life and family is the number one factor in obtaining that security.

Again, caveat about individual circumstances. But i think it's clear as a whole people are becoming more selfish and focusing more on themselves.

People are behaving rationally. We live in a late capitalism where basic living is very expensive, housing and education expenses are though the rough and wages are stagnant. Wealth is horded at the top. Covid really exposed to me that there is almost no social safety net. No one is going to give a shit about my kids but me and mine. I did not feel resilient during covid. I felt very isolated having two young children at home and almost no resources and still being expected to work like I didn't have children.

I don't blame younger people for deciding they don't want to bring children into this world. That if our society is selfish the most rational choice is to be selfish too.

But my whole point was that family is your safety net. Yes kids are a pain but they grow up to be adults, who hopefully will at least offer emotional support. When I am old and there is covid 100.0, I would rather have kids around to depend on (even if to just talk to), than to be alone. In my mind, the more I am on my own and feel like no one cares a crap about me, the more I want to make sure I have family. I guess we just think differently.

My friends are in their 50's / 60's and women friends are way more "helpful" and supportive than children or even husbands. After many having illnesses it's the community you create that is where you get emotional support.

Kids are off to college, living elsewhere, working hard, little leave, raising their own children, etc.

It's not kids.... maybe a sister but never kids.

Those women in their 50s/60s have raised families, which might make them more likely to value caregiving and community when the nest is empty. I wonder if women who have only ever had to look out for themselves would be as reliable for emotional support.

My friends with no children are equally as helpful. I find the most useless are SAHM's who are like, just because I don't work doesn't mean I'm gonna help when you are home/need help/etc. My working friends with and without kids are the most helpful.

Then when SAHM's need help, I've found they lean mostly on their H, who is generally not helpful and they wonder why they are not getting help, but they have spent less time building the community.

Well, since you sneer and look down on SAHMs with disdain, no wonder they have no interest in helping you.

+1. I don't know any of these unhelpful DHs of SAHMs, btw. The SAHMs I know have plenty of help.

I actually don't look down on SAHM's. I get it they think they will be "used" because they are at home and they think we think they are not doing anything. But it's not the case. We were very committed to helping each other, but they had their stuff covered so they felt, they would be used. Their stuff was covered until it wasn't. Everybody makes decision and those decisions are their own. It's not really a big deal.

Every year there is a thread here on DCUM, I'm a stay at home mom and NO I don't want to carpool, or pick your kids up during a snow storm, or have them come home after school instead of aftercare, and <fill in the blank> and I am all for you doing what works for you. Everybody cheers them on ... yea f that, your not their babysitter.

Meanwhile, yes I will pick up your kid, this is my work at home day, yes we can do a playdate if you are working late, yes I can watch your kids after your dad's stroke, yes they can lay on my couch sick on my work at home day, yes I can carpool and yes I now need help getting to my chemo appointments and guess what, I have help.

You're getting all your information about SAHM mom here? You don't know any in real life, do you?

Exactly right. Her spouse is clearly MIA.

Neither MIA nor expected to do it all.

Yet strangely omitted from your posts until now. It's telling.

What’s telling is that you think it odd to have a great H and a community to support you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many millennial men are willing & able to (a) be the sole provider so their wives can SAHM, or (b) take on 50% of house and kid responsibilities so their wives can also have a career? I guess option (c) is the men can SAHD but very few women are actually interested in that setup. There is your answer.

Yeah it’s this.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll see two tracks. If you want kids as a woman, you’ll marry a high earner and SAHM. If you are ambivalent, you’ll keep working and be DINKS.

The happiest moms I know (including myself in here) are SAHMs to 3-4 kids and are married to high earning, golden retriever type husbands who adore their wives and genuinely seem to believe aphorisms like “happy wife, happy life.” They have money to hire help, local family, and time to devote to hobbies and friends. The women all have college degrees, some have advanced degrees, and worked for at least 8-10 years before kids. Most worked until the birth of their second kid. So they understand what it’s like to do both and voluntarily opted out because they could.

Money in this scenario = flexibility and choice.

The problem with this is that there are not enough high earning men (let alone good ones who openly “adore” their wives) to meet the demand of women who want kids.

Sadly, this is true. If you don't meet them in college or soon afterwards, they get snapped up.

+1. People here like to pretend that partnering up in or right after college is for flyover plebes, but if you want kids and you want to at least have the option to SAH or go PT after kids, it is smart to lock down a nice guy with potential early. If you wait too much later to get serious about finding a spouse, all the good ones are already off the market, and the rest of the high earners are players who want to date younger and/or not settle down anytime soon.

+2

This is spot on

Not for educated women. Sure the poor slob SAHM who lost her looks but never had brains… then yea spot on.

I'm sorry for breaking your ignorant stereotypes by being a SAHM with an IQ of 140, a National Merit Scholarship and a MD degree. I certainly have lost my young looks but still not bad for someone going through menopausal transition.

You clearly are unaware of the law of diminishing returns with IQ higher than 135.

Book smart is still ignorant in many ways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably a lot of reasons, including costs. However, I think there some less flattering reasons as well. First, I think millenials and younger cohorts have bought into a “forever young” mentality where they don’t fully appreciate that some doors close permanently. The same mentality causes them to over prioritize going to the latest restaurants or bars well past the age where they should be. Finally, I think a lot of them have bought into the idea that career success is the primary thing to achieve. I am sure that is rewarding, but on the other hand, who is there with you when you are old and retired?

This may be true for some. I know a few couples that dated for years, lived together for years, set a wedding date two years in the future so they could plan leisurely, waited to have kids after getting married, and then boom, struck by infertility. I kept wanting to tell them to hurry up, time is ticking!! (I didn’t of course)

However, I think the bigger thing is the prevalence of so many ways to amuse yourself without a spouse or kids. Back in the day, people used to couple up because they were lonely and it was the expected thing to do, so they just found someone. Now there are so many things to do online and so unless you are really passionate about a significant other or about having kids, it is easiest to default to online activities to fill your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a lot of reasons, including costs. However, I think there some less flattering reasons as well. First, I think millenials and younger cohorts have bought into a “forever young” mentality where they don’t fully appreciate that some doors close permanently. The same mentality causes them to over prioritize going to the latest restaurants or bars well past the age where they should be. Finally, I think a lot of them have bought into the idea that career success is the primary thing to achieve. I am sure that is rewarding, but on the other hand, who is there with you when you are old and retired?

This may be true for some. I know a few couples that dated for years, lived together for years, set a wedding date two years in the future so they could plan leisurely, waited to have kids after getting married, and then boom, struck by infertility. I kept wanting to tell them to hurry up, time is ticking!! (I didn’t of course)

However, I think the bigger thing is the prevalence of so many ways to amuse yourself without a spouse or kids. Back in the day, people used to couple up because they were lonely and it was the expected thing to do, so they just found someone. Now there are so many things to do online and so unless you are really passionate about a significant other or about having kids, it is easiest to default to online activities to fill your time.

Women weren’t even allowed to have their own credit card until 1974.

weren’t even allowed to have their own credit card until 1974.

Women used to couple up because they had no rights.

[Anonymous]

Most liberal women under 40 have a mental illness / mental disease, according to Pew.

This fact may help explain their reluctance to have children.