Soaring childlessness among southern European women

[The Glitch]

Being a woman in Norway saying you don't want children and potentially that you don't like them, is like wearing a Nazi uniform in public. It's frowned upon. You might even get interviewed about your views. If you're more famous, expect questions about a probable future family to be brought up. If you're a voluntairly childless woman, you might be considered selfish and cold. I wish I was joking, but I'm not. Disgusting attitude, really.

Wow. That is crazy, I mean I love kids, I have nephews and nieces, and adore them, I just personally do not find myself to be the mothering type, I suppose some would see it as selfish, I prefer not having the financial burden of kids, putting our lifestyle on hold because of kids, We enjoy our lives as they are, and do not see how a kid could or would fit into that.

I guess I would say it would be worse if I brought a child into this world, that I didn't 100% want, but only because others believe that is what I should be doing as a woman.

Heck while here where I live, I still get the odd occasional glance when I mention not wanting kids, they at least at some point accept it and don't make a huge deal out of it. Well apart from all my single friends that suddenly got married and popped out some sprogs and now are suddenly going around declaring it the best thing thats happened to them at every opportunity haha.

[dakalro]

There are so many societal reasons that contribute to childlessness if you want the biggest one its finances, its such a cost to have children that people don't want them.

On top of that, parents aren't valued anymore. A woman who gives up her career to stay at home and raise kids while her husband works is doing a better job for society than a woman who stays working at a high end job and dumps the kid in daycare (or man that does the equivalent, but the feedbags make the woman a better choice all things being equal, which they aren't)

Contributing to the devaluing of parents, public schools are continually reinforcing the idea that parents basically exist to get resources for the children then have everyone else raise them.

If your job as a parent is basically to make money to feed your kids then shuttle them to places to have everyone else raise them, no wonder why people think its a terrible gig these days.

If you have enough money for a family of 2 then a child will do fuck all to your finances. What you won't be able to spend on your play time (because of lack of time) you'll spend on your child. I save more nowadays (with 1 small child) even if I also added in a college fund that's more expensive than my pension fund.
I don't spend on clubs anymore, bars, restaurants, takeout, holidays consume a lot less resources. Except for birth, medical expenses are minimal (and I pay for all of the doctor's visits).

If you can afford to live well as a family of two from sum X you'll be able to afford a child with the same money (except in the USA I suppose).

[Mormolyce]

Yey, France.

Propped up by immigration

- - - Updated - - -

Are you seriously denying that Tennis is a shitposter?

He posts a lot of liberal stories and talking points. Not the same as flamebaiting.

I wouldn't accuse those people who copy and paste from Fox of flamebaiting either. Much as I might roll my eyes at them.

[Tomyris]

Propped up by immigration

Yes, combined with the healthcare system. I know British families with lots of kids that prefer to remain here for exactly this reason, otherwise they would just come for holidays. In my circles, it is the French families that have more kids than the immigrant families. Why? Because the French can use the system more in their advantage (paid leave, tax break for hiring nannies etc). An immigrant family of first generation for example relies usually on a sole parent to provide and if they do not have a decent working contract, they don't have the big benefits either. The basic amount of money you get from the state is not much considering the expenses. Food and baby related stuff are quite pricey, not to mention rent for a bigger apartment, taxes etc.

[Hiricine]

If you have enough money for a family of 2 then a child will do fuck all to your finances. What you won't be able to spend on your play time (because of lack of time) you'll spend on your child. I save more nowadays (with 1 small child) even if I also added in a college fund that's more expensive than my pension fund.
I don't spend on clubs anymore, bars, restaurants, takeout, holidays consume a lot less resources. Except for birth, medical expenses are minimal (and I pay for all of the doctor's visits).

If you can afford to live well as a family of two from sum X you'll be able to afford a child with the same money (except in the USA I suppose).

Thats such a silly premise I don't know where to start. Yes, there are many people in specific financial situations that can change their way of life in order to have more children, and if you were writing an advice column youd be giving out good stuff, but we're basically talking about a global problem where countries are trying to outsource the reproduction of their own people to other cultures that don't even believe in the same fundamental values.

Just because you can advise people to make wise decisions doesn't mean they will. How many people do you know that waited to have kids to be in a better spot financially, or who could have had 5 kids but couldn't afford to have a parent at home to raise that many? The financial aspect is such a huge thing, and when you start incentivizing behavior you almost always get more of it. We need to get smart people to have and raise more kids, and so far the strategies that are employed are either not enough or working on the wrong people.

