article on opting out of parenthood for financial reasons

[gouf78]

<p>Actually according to a USA Today article I just looked up in response to Roman’s “Leap” comment,(73,75) the percentages are even worse than TatinG states depending on your parameters. Sorry I can’t provide the link–I googled “percentage of children born to unmarried parents”.</p>

[alh]

<p>ecouter: if you don’t already know this link, you may find it interesting. dadx posted this link in another thread recently.</p>

<p>[Women</a> CEOs of the Fortune 1000 : Catalyst](<a href=“http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000]Women”>http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000)
dadx wrote:

Its worthwhile (for ambitious or curious people) to look at the backgrounds of women who hold these jobs. They are filled with ambitious and smart people who are willing to put their careers ahead of their family life. They are also filled with women who have educational backgrounds that are biased toward the hard sciences. That is likely to be true also of the women who are in high paying jobs, but not quite CEO level

</p>

[TatinG]

<p>Romineyes: No it’s not such a leap. </p>

<p>40.8% of all children are born to unmarried mothers.</p>

<p>1/3 of children in the US have no dad in the home. </p>

<p>Now obviously there are children with no dad whose parents were once married and there are children whose parents are unmarried but living together. But there is a correlation.</p>

[alh]

<p>TatinG wrote:

Isn’t it odd that middle and upper income women are opting out of motherhood for financial reasons, but those who cannot support their children are not.

</p>

<p>

Highlights of the report include:</p>

<p>_The birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year, dropping by 3 percent from 2010 to 2011. The birth rate for married women, however, rose 1 percent. In most cases, married women are older and more financially secure.</p>

<p>_The birth rate for Hispanic women dropped a whopping 6 percent. But it declined only 2 percent for black women, stayed the same for whites and actually rose a bit for Asian-American and Pacific Islanders.</p>

<p>_Birth rates fell again for women in their early 20s, down 5 percent from 2010 – the lowest mark for women in that age group since 1940, when comprehensive national birth records were first compiled. For women in their late 20s, birth rates fell 1 percent.</p>

<p>_But birth rates held steady for women in their early 30s, and rose for moms ages 35 and older. Experts say that’s not surprising: Older women generally have better jobs or financial security, and are more sensitive to the ticking away of their biological clocks.</p>

<p>_Birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low. The number of teen births last year – about 330,000 – was the fewest in one year since 1946. The teen birth rate fell 8 percent, and at 31 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19 was the lowest recorded in more than seven decades.</p>

<p>“The continued decline in the teen birth rates is astounding,” said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health.

</p>

<p>[Birth</a> Rate In U.S. Down For Fourth Year In A Row](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>

<p>post 57 links to another article</p>

<p>TatinG wrote:

Some huge percentage (40, 50 60%) of children born in the US are born to unmarried women.

</p>

<p>

Prevalence: Single motherhood is very common. Around half of today’s mothers will spend at
least some time as the sole custodial parent.1 At any one time, almost one quarter of mothers are
single mothers.2
Characteristics: Around 45% of single mothers have never married, around 55% are divorced,
separated or widowed.3 Half have one child, 30% have two.4 About two fifths are White, one
third Black, one quarter Hispanic.5 One quarter have a college degree, one sixth have not
completed high school.6

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources--publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf[/url]”>http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources--publications/single-mothers-snapshot.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[gouf78]

<p>Don’t you wish we could simplify things for society?
Under 18–just say no
18-30–you decide
over 30–now or never…</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>Gouf, the leap is that all children to unmarried mothers will have absentee fathers. HUGE leap.</p>

[gouf78]

<p>True, Roman, but at those large percentages there is a statistically large amount that will have absentee fathers.</p>

[Krlilies]

<p>

@TatinG

Isn’t it odd that middle and upper income women are opting out of motherhood for financial reasons, but those who cannot support their children are not.

