Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
there was an interesting article in this week's newsweek about the well-documented lowered birthrate in most Western (and some advanced) Asian countries. i thought there were some interesting points brought out in the article:
[q]The latest surge in childlessness does not follow historic patterns. For centuries in Western Europe, it was not unusual for a quarter of women to remain childless—a higher rate than in any country today. (In fact, demographers say it was the family-happy 1950s and '60s that defied the historical norm.) But in the past, childlessness was usually the product of poverty or upheaval, of missing men in times of war; infertility strikes 3 percent of couples at most. Today the decision to have—or not have—a child is the result of a complex combination of factors, including relationships, career opportunities, lifestyle and economics.
The new normalcy of childlessness affects all social classes, not just the stereotypical urban slackers or DINKs (double-income-no-kids). Katy Hoffmann, a 37-year-old hairstylist in the village of Friesack, an hour west of Berlin, says, "Even when I was a little girl I knew deep inside I didn't want children." Growing up in communist East Germany, the pressure was intense to marry and get pregnant by the age of 18, not least to qualify for a state-assigned flat. With the fall of the wall came the freedom to choose her life. Her husband, Lars, a 39-year-old firefighter, says he's long been indifferent to kids as well. "At the station the guys with kids tell us childless guys we should do our duty so that we Germans don't die out," he says. "But if I look at all the unemployment today, I'd say a little [population] shrinking couldn't hurt."
And while child-free households have long been common in the big cities of America and Western Europe, they're fast gaining acceptability in more-traditional rural societies as well. Only a few decades ago, Southern European countries like Italy, Greece and Spain were synonymous with fruitful families and tight knit clans— and their social ostracism of those who didn't fit the mold. Now those three countries are tied for Europe's lowest birthrate. Today close to a quarter of all 40-year-old Italian women expect to remain childless.
In some cases childlessness among women can be seen as a quiet form of protest. In Japan, which is in the midst of a child-free revolution, support for working mothers is almost non-existent (though recently that's begun to change). Child care is expensive, men don't help out, and some companies strongly discourage mothers from returning to work. No wonder women there think it's no coincidence that the Japanese word for "child" is pronounced the same way as "lonely." "Children are adorable, but in Japan it's career or child," says Kaori Haishi, author of "Reasons for Not Having a Baby." It's not just women who are opting out of parenthood; according to a recent study, Japanese men are even less inclined to marry or want a child. Their motivations, though, may have more to do with economic factors. Experts point to growing job insecurity and concern about the country's economic direction as driving forces for men's reluctance to raise a family.
At the same time, around the world it's mostly men who are at the head of a growing backlash against the childless. Politicians and religious leaders warn darkly of an "epidemic" of childlessness that saps the moral fiber of nations; they blame the child-free for impending population decline, the collapse of pension systems and even the rise in immigration. In Japan, commentators have identified the "parasite single" who lives off society instead of doing his duty to start a family.
In Germany, where the childless rate is the highest in the world, at 25 percent, the best-seller lists have been full of tomes forecasting demographic doomsday. In "Minimum," the conservative commentator Frank Schirrmacher describes a "spiral of childlessness," where a declining population becomes ever more reluctant to have kids. Media reports have stigmatized the "cold career woman"—one such recent article came with mug shots of childless female celebs—accusing them of placing their jobs before kids. Never mind that Germany trails its neighbors in the availability of child care, or the amount of time men spend helping around the house.
From Germany to Russia, there is increasing talk of sanctions against the childless. In Slovakia, a leading adviser on the government's Strategic Council on Economic Development proposed in March to replace an unpopular payroll tax with a levy on all childless Slovaks between the ages of 25 and 50. In Russia, where the birthrate has dropped from 2.3 in the 1980s to 1.3 today, a powerful business lobby has called for an income-tax surcharge on childless couples. In Germany, economists and politicians have demanded that public pensions for the childless be slashed by up to 50 percent—never mind that such pensions were invented as an alternative to senior citizens' having to depend on their offspring. These moves resonate favorably with voters and the media. Since a large majority of people in all countries still do have children, critics say such measures in effect serve as middle-class tax breaks in the guise of social policy.
In any case, there is no reason to believe that sanctions against the childless will do much to raise the birthrate. Germany, for instance, already spends more than any other country on family subsidies, and has the world's second-highest taxes on childless singles (after Belgium). Yet that hasn't done a thing to boost the birthrate. In fact, critics and demographers say that targeting the childless is misguided. "You can't emphasize enough that childlessness is not the reason for low birthrates," the LSE's Hakim says. Instead, study after study shows that the real culprit is a sharp drop in family size; in low-birthrate countries, those who do have children are just having one or two at most, instead of three or four. In Italy and Japan, among the 80 percent or so of women who do still have children, the one-child mini family has become the new social norm. This, too, is a modern lifestyle choice. "It's the minimal family that lets you off the hook from parents and social expectations, but exacts the least burden on your lifestyle," sociologist Hakim says.
[/q]
so what do we think?
is it fair to sanction those without children? conversely, is it "fair" to reward those who do have children? is it in society's interests to stigmatize those who choose to remain childless? what will happen to society in the long run if a one-child family becomes the norm? is this indicative of societies filled with people who refuse to change their lifestyles, or are people simply giving more thought to what it means to be a parent and choosing to opt out if they feel as if they cannot be a good parent? are these people setting themselves up for a very lonely old age?
