BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Latest article from Macleans

The latest edition of Macleans arrived in my mail today, and this was the leading article.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Overall, that was a really interesting article. It's surprising that other "rich" countries are actually seeing a drop - makes me think that they are smarter than us.

I heard on the radio the other day that a new study shows that 50% of women who make over $75,000 do not have children. I'm not really impressed, though, until that percentage is more like 85%.

Thanks for sharing the article Pikasam. This concept of governments encouraging people to have babies because the population is decreasing in certain parts of the world is confusing to me though. Isn't the world overpopulated and running low on resources? But we still are supposed to keep breeding so there's not more old people than young people? But only if we're educated and rich? But not so rich that we couldn't use more help from the government? I don't quite get it. I can't believe the benefits they get in Europe. A government-funded creche where you can leave your baby off anytime with no notice? What a godsend for parents!

I think the reasoning behind governments encouraging people to procreate is to ensure that in the long term, THEIR country will still have a large population. Perhaps the concerns of planetary resources mean nothing next to the fear that one's own nationality may one day become extinct?
Is this about ensuring that there are young adults to staff the armies? Because a smaller army may tell a nation's enemies that it is free for the taking... I don't know. Those are just the thoughts rambling through my brain.

Myrabeth- I agree completely. I think it is more about replacing their population to ensure long term growth for their particular country. In this country I know there are more than a few people out there (as ignorant as they may be) who really fear the increasing numbers of immigrants or any individuals not of their nationality "taking over." But when you look at the ideals this country was founded on we are supposed to thrive on diversity and encourage it, not close the borders. Just an opinion- but the comments about actually paying people to procreate makes me ill- so what about all of the contributions the CF make simply because we don't have children?

This is fascinating, thanks for posting this.

"Kids are the new glass ceiling." I think this is so true. It should be on a bumper sticker.

It's not my reason for not having one, but I can see how women can be scared off.

I'm not saying this is right, but I definitely think women lose some credibility at work when they have kids. I've noticed a condescending attitude toward Moms at work. They aren't always taken that seriously. But I've also heard lots of women talk about their focus being totally different once they have kids. And you can see it at times.

But a man's focus never changes b/c he becomes a father. At least, I've never seen it.

It's a tough situation. I don't know what the answer is. I think Mom's should be held to the same standards as other employees, and shouldn't be coddled, or be the recipients of special treatment in the workplace. But something has to give somehow.

I think the SAHM approach is bad for the SAHMs, and their kids, in many ways. But working full-time and then coming home to run the domestic scene is TOO much. I wouldn't want to do it.

I know this, monetary awards or even special treatment at work couldn't encourage me to have a child. I think women are just seeing beyond the illusion now. And I think the birth rates will continue to fall until things get better for women.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I for one don't want to have to pay any more in taxes to provide additional benefits for people simply because they have kids, or to encourage them to have kids. People should think hard about whether or not they can afford them before they have them. If they can't afford to raise them and care for them, don't have them. It's not the government's job (in my opinion) to provide incentives.

I know it's difficult at work for women with children, and I don't know what the solution is. I know they get a lot of benefits, too, though. They often can leave early without questions because they have children (if you're CF the attitude often is "What does she have to leave for?") If a child is sick, it's okay for the mother to stay home. If a CF employee is sick herself, she's often still expected to work. I work in education and not having a child in this field can be a disadvantage because of people's perceptions: "She can't understand children because she doesn't have one of her own."

The bottom line is that people shouldn't have kids unless they can care for them and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to do it. They shouldn't have kids and then expect everyone else to raise(and pay for)them.

I have to say that despite the fact that I dont have kids and I dont want them I completely disagree that society as a whole (parents and non) should not have to pay taxes to help children and child care. I wish our contry had a free quality day care program and certainly free preschools from say age three up. This would let moms work if they need too and it would be good for children. It disgusts me how in our country motherhood is painted as so rosey and wonderful in the tabloids, but then we balk at actually providing the services that would make motherhood easier. In my opinion we only pretend to love kids in this country, we dont want to do any of the difficult things to help them if it inconveniences us for a second. Every child should have access to quality preschool and daycare regardless of their parents financial resources. Yes it would be wonderful if people thought more about having kids and made sure they were financially able, but not everyone does and someties peoples circumstances change and the child shoudl not have to pay. Furthermore when a child is raised without needed services such as daycare it is all of society and not just hte child who pays. If the government would cut funding to the military then we would have ample funds to ensure that every child recieved quality care. I dont see why just because I choose not to have kids I should not support services for kids, in my opinion the welfare of children (as well as all people young and old) is the responsibility not only of their parents but also of hte whole of society.

Tubby, I would not disagree with that idea if programs like planned parenthood were equally funded and well advertised. Also, annual attendance of parenting classes should be required for every parent who takes advantage of federally funded child services. We don't just need better ways to raise children, we also need better parents for those children.

It's an open secret that the workforce discriminates against mothers. And as an educated woman it's a real conundrum. You work your butt off to compete with the guys for a good job, you get there, and then if you want to have kids, you literally have to give it all up at a young age (mid 30's). And if we say that society is winning by the child being born, what about the huge amount of taxpayer money that went into training the mother - who is now lost to the workforce for a period of time, and once out may never work in her specialised field again? Surely that's a loss, but nobody ever points that out.

What is even more frustrating is that even if you don't have kids, you'll be discriminated against for the very fact that you can. Any married woman in her late 20's or early 30's, in a profession, who has ever been to a job interview can just see the wheels turning in the interviewer's head. It's never said but it's always there.

I've been on both sides of the fence, as a professional female and as a manager of staff. And I have to admit that I do think twice about mothers, because you know that the interests of their job will never come first. When you're thinking with your company hat, it's unavoidable.

The government can provide all the incentives it wants, but until the ingrained attitude that mothers are worth less changes, it's not going to make any difference. Smart women know that they have choices. Not so smart or not so educated women don't have so many, and that's not putting anyone down, that's just a fact. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that an educated female chooses to not take the "s**t job"...