Agree, it’s a global issue.</p>

<p>“Countries with very high fertility are usually dirt-poor—peasants value extra hands, however small, to help in the fields. (In Niger, which has a GDP per person of $700, the average woman can expect to bear more than seven children.) Low-fertility countries (with significant exceptions, such as China) tend to be rich. The Harvard study confirms that this pattern is replicated within countries: as a rule, the poor tend to have larger families. The authors use Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), which contain a lot of detail about family structure and household assets. DHS data from 60 developing countries enable them to divide households into five income groups and to show that in every continent, the “youth-dependency ratio” (the number of children under 15 compared with the working-age population) is lowest in the richest group, next lowest in the next-richest group and so on. The poorest group has the highest youth-dependency ratio. The gap between top and bottom is marked. Ratios in the richest households are a third below those in the poorest ones.</p>

<p>A tendency to have large, poor families seems to be handed down from mother to daughter. Conversely, the rich are more likely to educate their daughters and have no trouble obtaining contraceptives, so smaller, better-educated families also pass from mother to daughter. These trends reduce fertility among the rich while leaving it higher among the poor.”
[Free</a> exchange: Baby monitor | The Economist](<a href=“Baby monitor”>Baby monitor)</p>

<p>“The world now averages about 267 births per minute, with nearly all the growth attributed to the world’s poorest countries in the developing world, according to the Population Reference Bureau’s (PRB) 2012 World Population Data Sheet. The world’s developed countries, by contrast, are either seeing limited or no growth at all.”
[Baby</a> boom to boost populations of some of poorest countries - Washington Times](<a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/18/baby-boom-boost-populations-some-poorest-countries/]Baby”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/18/baby-boom-boost-populations-some-poorest-countries/)</p>

[Bay]

<p>

But this perpetuates the idea that caring for a child is the <em>mother’s</em> role, with father as just an add-on or helper.

</p>

<p>This is how it was for me, my mother, my sister, both sisters-in-law and all of my close female friends. My brother shared the role with his wife more, but my impression was that this was because she refused to be the major care-giver, not because he really wanted to do it.</p>

<p>Whether women tend to take the reins in raising children because they really want to, or because they don’t have a choice (non-participatory spouse), or because they feel societal pressure to do so is unclear. What is clear to me is that this is still the dominant model in our society. It doesn’t mean that it is the only model that works. But it is the reason why I prepared my D’s for it to happen to them.</p>

[mythmom]

<p>I have many responses to this interesting thread.</p>

<p>I agree with those who suggest that motherhood, or parenthood, as some correct, will always be undervalued under patriarchy.</p>

<p>I think we also need to recognize that we are approaching a time of such economic frenzy that all activities that don’t relate to earning or consuming goods will be undervalued. If course, this is a very disturbing condition.</p>

<p>Given this situation, I am happy that my mothering has escaped society’s interest and reductionistic gaze. It has been relegated to the personal sphere, like an intense love affair, but in this way it escapes scrutiny and evaluation.</p>

<p>Of course, raising children has positive social value, but if this were socially rewarded parenting might be judged in an outcome based way with society weighing in on my parenting choices.</p>

<p>My H and I did not co-parent. He really did not have the skill set or desire. And many years I have earned more than he has, so I’ve had two big jobs. His job has been to take of me so I could fulfill these responsibilities. The isn’t what I chose, but it is what has evolved.</p>

<p>Three people, my H and my two kids, have given me ample recognition for my devotion. I have been privileged to do two jobs without outside help beyond very good preschool. I don’t judge other solutions as less; this has just been the shape of my life.</p>

<p>I also like straddling public and private spheres with a solid foot in each. It’s my way of feeling complete. Both my kids decided to legally change their names to mine with absolutely no prompting from me. They had had a hyphenated name. They let me know that they appreciated my input.</p>

<p>I have had a full time and a part-time college teaching career for 30 years. By continuing to employ me, my employers and my paycheck, as well as my students, have let me know they value my input.</p>

<p>I have become immune to what soviet thinks.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>It 's interesting, Bay, because the exact reason you prepared your daughters for “it to happen to them” is the reason a lot of my D’s friends, as well as my daughters, themselves, are leery of the idea of having children. The don’t want anything “to happen to them” and prefer to choose their own path.</p>

<p>I hope they will find real partners. So far, most of the boys/men they have been involved with have been very equal minded. I don’t know if that is because those are the ones they are choosing or because there are more of those guys out there? Given what I hear about the behavior on most college campuses, I tend to believe my daughters just happen to be choosing the better young men. I could be wrong, though. I’m not in college myself, or even in my early 20s.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

the exact reason you prepared your daughters for “it to happen to them” is the reason a lot of my D’s friends, as well as my daughters, themselves, are leery of the idea of having children.

