More American women are choosing not to have children than three decades ago, according to a new report.
Nearly 20 percent of older women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the Pew Research Center said.
"In recent decades, social pressure to play traditional roles has lessened in a broad variety of ways and there is more leeway for individual choice. This could play a part in lowering pressure for people to get married and bear children," said D'Vera Cohn, a co-author of the report.
"Women have more options than in the past to build strong careers and to exercise the choice not to have children," she added in an email.
The findings in the report are based on data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey.
Plus they see that an additional child is a burden to them, career wise and financially wise, this is happening all over the world, in Asia as well, thanks for the post my dear,
Oh, PDH you should see Singaporeans. The latest report is out and the child birth rate is at all time low here.
I agree sun, Because Singapore is par developed and belong to the developed nations category, they have low fertility rate and is rapidly decreasing birth rate -- but looking at the neighbors, like Indonesia and Malaysia (Muslim religion predominantly), and the Philippines --the only Catholic nation in Southeast Asia, they still have high birth rate.
Culture and religion to my mind, plays an important part in that world, like use of contraceptive, women empowerment etc.
And that's the bottom line...if you look at a child as a burden, instead of a blessing, then you're absolutely right in not having any...Enjoy your life exactly the way you want it, without anything, or anyone, holding you back.
Personally, I'd be lost without my kids and grandkids, but I can understand, and respect, those who prefer not to have any.
More American women are choosing not to have children-report
Well, I would say that it would be the fault of the men who are Americans. It appears as if the men have either pushed(repulsed) the women away(or some choose to be lesbian instead) or the women have chosen to establish more control over their life, before submitting to the motherhood role.
With equality among men and women in the work place, more women are deciding on career or life goals, other than family building.
Also, I would not doubt it would be affected/effected by abortions. I haven't checked the stats and have no desire to, because it's only a portion of the big picture, but I'm sure abortions have to be taken into account, to reach the original statistics.
I always wanted children but never more than two. I wanted to finish university and get a good career. However since I've discovered hubpages and other work at home options, I have decided I'd rather stay home and try for lots of kids!
but two is also big time responsibility..isn't it?
Women have no problem with having babies. It's men who are not serious with this issue of children.
well report says women are choosing of not having children..
1 Cor. 11:3. That question should have been asked to men.
That verse has nothing to do with it. By the sound of it, you'd probably agree that it's the males choice if a woman wants to abort a baby, as well.
1 Cor. 11:3 -"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
In the end, it's a woman's body, and it's her choice if she wants children - NOT the mans. She's the one who'll go through the pain and child raising and stretch marks...
I assure you that plenty of women don't want to have babies.
how did you conclude that?..i just answered to your question..now choosing to have kid or not have kid is personal choice..one my respect it..
force is strong word..pressure might be right word..as report says in 70s social pressure was more than today..so guess today's time is better as far as making choice is concerned..
I think with society being thin an fit is in that the pressure is making more of a choice then anything else. Sad, children are so wonderful !
The Census Bureau is also telling us that in US, a child is born every seven seconds and that a death is occurring once every 13 seconds. American population is now over 300 million people and growing faster from migrants entering the country at the rate of one person every 31 seconds.
migrants would keep coming..usa is considered dream land specially in developing and under developed countries..
In fact, in-migration is the source of population growth in this country and not because of the rate of birth -- children born,
child birth rate, a high number of it is attributed to children born from in-migrant specially from Mexicans.
Should people consider this to be the right thing for a country. I myself do not think it is right.
Sir, I dont think I am to judge what is right and wrong but this happens, even before, migration is a fact and it happens throughout the civilizations.
People migrate to a place where they think they can improve their lives, as a result, there is a shift in culture and economic spcially employment sector.
@sunseven... well you have a point out here..
Yeah, only 0.8% of the population of the United States (2.4 million people) is indigenous, and only about another 0.8% (2.3 million) identifies as part-indigenous. The rest of us don't really have much right to complain about immigrants!