[bufferunderrun]

If you have enough money for a family of 2 then a child will do fuck all to your finances. What you won't be able to spend on your play time (because of lack of time) you'll spend on your child. I save more nowadays (with 1 small child) even if I also added in a college fund that's more expensive than my pension fund.
I don't spend on clubs anymore, bars, restaurants, takeout, holidays consume a lot less resources. Except for birth, medical expenses are minimal (and I pay for all of the doctor's visits).

If you can afford to live well as a family of two from sum X you'll be able to afford a child with the same money (except in the USA I suppose).

the problem is not the actual income the problem is if your job is stable or not, beside those who work for the gov no one has a stable job anymore and so having a baby is an huge risk, back in the day when peoples got a job that would last it's entire life having a children was seen as a natural step even if the income was not high and it took some sacrifice.

[dakalro]

Thats such a silly premise I don't know where to start. Yes, there are many people in specific financial situations that can change their way of life in order to have more children, and if you were writing an advice column youd be giving out good stuff, but we're basically talking about a global problem where countries are trying to outsource the reproduction of their own people to other cultures that don't even believe in the same fundamental values.

Just because you can advise people to make wise decisions doesn't mean they will. How many people do you know that waited to have kids to be in a better spot financially, or who could have had 5 kids but couldn't afford to have a parent at home to raise that many? The financial aspect is such a huge thing, and when you start incentivizing behavior you almost always get more of it. We need to get smart people to have and raise more kids, and so far the strategies that are employed are either not enough or working on the wrong people.

I can't offer more advice than what I know firsthand. My finances have improved with a child because I don't have the time to spend the money on other things, but I did have enough money to spend on a lot of other things. So you need to be at a point where you are good with your income for yourself, but I don't see a need to wait even more after that for even more money. What does change is the way of life but that is not related to money, it's a personal choice.

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that was hindered by money when it came to having children - but most of my friends do well enough to afford mortgage/rent and a car and have some extra to save/spend. Most of them had them when they decided they could take the lifestyle hit. And stopped having children when they decided they don't want to raise another baby.

- - - Updated - - -

the problem is not the actual income the problem is if your job is stable or not, beside those who work for the gov no one has a stable job anymore and so having a baby is an huge risk, back in the day when peoples got a job that would last it's entire life having a children was seen as a natural step even if the income was not high and it took some sacrifice.

I agree, stability is very important. Luckily it's not just govt jobs that are stable, there are others, maybe not the job itself but the job market in my and my wife's fields are good and dynamic.

[Hiricine]

I can't offer more advice than what I know firsthand. My finances have improved with a child because I don't have the time to spend the money on other things, but I did have enough money to spend on a lot of other things. So you need to be at a point where you are good with your income for yourself, but I don't see a need to wait even more after that for even more money. What does change is the way of life but that is not related to money, it's a personal choice.

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that was hindered by money when it came to having children - but most of my friends do well enough to afford mortgage/rent and a car and have some extra to save/spend. Most of them had them when they decided they could take the lifestyle hit. And stopped having children when they decided they don't want to raise another baby.

Well my finances certainly didn't improve, because I was already living frugally and preparing for life with a child, though I realize that your anecdote is probably more typical than mine.

The question, however, is not whether an individual will be able to financially handle children, but whether people would have MORE children if you presented financial incentives. Which you really havent argued against to be fair.

[powerstuck]

There is a big lack of work and future in the Balkans, whose are part of continental Europe and in south of the continent.

And you expect people to keep having kids like in 1960s ?

[Mihalik]

He posts a lot of liberal stories and talking points. Not the same as flamebaiting.

I wouldn't accuse those people who copy and paste from Fox of flamebaiting either. Much as I might roll my eyes at them.

Again, it's 100% not what he links, it's how he frames the discussion. This is seriously obvious, like common'! I refuse to believe you don't see it.

[DJ117]

I would never accept immigrants to my country. The solution is better welfare benefits for parents and emphasis on procreation.

[shrunken]

Per BBC
With a growing elderly population, it's pretty clear that these governments need to rely on immigration otherwise their entire social systems will collapse.

