Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/27/women-child-free-30-ons

More than half (50.1%) of women in England and Wales born in 1990 were without a child when they turned 30 in 2020, the first generation to do so, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
That is almost three times higher than the lowest number of women ever to be child-free at 30 – 17.9% of those born in 1941.
At the same time the average number of children women have by the time they reach 30 has fallen to its lowest-ever level (0.96).

Not surprising. I’m American, and many of the younger women in my office are single and childless. In fact, lots of the older ones are, too.

Maybe it’s the SATC effect? Throw yourself into your career and live your best life in the city.

Plenty of studies point to younger generations as being less sexually active, right?

Plus: money. Families are $$$$$.

Lastly: social media has enabled many people to become introverts.

Whaat? You don't "become" introverted. It's just how you're wired. Technology has allowed people to do what they've wanted to do all along.

How old are you?

I’m pushing 50. We didn’t have social media. Heck, we didn’t have cell phones. If we didn’t go out, we didn’t meet people.

People these days can and do opt to stay home, and it’s definitely limiting their dating pool.

Dating with technology doesn’t typically work well for women. It’s a great numbers game for guys though.

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.

But there are consequences for the planet when people have more children. More pollution and more strain on natural resources. Plan for your own damn retirement instead of harrassing people to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:It is a continuation of a long trend.

More education, more urbanization, more income (and therefore higher opportunity cost of having kids) = fewer children.

+1 I'm East Asian. I got married at 32. Kids at 34. I was considered an old maid by many in my culture, certainly my parents thought so. But this was over a decade ago.

Today, my nieces are hitting 30s, no kids, and no one bats an eye.

Times have changed, thank god.

Women have options now. And if society wants more women to have kids when they are younger, then society needs to change some laws (ahem, men) to make it worthwhile for women. Gone are the days when women had very little choices in life, though I'm sure some men would prefer we go back to the days when men had all the options and women didn't.

Moms are still the default parent (and the default caregiver to elderly parents). I don't see men clamoring to be both the default parent AND have a job like women are doing. Why would that be? Cause it's f*n hard. That's why.

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.

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!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/27/women-child-free-30-ons

More than half (50.1%) of women in England and Wales born in 1990 were without a child when they turned 30 in 2020, the first generation to do so, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
That is almost three times higher than the lowest number of women ever to be child-free at 30 – 17.9% of those born in 1941.
At the same time the average number of children women have by the time they reach 30 has fallen to its lowest-ever level (0.96).

Not surprising. I’m American, and many of the younger women in my office are single and childless. In fact, lots of the older ones are, too.

Maybe it’s the SATC effect? Throw yourself into your career and live your best life in the city.

Plenty of studies point to younger generations as being less sexually active, right?

Plus: money. Families are $$$$$.

Lastly: social media has enabled many people to become introverts.

Whaat? You don't "become" introverted. It's just how you're wired. Technology has allowed people to do what they've wanted to do all along.

Anonymous wrote:In my parents generation, middle class people didn't want to marry or have kids until they were financial stable and on their way. They would get a good job, then marry and buy a starter house/apartment they could afford where they would want to raise a family, then start to have kids.

Today, many people are not financial stable like that until their 30s.

This is the issue.

I waited until I was married and financially stable-- then couldn't have kids.

My parents were married and financially stable and owned a house by the time they were 25.

I didn't have any kids at age 30, but now at age 39 I have four. If I hadn't used birth control to space them out, I'd probably have six or seven.

For most women, the 30-40 decade is plenty of time to have the 1-3 kids that most want. Not for everyone, but for most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except Israel

Jewish people are way more forward thinking and optimistic about the future.

Well, there the high tfr is mainly driven by the ultra-orthodox. Secular Jews don’t have a very high birth rate.

Educate yourself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305338386_An_investigation_of_the_unexpectedly_high_fertility_of_secular_native-born_Jews_in_Israel

Secular jews in Israel far surpass tfr of developed secular people in other countries!

Actually you should educate yourself. The secilar Jewish TFR is 2.2, which is just replacement ratio. Almost all the growth is from the religious.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/.premium-haredim-are-leaving-the-fold-but-the-community-is-growing-1.8121764

You must’ve scored a 500 on reading comp on your sat.

Read my last sentence.

2.2 far surpasses what secular gentiles in the us or uk!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except Israel

Jewish people are way more forward thinking and optimistic about the future.

Well, there the high tfr is mainly driven by the ultra-orthodox. Secular Jews don’t have a very high birth rate.

Educate yourself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305338386_An_investigation_of_the_unexpectedly_high_fertility_of_secular_native-born_Jews_in_Israel

Secular jews in Israel far surpass tfr of developed secular people in other countries!

Actually you should educate yourself. The secilar Jewish TFR is 2.2, which is just replacement ratio. Almost all the growth is from the religious.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/.premium-haredim-are-leaving-the-fold-but-the-community-is-growing-1.8121764

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except Israel

Jewish people are way more forward thinking and optimistic about the future.

Well, there the high tfr is mainly driven by the ultra-orthodox. Secular Jews don’t have a very high birth rate.

Not entirely true. Non-Orthodox Jewish society in Israel is still very family-oriented. It's one of the differences between the US and Israeli Jewish communities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except Israel

Jewish people are way more forward thinking and optimistic about the future.

Well, there the high tfr is mainly driven by the ultra-orthodox. Secular Jews don’t have a very high birth rate.

Educate yourself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305338386_An_investigation_of_the_unexpectedly_high_fertility_of_secular_native-born_Jews_in_Israel

Secular jews in Israel far surpass tfr of developed secular people in other countries!

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?

Mother is a relationship title, not a job title.

Have you seen their options? I get it

Anonymous wrote:A lot of expectations for young women make motherhood extremely impractical. You can't tell young women they need to be independent, well-educated, have a career, physcially fit, and highly social, and then expect them to have kids in their 20s. Just... how?

Also, you see such broad criticism of young mothers in the UK and the US, that they are irresponsible or insufficient. There's huge stigma, and not just for high SES women.

Yes, but what I’ve observed with single childless professional women in the dc metro area is simply that they aren’t in long term relationships.

I know a lot of great women (attractive, fit, educated, employed, fun, etc) who are chronically single. Ranging from early 20s to mid 50s.

Meanwhile, my closest friends and I met our future husbands in college or grad school in the 90s. Everyone was married by their mid-20s and had their first baby at 28-30. (This is a cohort of friends from a private school in MoCo.)