What's the point?
Anybody who's taken a halfway decent history course knows that earlier immigrants to this country have been complaining about how the latest crop of immigrants - Germans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians, etc. etc. etc. - is going to "ruin" America since the 18th century. It hasn't happened yet.
The Mexicans will integrate just like everyone else, and in 100 years they'll be complaining about how the immigrants du jour are stealing American jobs just like the descendants of German and Irish immigrants who got beat up by the Know Nothings for the same "crime" are complaining about them now. At least the Know Nothings had the guts to admit to their willful ignorance.
Why are you talking about Mexican immigrants? There is of course no problem whatsoever with Mexican immigrants. People from Mexico have been immigrating to the US and integrating and contributing for centuries and they are as welcome and valuable to the nation as any other. The issue is one of ILLEGAL immigration, regardless of where they come from.
And most of the people who had to put up with the first immigrants to the Americas died pretty quickly, so they couldn't complain too loud. I do have to laugh at the fact that most people I hear complaining about immigrants all have white skin (granted, this is Wyoming, the population is somewhat monotone in most areas)...and often they're complaining about people whose roots go much farther back on this continent than their own.
But yes, immigration aside, since that is quite definitely another topic ...I have to say that some of the people I respect the most are people who can admit to themselves and others that they are too selfish or immature for kids, and so choose not to have them. That said, obviously there is certainly nothing wrong with those who are able to have kids, want them, and are willing to form their lives around nurturing and teaching those kids. It doesn't surprise me that the numbers are down, though, considering the "barefoot and pregnant" mentality has dissipated in many areas of the country and women are being seen as more than potential brood stock, and therefore there is no real pressure to measure one's worth according to how many kids they have.
" I do have to laugh at the fact that most people I hear complaining about immigrants all have white skin"
Why do you have to laugh?
Brush up on US history...the people who were here first did not have white skin, a fact that is often conveniently forgotten .
The fact that indigenous peoples lived on the North American continent prior to Eurpean colonization has no bearing on the topic of illegal immigration to The United States of America.
You really don't find it even the slightest bit ironic that white people are complaining about the descendants of the Yaqui, Pima, Apache, Tepehuan, Kickapu, Papago, Cucapa, Kumiai, and other tribes from what is now the border region "invading" the land they used to consider their own?
Exactly, just because it's called the United States now, doesn't make it different land.
Sorry, nobody can troll as long and as successfully as you have and be that dumb. Is there some sort of competition on 4chan to see who can get the most people to agree to the stupidest things? Are you in the lead?
Please refrain from personal insults. Thank you.
I think it's also partially due to the fact that women have more career options compared to the 1970's, and don't necessarily have to just become stay at home moms.
The world is over-populated. If my now ex-wife had not been so insistent about having kids when we were married I would not have kids. I put my money where my mouth is and got myself fixed. Face it, so many people out there think they are fit parents and they simply are NOT!
(We have to do something abot the illegal alien population in THIS country too but that is actually another forum topic.)
If there were no migrants, there would've been no America, as it is today.
the great thing about it is that women are making choices! all kinds of choices! often really great choices and we should be rewarded for things like less kids, no kids, better marriages, better work situations, careers, and last, but not least, good fashion choices.
"rewarded" for "less kids, no kids"?
or maybe that choice leads to its own reward. For centuries our cultures have been "rewarding" (at least with approval) women who have more kids - now its time to realize less is more!
oh, right, I forgot who I was talking to! hahaha the one who often pretends to not understand. . . so long, sab oh
Why is less more? If women (although that is far too general) are having fewer children in America for a variety of reasons, it is an interesting fact but I don't see what there is to "reward" or "celebrate" about it anymore than there is to punish or bemoan about it.
Here is the rub - the more successful proponents of population size restrictions are, the lower their numbers are in the next generation. Those that don't give a shit about it bring up way more kids, therefore their thinking (or lack of thinking) eventually prevails
Nature seems to balance itself in the most perverted ways
That is why Idiocracy is such a profound movie.
