BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Latest article from Macleans

Until or unless fathers step up and do 50% of the scut around the house (REALLY do it, not just say "yes, dear" when asked, but rather really take responsibility and do it without waiting to be asked) this problem will never end. Obviously pregnancy itself is a woman's issue, but there's no reason the childrearing should.

Until that happens, women will be disproportionately worried about the home front when at work, leading to fewer work opportunities. Scientific fact: you can't be two places at once.

If more men who chose to be fathers also chose to really throw their backs into it and have it be a 50/50 thing with their wives, that would be a great thing for everyone. I don't 'see it happening, but we let these men off the hook all the time and say that all the problems associated with childrearing are the woman's alone. If men were simply expected to take up a full 50% of the work, perhaps we'd have fewer men pressuring their wives and girlfriends into parenthood.

Glad this isn't an issue I'll be grappling with...

If Canada wants to increase birthrates, I hope they go more of the European model - with creches, or free childcare - instead of extending maternity leave to 18 months or 2 1/2 years. Women already have a hard time getting equal pay for equal work... if they extend maternity leave, no employer in their right mind will want to hire a woman of childbearing age! Also, imagine trying to get back into the workforce after having 2 years off work... boy would you be out of touch!
It sure does sound like a big conundrum, when you have uneducated poor people producing lots of babies, and educated people with good paying jobs skipping children. Perhaps a good step in the right direction would be to have more education financing opportunities available, so that those children from low income families would have more chances to get advanced education and get out of the poverty cycle. Wouldn't that be good for everyone?
Thanks for posting the article! It brought up lots of issues and was an interesting read.

I agree with the points about the difficulty a woman can face juggling career and family. Yes, husbands need to do their share of the grunt work at home.

I don't agree at all with the view that declining birth rates are a problem. In my opinion the declining birth rate is good, not bad. Governments should provide funding and incentives for adoption rather than pushing to increase the birth rates. Wouldn't it make more sense to take as many kids as possible out of the poverty cycle and place them with parents who can provide them with a stable home. I am equally baffled by European governments actions. I have seen horrible traffic congestion in Milan, Italy and other European cities. These programs that increase the population will make that traffic congestion even worse.

[quote]It's another cruel modern irony: every year, as more women choose not to have children, other women, desperate to conceive, spend millions of dollars on reproductive technologies that offer no guarantees.

Why not take those millions of dollars spent on fertility treatments and instead give kids who are already here a decent home. Just my opinion folks, I am not trying to insult or hurt anyone on this board who has dealt with infertility.

I am still waiting for that tax credit/deduction for getting snipped and fathering zero kids.

Mike

Excellent point, Mike.

I'd vote for that!
The poverty cycle is a serious problem.

I absolutely, completely and 100% agree. It would be years, decades, before a declining population became a problem for the human race.

Interesting points, Mike. I'm so confused, b/c one one hand it definitely looks like we are overpopulating the earth, but on the other, we keep hearing that the birth rates are down. Which sounds like a good thing, but then we keep hearing that it is not.

I guess I'm not sure what the repercussions of declining births are? It might take time, but it seems like the economy, earth, and its people would adjust to having less people around. And maybe we would have quality vs. quantity if the people that really wanted kids had them. Imagine...

I know what you mean about the infertility treatments. I know a couple that is going through that right now, and they do not have a lot of money. It's questionable how they will pay for a kid if they get one. And, plus, they are spending all of this money up front in the hopes of achieving a baby. But I can see how peer pressure could lead a woman in that direction. Women feel left out without a child.

The woman going through the treatment is a nanny. So she's with kids all day. It's just a shame to see this couple go through this. I don't think she will be happy without one.

I think it's a great idea for most couples to adopt if they have fertility problems. But this particular couple I know probably won't pass the inspection. One of them had an infraction when they were younger, and I doubt they would be allowed to adopt.

As person who went through (at least started) some fertility clinic procedures, I just wanted to assure Mike that his point was not taken badly from me. It was a question that was bothering me the whole time I did it. I still never resolved it internally, but I did stop trying.

My reasons were the same old stupid reasons everyone has. Giving birth is a huge gamble, and somehow I felt better gambling with my own/husband's genes rather than a total unknown. We were both such cute babies. Ha ha! Just kidding...that wasn't really my primary reason.

But really, we spent a couple thousand dollars so far for a plethora of preliminary tests, 1 unsuccessful try, and 1 chicken-out-at-the-last-minute. So, if it never happens, we can absorb that. But to keep going on it, it would be about $1000/try for 10-15% odds, or more like $10,000 if we went the IF route for 40-50% odds. So if it doesn't work the first few times, you're really investing a lot. If we kept going, it wouldn't be long before we went into debt for it. I wanted to share those numbers because we didn't actually get a handle on how much it would cost until we were well along in the process. It's all kind of hush-hush until they have you in their clutches.

On the other hand, I've heard adopting costs about $20K...though that is just a number I've heard around...I don't know for sure. What I'm saying is, if you go about the fertility clinic process and it works quickly and with minimal efforts, it's actually not that expensive compared to adoption. But if it doesn't work right away, yes, it's crazy.

I hope I didn't offend you either!

Holy cow! I had no idea it was so expensive. I mean, if you pay that much and it's guaranteed, but to think it might not work, and be out all of that money.

Or, if it doesn't work, and then you want to adopt, then that's an additional 20K.

I'm reading a new book, "Why Don't You Have Children?" Very good. The author talks about getting caught up in the baby frenzy, but when she stepped away from it, and finally had a baby lined up for adoption, realized she didn't really want it after all. She was just feeling like she "had to have one" but didn't necessarily want one.

No! You didn't offend me either. The whole time I was doing it I kept feeling like I wasn't myself. My husband started telling family and good friends about it, and I felt really uncomfortable. Not because it might not work, but because I felt so unclear about what I was doing.

I hadn't thought about the cost of adopting ON TOP of fertility treatments. Oh my gosh...I can imagine people must run into the $100K's if they go that far. No wonder they're counting on their kids to house them in old age!

That book sounds great.