Why do European women have no children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All of these human failings have been around since humans have been around, but they have all taken on a new depth and breadth:

#1 What is on TV now, versus the 1950s? What is on the cover of magazines, in movies? What about rates of divorce, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, child pornography, pornography use, out of wedlock births, abortion, sexual assault, unfaithfulness? None of these things are new, but we sure are more coarse about them.

#2 Men have always tended towards selfishness. But now they have different reasons to indulge. Sexism has new tools.

#3 Coercive "family planning" policies happen all over the globe, not just China. But it's not just government programs. It's societal attitudes. Children shift from gifts to burdens, accidents, mistakes, choices--their value is tied to their "wantedness," their usefulness, rather than intrinsic. They need to prove their worth to their parents and to society. Are they "planned"? Healthy? Well-provided for? A boy and a girl, no more? Do they fit with their parents' desire for travel, eating out frequently, frenetic work schedules? This shift of thinking is profound, and goes way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions.

#4 Sparta was one tiny society. The global impact of dehumanization, combined with technology, is far more profound, and takes their primitive way of thinking to an unfathomable level. Babies can be created and destroyed, harvested and utilized, cultivated and bred, tested and eliminated, all well before birth. People become parts, not persons.

There is nothing new under the sun. But separating sex and procreation corrupts something fundamental to our humanity. The low European birth rate is just one manifestation of this fact.

And why shouldn't it shift. Women now have a say in how their bodies are used. That's a good thing and far from coercive. While there are some women -and men also- who would fall into your morality trap, most people have simply decided to be more responsible with their choices. Having the number of children they can afford and waiting until they are financially and personally ready. Why is that coercive? So what if it is a little bit selfish? It certainly is ridiculous that you would say that making these choices goes "way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions." Even more, I'd say that is a downright stupid thing to say.

Your sweeping generalizations, alone, make your post unworthy of any sort of read or attention paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
clearly your anecdotal evidence is off-target. The majority of greek women are not having "2 to 3" kids. and this has been going on far longer than the current economic struggles - Greek women were having less than 1.5 kids each back in the 90s and 2000s too.

I did not say that all Greek women are having 2-3 kids. This is just what my cousins have. It's not anecdotal evidence. It's my family.

Do you understand the meaning of the word anecdotal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Educational Debt can be substantial. Especially if you get into and decide to attend a "top tier" school. And, yes, while one could forego that for a lesser school for many -MANY- employers, they are credential hounds, plain and simple. They'll take a lesser impressive Harvard or Stanford applicant over an over-achieving Maryland grad any day of the week. I don't personally agree with that (it sickens me, actually) but, having been on multiple hiring panels, I know this to be absolutely true.

So don't discount how burdensome educational debt can be.

Not to discount your concerns. But what I have found is that the employers only look at the school of the graduates. Once you have some job experience they are interested in that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. But thanks for your concern. My father recently died from Parkinson's but my mother kept him home and hired two assistants to help out. Again, thanks for your concern. (sarcasm, btw - b/c you seem a bit too dense to "get it")

If you would look outside of your little world, you'd understand that not all countries are run like the US - and that not all people are as selfish and greedy as we are.

good luck - You'll need it. Most pathetic people do.

So is smugness a typical family value in your generic non-US country? If it's so great and homey and family-friendly there, why are you here?

Glad your mom was able to hire a couple of assistants. Not all of us are, either here or there.

My generic non-US country is Italy.

We value family there, and those of us here carry on that value.

We're not smug. In fact, I can't tell you how often my friends invite themselves over b/c we are great hosts!

But again, responding to your posts is like writing in chalk on a brick wall during a rainstorm. Understand a culture first before you blast it. Italy is very family-friendly, but b/c of the crushed economy, people are not marrying and are certainly NOT having kids.

chalk on a brick wall - Remember that, dense one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

1) Child labor. Slavery. Legal rape by spouse. Yes, damn our lowered moral standards!
2) The field of "Women's Health" didn't exist until less than a hundred years ago. Fifty years ago, if you had breast cancer, the treatment was you died.
3) As PP said, there might be 1-2 totalitarian regimes where this is so, but that also predates birth control.
4) You'll have to expand on this one. Human society seems to have had a long history of "de-humanizing persons". Only someone with an agenda would claim this started in the 60s.