The people who aren't breeding are the types who have drive. They get an education and read and see how the breeding countries (and families) are the ones that suffer the most privation (if taken on the whole). So, they have few or no kids, thus raising the quality of life for themselves. Population osmosis will occur in the U.S. (and in Europe) for a time, but eventually the opportunities will be crushed under the waves of tramping feet.
Which leaves the less disciplined to populate the Earth, devour the resources, and make war, which will ultimately lead to the massive reduction of humans the planet wants. This is really nature just shaking it's back like a big wet dog, ridding itself of the pox that is upon it.
I am not sure of the basic idea in this - do stupid people actually breed stupid people? I rather think that in the nature/nurture debate what we measure as intelligence in IQ etc is largely a nurture issue. How we are raised initially and then the education we get, or don't get, is as much to do with so-called intelligence as genes. But then we look at some of the posters on here, and the huge population segments in some of the most developed (richest) countries and stupidity does seem to rule.
I'm not even going to argue that. I'll give you your point even with all the things I could bring up. To keep it simple, let's just say, "Yep, you are totally right."
The lion that is too lazy to hunt is just as hungry as the one whose parents never showed it how to.
But this assumes that all "less disciplined" cannot have children who will become "types who have drive" This is inaccurate, because there are plenty of people who come from poverty/less disciplined families, and make something of themselves. I do like the movie Idiocracy though.
There are, but I think statistically speaking, the numbers don't work for your argument. I think your anecdotes will fall apart if you look very deeply, revealing that the seventh brother of nine kids invented the such-and-such type of stories, where the other eight work massively against the overall success of the populace.
A culture of sloth (household by household) does not teach enterprise and work ethic because children learn by watching. Again, I'm talking overall numbers.
Did not see the movie. Is it something like Lev Gumilev's "passonaries" theory you are talking about?
And yeah, we have a stage being prepared for WWIII, no doubt. Though it looks like the major hit will happen far from here - otherwise it wouldn't be effective in population reduction. On a second thought this does not preclude it from affecting low population density countries or even starting there, this just means that it has to severely affect countries like India and China at some point...
I am unfamiliar with the "passionaries" theory, so I can't say. I was tempted to Google it, but I suspect that would be worse than ignorance, so if you'd care to elaborate, I'll read it. Otherwise, I'll dig it up on my own.
As for idiocracy, it's just a satirical look at this trend. Looks dumb on the surface, isn't dumb underneath.
The only issue with this is that overpopulataion is only an issue in regard to consumption of resources - maybe if the underlying calculations in the two movies mentioned were made to consider the consumption per head then the 'adjustment' would more affect the population areas of high consumption.
China has very effectively controlled its population and also most of the population numbers are living in a sustainable way with regard to resources. Maybe the 'hit' will happen closer to home than the movies would indicate?
I think it is a personal choice. All of my kids were planned and wanted and I am so glad I had them. But some people are happy to not have kids. I think that is great for them too!
Good. It's a personal choice, yes. So many kids in existence that are waiting for adoptive parents anyway.
by Ladybird33 10 years ago
What do you think about that? No Paul on Idol?
by accofranco 6 years ago
I love America so much and I really hope to see America last longer as the world's most powerful nation, but not with the way things are going right now in America.Anyway, to cut the long story short, I have studied the American society from afar and I have come to discover three major things that...
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
Though this is still in the religion forum, it is also a political issue and a spiritual issue (which to me has some additional/different attributes than as a religious issue)As a spiritual issue, for me, believing what I do from my years of experience, study and practice of spiritual things...the...
by vivienblue_06 8 years ago
is it true that only men can make the choice in choosing their partner in life? cause' here in our country, courting a man makes you look like a flirt.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family...
by Vandana 2 years ago
Suddenly this question strike in my mind today ... " Which is more important LOVE OR MONEY" to live a happy life ?? If any one have to select her partner which criteria one should follow for choosing her life partner..
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|