[q]The latest surge in childlessness does not follow historic patterns. For centuries in Western Europe, it was not unusual for a quarter of women to remain childless—a higher rate than in any country today. (In fact, demographers say it was the family-happy 1950s and '60s that defied the historical norm.) But in the past, childlessness was usually the product of poverty or upheaval, of missing men in times of war; infertility strikes 3 percent of couples at most. Today the decision to have—or not have—a child is the result of a complex combination of factors, including relationships, career opportunities, lifestyle and economics.
The new normalcy of childlessness affects all social classes, not just the stereotypical urban slackers or DINKs (double-income-no-kids). Katy Hoffmann, a 37-year-old hairstylist in the village of Friesack, an hour west of Berlin, says, "Even when I was a little girl I knew deep inside I didn't want children." Growing up in communist East Germany, the pressure was intense to marry and get pregnant by the age of 18, not least to qualify for a state-assigned flat. With the fall of the wall came the freedom to choose her life. Her husband, Lars, a 39-year-old firefighter, says he's long been indifferent to kids as well. "At the station the guys with kids tell us childless guys we should do our duty so that we Germans don't die out," he says. "But if I look at all the unemployment today, I'd say a little [population] shrinking couldn't hurt."
And while child-free households have long been common in the big cities of America and Western Europe, they're fast gaining acceptability in more-traditional rural societies as well. Only a few decades ago, Southern European countries like Italy, Greece and Spain were synonymous with fruitful families and tight knit clans— and their social ostracism of those who didn't fit the mold. Now those three countries are tied for Europe's lowest birthrate. Today close to a quarter of all 40-year-old Italian women expect to remain childless.
In some cases childlessness among women can be seen as a quiet form of protest. In Japan, which is in the midst of a child-free revolution, support for working mothers is almost non-existent (though recently that's begun to change). Child care is expensive, men don't help out, and some companies strongly discourage mothers from returning to work. No wonder women there think it's no coincidence that the Japanese word for "child" is pronounced the same way as "lonely." "Children are adorable, but in Japan it's career or child," says Kaori Haishi, author of "Reasons for Not Having a Baby." It's not just women who are opting out of parenthood; according to a recent study, Japanese men are even less inclined to marry or want a child. Their motivations, though, may have more to do with economic factors. Experts point to growing job insecurity and concern about the country's economic direction as driving forces for men's reluctance to raise a family.
At the same time, around the world it's mostly men who are at the head of a growing backlash against the childless. Politicians and religious leaders warn darkly of an "epidemic" of childlessness that saps the moral fiber of nations; they blame the child-free for impending population decline, the collapse of pension systems and even the rise in immigration. In Japan, commentators have identified the "parasite single" who lives off society instead of doing his duty to start a family.
In Germany, where the childless rate is the highest in the world, at 25 percent, the best-seller lists have been full of tomes forecasting demographic doomsday. In "Minimum," the conservative commentator Frank Schirrmacher describes a "spiral of childlessness," where a declining population becomes ever more reluctant to have kids. Media reports have stigmatized the "cold career woman"—one such recent article came with mug shots of childless female celebs—accusing them of placing their jobs before kids. Never mind that Germany trails its neighbors in the availability of child care, or the amount of time men spend helping around the house.
From Germany to Russia, there is increasing talk of sanctions against the childless. In Slovakia, a leading adviser on the government's Strategic Council on Economic Development proposed in March to replace an unpopular payroll tax with a levy on all childless Slovaks between the ages of 25 and 50. In Russia, where the birthrate has dropped from 2.3 in the 1980s to 1.3 today, a powerful business lobby has called for an income-tax surcharge on childless couples. In Germany, economists and politicians have demanded that public pensions for the childless be slashed by up to 50 percent—never mind that such pensions were invented as an alternative to senior citizens' having to depend on their offspring. These moves resonate favorably with voters and the media. Since a large majority of people in all countries still do have children, critics say such measures in effect serve as middle-class tax breaks in the guise of social policy.
In any case, there is no reason to believe that sanctions against the childless will do much to raise the birthrate. Germany, for instance, already spends more than any other country on family subsidies, and has the world's second-highest taxes on childless singles (after Belgium). Yet that hasn't done a thing to boost the birthrate. In fact, critics and demographers say that targeting the childless is misguided. "You can't emphasize enough that childlessness is not the reason for low birthrates," the LSE's Hakim says. Instead, study after study shows that the real culprit is a sharp drop in family size; in low-birthrate countries, those who do have children are just having one or two at most, instead of three or four. In Italy and Japan, among the 80 percent or so of women who do still have children, the one-child mini family has become the new social norm. This, too, is a modern lifestyle choice. "It's the minimal family that lets you off the hook from parents and social expectations, but exacts the least burden on your lifestyle," sociologist Hakim says.
[/q]
so what do we think?
is it fair to sanction those without children? conversely, is it "fair" to reward those who do have children? is it in society's interests to stigmatize those who choose to remain childless? what will happen to society in the long run if a one-child family becomes the norm? is this indicative of societies filled with people who refuse to change their lifestyles, or are people simply giving more thought to what it means to be a parent and choosing to opt out if they feel as if they cannot be a good parent? are these people setting themselves up for a very lonely old age?