You sound like you have no real grasp of history at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

All of these human failings have been around since humans have been around, but they have all taken on a new depth and breadth:

#1 What is on TV now, versus the 1950s? What is on the cover of magazines, in movies? What about rates of divorce, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, child pornography, pornography use, out of wedlock births, abortion, sexual assault, unfaithfulness? None of these things are new, but we sure are more coarse about them.

#2 Men have always tended towards selfishness. But now they have different reasons to indulge. Sexism has new tools.

#3 Coercive "family planning" policies happen all over the globe, not just China. But it's not just government programs. It's societal attitudes. Children shift from gifts to burdens, accidents, mistakes, choices--their value is tied to their "wantedness," their usefulness, rather than intrinsic. They need to prove their worth to their parents and to society. Are they "planned"? Healthy? Well-provided for? A boy and a girl, no more? Do they fit with their parents' desire for travel, eating out frequently, frenetic work schedules? This shift of thinking is profound, and goes way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions.

#4 Sparta was one tiny society. The global impact of dehumanization, combined with technology, is far more profound, and takes their primitive way of thinking to an unfathomable level. Babies can be created and destroyed, harvested and utilized, cultivated and bred, tested and eliminated, all well before birth. People become parts, not persons.

There is nothing new under the sun. But separating sex and procreation corrupts something fundamental to our humanity. The low European birth rate is just one manifestation of this fact.

Too bad we can't be more like Saudi Arabia. By every one of your (prudish) metrics, they're a more moral, decent society than ours. You're not affiliated with the American Taliban by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Educational Debt can be substantial. Especially if you get into and decide to attend a "top tier" school. And, yes, while one could forego that for a lesser school for many -MANY- employers, they are credential hounds, plain and simple. They'll take a lesser impressive Harvard or Stanford applicant over an over-achieving Maryland grad any day of the week. I don't personally agree with that (it sickens me, actually) but, having been on multiple hiring panels, I know this to be absolutely true.

So don't discount how burdensome educational debt can be.

Not to discount your concerns. But what I have found is that the employers only look at the school of the graduates. Once you have some job experience they are interested in that

Original PP. Glad to hear that is the case in some places. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience.

We recently hired for a temp position. My boss was hell bent on hiring this one women just b/c she went to Harvard Law (she was working at a firm and looking to switch to govt.) But she had no experience in the subject-matter area we were hiring and no first-chair litigation expertise (which was the point of the hiring). I lobbied successfully for the individual who possessed the latter two qualities but went to a "lesser" state school. But, it was so after much discussion and debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All of these human failings have been around since humans have been around, but they have all taken on a new depth and breadth:

#1 What is on TV now, versus the 1950s? What is on the cover of magazines, in movies? What about rates of divorce, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, child pornography, pornography use, out of wedlock births, abortion, sexual assault, unfaithfulness? None of these things are new, but we sure are more coarse about them.

#2 Men have always tended towards selfishness. But now they have different reasons to indulge. Sexism has new tools.

#3 Coercive "family planning" policies happen all over the globe, not just China. But it's not just government programs. It's societal attitudes. Children shift from gifts to burdens, accidents, mistakes, choices--their value is tied to their "wantedness," their usefulness, rather than intrinsic. They need to prove their worth to their parents and to society. Are they "planned"? Healthy? Well-provided for? A boy and a girl, no more? Do they fit with their parents' desire for travel, eating out frequently, frenetic work schedules? This shift of thinking is profound, and goes way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions.

#4 Sparta was one tiny society. The global impact of dehumanization, combined with technology, is far more profound, and takes their primitive way of thinking to an unfathomable level. Babies can be created and destroyed, harvested and utilized, cultivated and bred, tested and eliminated, all well before birth. People become parts, not persons.

There is nothing new under the sun. But separating sex and procreation corrupts something fundamental to our humanity. The low European birth rate is just one manifestation of this fact.

