More American women are choosing not to have children-report

1. 62

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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,

      replyreport
      1. 62

         SunSevenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, PDH you should see Singaporeans. The latest report is out and the child birth rate is at all time low here.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
      2. 79

         TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         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.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            ngurecoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's very good. The growth or progression of mankind can be made only if people give birth, at least two children for every couple.

            replyreport
   2. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "submitting"?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Don't like the word I used. Too bad.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Wondering why you chose it.

               replyreport
2. 61

   chigoiykeposted 13 years ago

   Whatever...

   replyreport
   1. 88

      WryLiltposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
      1. 62

         pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         but two is also big time responsibility..isn't it?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            WryLiltposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes... but once you have two you can go back to work while they goto school or daycare...
            
            If you keep having kids you'll barely work between all the maternity leave.

            replyreport
   2. 56

      Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "whatever"?

      replyreport
3. 61

   chigoiykeposted 13 years ago

   Lol. Like how many?

   replyreport
4. 65

   Flavie Lololposted 13 years ago

   Women have no problem with having babies. It's men who are not serious with this issue of children.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      well report says women are choosing of not having children..

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Flavie Lololposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         1 Cor. 11:3. That question should have been asked to men.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            which question?

            replyreport
            1. 88

               WryLiltposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               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...

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "In the end, it's a woman's body, and it's her choice if she wants children - NOT the mans."
                  
                  That's overly simplistic.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not even close to true.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I assure you that plenty of women don't want to have babies.

      replyreport
5. 61

   chigoiykeposted 13 years ago

   Lol

   replyreport
6. 70

   getitriteposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 62

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
7. 62

   SunSevenposted 13 years ago

   Isn't it great?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      well my personal opinion is that it is personal choice..

      replyreport
8. 62

   SunSevenposted 13 years ago

   So its not thier personal choice? Is someone forcing them?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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..

      replyreport
9. 65

   Ladybird33posted 13 years ago

   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 !

   replyreport
10. 62

    SunSevenposted 13 years ago

    Anyway, great news. Thanks for sharing.

    replyreport
    1. 56

       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       ???
       What's "great news"?

       replyreport
       1. 62

          SunSevenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          LOL, No salt? take it with it

          replyreport
          1. 56

             Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             What do you mean?

             replyreport
11. 81

    ngurecoposted 13 years ago

    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.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       migrants would keep coming..usa is considered dream land specially in developing and under developed countries..

       replyreport
    2. 63

       prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          ngurecoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Should people consider this to be the right thing for a country. I myself do not think it is right.

          replyreport
          1. 63

             prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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.

             replyreport
12. 62

    SunSevenposted 13 years ago

    Isn't America a country of migrants?

    replyreport
    1. 62

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       @sunseven... well you have a point out here..

       replyreport
    2. 83

       kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       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!

       replyreport
       1. 56

          Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That's ridiculous. Of course we do.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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.

             replyreport
             1. 56

                Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                replyreport
             2. 85

                wychicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                replyreport
                1. 56

                   Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   " 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?

                   replyreport
                   1. 85

                      wychicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Brush up on US history...the people who were here first did not have white skin, a fact that is often conveniently forgotten .

                      replyreport
                      1. 56

                         Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         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.

                         replyreport
                         1. 83

                            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            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?
                            
                            LOL

                            replyreport
                            1. 85

                               wychicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Exactly, just because it's called the United States now, doesn't make it different land.

                               replyreport
                               1. 56

                                  Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  We are not talking about the continent, we are talking about a specific nation.

                                  replyreport
                            2. 56

                               Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Not the slightest bit ironic, no.

                               replyreport
                               1. 83

                                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  LOL
                                  
                                  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?

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 77

                                     Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     

                                     replyreport
                                  2. 56

                                     Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     Please refrain from personal insults. Thank you.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 83

                                        kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        Is calling someone smart and successful really considered an insult in the circles you run in? Huh.
                                        
                                        Personally, I've always considered it a compliment!

                                        report
13. 61

    ediggityposted 13 years ago

    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.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       quite right..

       replyreport
    2. 79

       TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       
       NOT that there's anything wrong with that....

       replyreport
       1. 61

          ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Not at all.

          replyreport
14. 58

    Dr Love 69posted 13 years ago

    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.)

    replyreport
    1. 56

       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "The world is over-populated. "
       
       
       NO it's not.
       
       
       " If my now ex-wife had not been so insistent about having kids when we were married I would not have kids."
       
       I'll bet your kids would be touched by such a warm sentiment....
       
       ... *comment deleted*

       replyreport
15. 74

    Richieb799posted 13 years ago

    what about all the single mums in the UK then?

    replyreport
16. 62

    SunSevenposted 13 years ago

    If there were no migrants, there would've been no America, as it is today.

    replyreport
17. 78

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    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.

    replyreport
    1. 56

       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "rewarded" for "less kids, no kids"?
       
       ????????????
       
       Huh?

       replyreport
       1. 78

          mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          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!

          replyreport
          1. 78

             mega1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             oh, right, I forgot who I was talking to!  hahaha  the one who often pretends to not understand. . . so long, sab oh

             replyreport
             1. 56

                Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Take little personal barbs if you want, but I really don't see why "less is more."

                replyreport
          2. 56

             Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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.

             replyreport
18. 63

    Mishaposted 13 years ago

    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

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
       1. 56

          Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          ...

          replyreport
       2. 0

          china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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."
             
             Changes nothing. 
             
             The lion that is too lazy to hunt is just as hungry as the one whose parents never showed it how to.

             replyreport
       3. 61

          ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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.

             replyreport
       4. 63

          Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          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...

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             
             
             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.

             replyreport
          2. 0

             china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             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?

             replyreport
19. 64

    Wendy Krickposted 13 years ago

    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!

    replyreport
20. 68

    torimariposted 13 years ago

    Good. It's a personal choice, yes. So many kids in existence that are waiting for adoptive parents anyway.

    replyreport
    1. 56

       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       What's the connection?

       replyreport