</p>

<p>Then this discussion comes full-circle. There really should be no reason to be leery of motherhood. Why are they leery? Has someone or society led them to believe that motherhood is an unpleasant condition?</p>

[alh]

<p>

Whether women tend to take the reins in raising children because they really want to, or because they don’t have a choice (non-participatory spouse), or because they feel societal pressure to do so is unclear. What is clear to me is that this is still the dominant model in our society. It doesn’t mean that it is the only model that works. But it is the reason why I prepared my D’s for it to happen to them.

</p>

<p>This is why I start to wonder about those single mother statistics. Some friends, well educated and well employed, after having children, divorced their non-participatory husbands. They could take care of themselves. They could take care of the children. It wasn’t worth it any longer to take care of a husband, too. </p>

<p>These days some women really don’t need husbands to raise children.</p>

<p>I have to admit not being in charge of your life, and things just happening, seems rather unpleasant to me. We can’t plan for everything once we have children, but who takes care of basic childcare is definitely something that can be planned. My own sons were raised with the expectation of co-parenting if they had children and that parenting is a privilege.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>I am very grateful over the course of more than two decades of parenting, for the women (and in my personal experience they were all women) who brought their considerable gifts, education, drive, ambition and creativity to my kids’ schools and activities. I think there are a lot of organizations that would be diminished for their absence.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>I just had a conversation at lunch today with a very successful lawyer in her late 30s. She is at the end of her first pregnancy and not married. She said that she hadn’t found the right man and wasn’t willing to pass on motherhood, so she used a donor and is going to do it herself. She has considerable resources and I have no doubt she will succeed and her child will be blessed. </p>

<p>I do worry about women of lesser resources doing it alone. I wasn’t kidding that if my son becomes a father without the benefit of marriage, I will do everything in my power to make sure that he IS a father. I hope he uses condoms.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

I have to admit not being in charge of your life, and things just happening, seems rather unpleasant to me.

</p>

<p>See, this is that way of thinking that has me perplexed. The fact that it is likely that my Ds will end up being the primary care-takers of their own children means they are not in charge of their lives? As though that result is an unpleasant thing that will befall them?</p>

<p>No, they will become the primary care-taker for one of the 3 reasons I mentioned, but each reason involves making her own choice to take that role.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Bay, did your husband support the house financially the whole time?</p>

<p>It’s something from the past, for the most part, and women have to be prepared to take care of themselves and their children completely. It’s a big choice.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if my girls do have kids, in the end. But, they will work outside the home. women who do not work outside the home are already the exception, for financial reasons, as well as reasons of personal ambition. It’s just a big choice. They know what the choice is. They may get lucky and have some guy there who really participates, but if the guy isn’t there to participate or changes his mind in five years? It’s not like they can change their mind. </p>

<p>I like the line from “Eat, pray, love…” “Making the decision to have a child is like getting a face tattoo. You need to be fully committed.”</p>

[alh]

<p>

Whether women tend to take the reins in raising children because 1 they really want to, or2 because they don’t have a choice (non-participatory spouse), or3 because they feel societal pressure to do so is unclear. What is clear to me is that this is still the dominant model in our society. It doesn’t mean that it is the only model that works. But it is the reason why I prepared my D’s for it to happen to them.

</p>

<p>Are these the three reasons? I only see number 1 as a true choice. Maybe I am misreading you?</p>

<p>poetgrl: I could have supported my children on my own if I had had to do so. I think that is key. It is an absolute luxury in the current economic situation for one parent to choose to be home with children rather than earning money.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Bay, did your husband support the house financially the whole time?

</p>

<p>Do you mean “solely?” No, as I said, I worked through the births of 3 children.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Are these the three reasons? I only see number 1 as a true choice. Maybe I am misreading you?

</p>

<p>Must we split hairs here? Of course it is a woman’s choice whether to become the primary caregiver, regardless of the reason or whether she feels pressure to do so. A woman can abandon her child to foster care or drop the child on a doorstep and skip the country. No one can force her to be a mother, even if she gave birth. What is your point?</p>