And why shouldn't it shift. Women now have a say in how their bodies are used. That's a good thing and far from coercive. While there are some women -and men also- who would fall into your morality trap, most people have simply decided to be more responsible with their choices. Having the number of children they can afford and waiting until they are financially and personally ready. Why is that coercive? So what if it is a little bit selfish? It certainly is ridiculous that you would say that making these choices goes "way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions." Even more, I'd say that is a downright stupid thing to say.

Your sweeping generalizations, alone, make your post unworthy of any sort of read or attention paid.

Agreed. Up until a half-century ago, it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Domestic violence cases were unheard of. My grandfather had my grandmother committed to a mental asylum because he was tired of her giving him lip. All of that changed during the 60s and later.

Good concern trolling, though.

[Anonymous]

I think the Victorians were more moral and more civilized, but that isn't the point of this thread. To answer the question, it seems that looking at the NYT article linked earlier would be a good start. They compare the birth rates of northern europe and southern europe and found big differences. So education and income are not the key factors (if anything, women working outside the home had MORE kids). The people touching on men and cultural differences hit the nail on the head.

[Anonymous]

8:00, what you don't seem to get is that women like sex as much as men, with no strings attached.

[Anonymous]

"I think the Victorians were more moral and more civilized, but that isn't the point of this thread."

Evidence, please?

[Anonymous]

"Child labor. Slavery. Legal rape by spouse. Yes, damn our lowered moral standards! "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Educational Debt can be substantial. Especially if you get into and decide to attend a "top tier" school. And, yes, while one could forego that for a lesser school for many -MANY- employers, they are credential hounds, plain and simple. They'll take a lesser impressive Harvard or Stanford applicant over an over-achieving Maryland grad any day of the week. I don't personally agree with that (it sickens me, actually) but, having been on multiple hiring panels, I know this to be absolutely true.

So don't discount how burdensome educational debt can be.

Not to discount your concerns. But what I have found is that the employers only look at the school of the graduates. Once you have some job experience they are interested in that

Original PP. Glad to hear that is the case in some places. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience.

We recently hired for a temp position. My boss was hell bent on hiring this one women just b/c she went to Harvard Law (she was working at a firm and looking to switch to govt.) But she had no experience in the subject-matter area we were hiring and no first-chair litigation expertise (which was the point of the hiring). I lobbied successfully for the individual who possessed the latter two qualities but went to a "lesser" state school. But, it was so after much discussion and debate.

This is the result of too many people going to college. To uneven the score, the hierarchy of brands are most important among degrees. Just another subtle way of keeping our caste system in balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My generic non-US country is Italy.

We value family there, and those of us here carry on that value.

We're not smug. In fact, I can't tell you how often my friends invite themselves over b/c we are great hosts!

But again, responding to your posts is like writing in chalk on a brick wall during a rainstorm. Understand a culture first before you blast it. Italy is very family-friendly, but b/c of the crushed economy, people are not marrying and are certainly NOT having kids.

chalk on a brick wall - Remember that, dense one.

How can I understand a culture if I don't even know what culture it is? (I was slammed once for asking why people don't mention what country they're from as opposed to the generic 'non-American.')

Again, if it's so much better in Italy/people are nicer/family is so much more important, why aren't you there? Oh wait, you can find employment here.

I'm going to assume you're reflective enough to know Italy has its own problems, so I won't go into the racism (does the word Nazio ring a bell?) and corruption (the Mafia/Cosa Nostra get all the press, but the 'Ndragheta and Camorra deserve some love too -- and when was the last time a team was kicked out of the NFL for match-fixing?) extensively. Surprised I know about those things?

Unless, of course, you want to keep on slagging off on Americans and how we hate our families and are all selfish greedyguts.

Remember, you're the one who started it with "And b/c they can rely on family (b/c family means something to Europeans - unlike it does here)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not only have all these predictions come true, but worldwide fertility rates have plummeted to a degree no one ever imagined, with consequences never before seen in human history.

At current rates, European population will be halved by 2050. But it's not the overall population decline that is the main problem. It is the composition of the population. We're talking about societies with no siblings, no cousins, no aunts and uncles. We're talking about no one 14 and under, and most people 65 and older. One worker to every 3, 4, 5 dependents--but the dependents will be old, not young.

And it goes back to selfishness.

Do you have a source for the European population info above? Not to call you out on it, just b/c it is interesting and I would like to read more.