I agree with Tennisace for once. If someone isn't there to continue bolstering the rate of rapes in Northern Europe, there won't be an adequate populace in future generations to care for the elderly.

[Puri]

But why is it happening?

Perhaps humans never wanted to reproduce? It was just a byproduct of sexual intercourse, which is still highly valued. Today you can have one without the other.
And now that society burdens a much greater responsibility for the elderly care than children do, even the economic aspect of having children disappears more and more.

[tikcol]

The economical part is probably not even a major issue in most of Europe. Here we get 2 years leave with 85% pay (85% of the average from the last 12 months when you worked) and you can't be fired. It's even accepted that you won't be fired even after you return. The 2 years can be split however you want between mother and father. So it really is a non-issue but birth rates are still very low.

The rest is sticky material.

To me it seems like the author didn't like children and created a bunch of rationalizations around it

[Mihalik]

Perhaps humans never wanted to reproduce? It was just a byproduct of sexual intercourse, which is still highly valued. Today you can have one without the other.
And now that society burdens a much greater responsibility for the elderly care than children do, even the economic aspect of having children disappears more and more.

Humans do generally have a reproductive impulse. We also have a number of neurological positive feedback mechanisms that we evolved to like children. Sex being pleasurable is a mechanism to encourage the actual reproductive act.

Of course humans being complicated, we aren't only driven by biological instincts. So the urge to reproduce can take a back seat to other things.

[LilSaihah]

Seems entirely economic to me. People don't want to start families when they can't reliably support them. Unstable economies and high tax rates create that.

[Daedius]

The Happening meets Children of Men.

Then I shall take the role as The Most Fertile Man [in Ireland] !

[Puri]

Humans do generally have a reproductive impulse. We also have a number of neurological positive feedback mechanisms that we evolved to like children. Sex being pleasurable is a mechanism to encourage the actual reproductive act.

Do we? How could you measure that without considering the social influence a human experienced while growing up? Shame is also a learned impulse.

[Mihalik]

Seems entirely economic to me. People don't want to start families when they can't reliably support them. Unstable economies and high tax rates create that.

I seriously doubt it's economic to the extent you seem to think. On the contrary statistically the evidence goes against that. There is a strong correlation between wealth, educational attainment and a decline in birthrates.

This is a bit anecdotal but also indicative of a trend. I live in Madrid, Spain, and fall into what would be considered stable upper middle class. Of the women I count in my circle of friends (ages ranging from 22 to 38) only one has a child. Of my male peers in a similar age group, only 2 have children. This is of course is a bit of a bubble, but honestly among my peers, there is absolutely no social or government incentive that would make anyone consider having children.

It's not a question of money or work hours. It's a conscious choice not to have children.

Even Scandinavian countries that provide all the protections and all incentives etc. birthrates are still below replacement rate, theirs is higher, by usually around .40 or .50 but that's as high as it gets.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we? How could you measure that without considering the social influence a human experienced while growing up? Shame is also a learned impulse.

I recently learned that some feminist sociologists are challenging the notion that there is a "biological urge to reproduce", but really what is happening here is a semantics game to push a certain narrative, much akin to how religions push towards having children because God said so, while in reality it's just a disguise to push certain policies.

The biological urge to reproduce isn't a singular "one thing" that you have. It's rather a composite of evolved behaviors, hardwired neurological and biological processes and yes, human social behaviors.

Sex being pleasurable to encourage the activity, release of certain chemicals in the brain when we bond or feel "love", the evolved notion of "cuteness" and the tied in urges of caring and protection etc.

If you are trying to pinpoint one single thing as "the urge to have kids", you won't be able to. That is why specifically I said "generally" and "reproductive impulse", as both terms are broad enough to cover the whole umbrella of biological, neurological and social factors. If these things didn't exist there wouldn't have been 7+ billion of us on Earth, nor would have we ever achieved sentience as our pre-sentience ancestors would have died out, due to not reproducing.

I'm not dismissing the sociological factor. On the contrary, I think that the choice to not to have children is primarily a sociological one, as it goes against a established trend.

[Deleted]

The problem with overpopulation isn't that women in Italy is having two children it is that some third world women is having lots of children.

snip

My own anecdotal experience is that pretty much every women is having children but I live more on the country side so maybe people here are more traditional. I wonder if birth rates will continue to drop or if it will surge upwards in the next 10-20 years.