A recent study published in Scientific Reports suggests that political beliefs are increasingly linked to the number of children Americans choose to have. The findings indicate that while conservative individuals tend to maintain birth rates near historical averages, left-leaning individuals are having significantly fewer children. This demographic trend provides evidence that differing birth rates are a main driver of recent fertility declines in the United States.
The data revealed a pronounced change in how political beliefs relate to family size. For individuals born in the early 1900s, political orientation had almost no association with the number of children they had. However, beginning with the cohort born between 1943 and 1947, a massive divergence emerged.
“We expected these results, but not to such a dramatic extent,” Fieder told PsyPost. From the mid-century cohorts onward, individuals with right-wing political views maintained birth rates at or slightly above the replacement level. The replacement level, typically considered to be 2.1 children per woman, is the rate needed for a population to replace itself from one generation to the next without immigration.
In contrast, the birth rates of left-wing individuals dropped sharply, falling well below the replacement level in the more recent cohorts. The authors noticed this drop aligns with historical changes in family planning. “We found that the gap began with the introduction of modern contraception,” Fieder said.
-
Low birth rates are a problem for capitalism, not humanity.
-
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
The second one is entitled shit.
EDIT: evidently my comment is nowhere near clear enough: what I mean is that thinking that any woman having the choice, automatically chooses not to get children, is entitled shit.
Bodily autonomy is entitlement, but not shit
The commenter writes that any woman would always have less children if given a choice: I don’t agree, as there are also women who want to have many children and it’s also ok. I’m all in for autonomy.
When women are given the choice, overall they choose to have less children.
The women having more children are not having enough to offset the amount of women choosing to have less.
Agreed! But your sentence has a very different meaning from the one I addressed
You’re being pedantic.
You might be right :)
Yes, because women are entitled to make decisions about their own bodies. Glad you’re following along.
Exactly, but how the sentence is written implies that any woman with a choice, would choose to avoid children. I see it as discriminatory, as there are many women who freely choose to have many children.
I did, and am progressive as fuck. I just like kids. Had 4 then married a guy with 5. I love having a big family and the kids love the extended network of siblings. There’s room for me to do that because so many people are having none so I appreciate those people a lot, but am not among them. Raising kids was the best work I have ever done.
Thank you for this. I have the utmost respect for people who take on the care of raising children well. I only have one and it’s hard as fuck.
You called women having a choice “entitled shit”.
Why are you backtracking to make yourself sound less abrasive?
What I meant is that the commenter and people thinking that women having a choice directly choose not to have children are acting entitled and it’s shit. So the opposite of what is being read out of my comment. Probably I wrote it just badly 😆
Ironic don’t you think? Lol
What? Lol
there are many women who freely choose to have many children.
Sure
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
No? Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
When women have access to education, career opportunities, and contraception, birth rates drop.
Sure, but even then they stay above replacement. You need the economic calculus of an urbanized capitalist economy to get the shitshow seen in most of the developed world.
Affordability is only 36% of the stated reasons women aren’t having more children.
The other reasons are: still looking for the right spouse, lifestyle or career, family is still growing, and trouble conceiving.
There’s many reasons and just shrugging and saying it’s the economy doesn’t explain enough.
I mean there are many reasons, but it’s still obvious from the data that a more accommodating society (both economically and otherwise) would have more children. It’d be easy to argue, for example, that “still looking for the right spouse,” is at least partially caused by delays in entering long-term relationships until it’s financially viable, and this also ties into “trouble conceiving,” because people are expected to spend the years they’d have the easiest time conceiving advancing their careers so they can provide a decent life to their future children. It’d also be absurd to suggest the necessity of two-income households hasn’t contributed to women prioritizing their careers over starting families*. What “affordability” really means here is the proportion of women who’d be able to have more children right now if not for money; it doesn’t count knock-on effects that boil down to unaffordability. Modern urbanized societies are deeply unkind to mothers in ways that need to be untangled before current birth rates can be presented as the results of freedom.
*To be clear, this is perfectly fine as long as it’s a free choice, but clearly in most cases it’s an attempt to optimize against social and economic conditions. Current birth rates aren’t any freer a choice than those of two centuries ago; both are responses to social conditions that make one choice much more optimal compared to others.
One could argue those other reasons are symptoms of a bad economy.
Right and I agree to an extent. The conversations around this subject always conclude the rates will start to go up if the economy is better or if the US enacts maternity leave and care.
But that doesn’t explain why other countries that have parental leave and better support systems are also seeing falling fertility and birth rates.
The connecting piece that seems to be emerging is women’s ability to control their reproductive health and access to education.
What percentage of the reason is simply a refusing to manufacture additional meat for the orphan crushing machine?
Among women under 35 today, 30% already have children, 41% say they want to have children, 15% are not sure, and only 14% say they don’t wish to have children, according to a new Institute for Family Studies/YouGov survey of 2,000 young adults conducted in May to June of 2024.
From the article that @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io linked…which I’m just now realizing is from Institute for Family Studies a fucking conservative think tank:
The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative “think tank” which, according to its website, has the expressed mission “to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education.”[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. “IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox’s National Marriage Project.”[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its “commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself – both at home and abroad – are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry.”[4]
IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as “think tanks” and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.
Trouble conceiving is often related to age. Ability to conceive naturally drops in women’s thirties. If a woman in her twenties didn’t think her family could support kids, then in her thirties she may find out she’s having trouble conceiving
We should stop making young people support people in old age. It drops fertility, makes the electorate older and more likely to vote for more benefits for themselves.
One example is rent control. It only decreases your cost of living if you’ve been there a long time. It decreases the supply of housing long term
Women in their twenties are delaying children for a multitude of reasons and career opportunities and education are big factors.
When given the choice via contraception and reproductive health, women have children later in their lives.
Wow, you really linked to the Institute of Family Studies?
The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a conservative “think tank” which, according to its website, has the expressed mission “to strengthen marriage and natural family and advancing the well-being of children through research and public education.”[1] Research from IFS and its employees are frequently cited and published in both conservative outlets such as National Review [2] and more mainstream ones, like the Washington Post.[3]. “IFS is a successor to the Ridge Foundation, through which Bradley and others used to support Wilcox’s National Marriage Project.”[1] The Institute for Family Studies says that its “commitment is rooted in the social-science fact that children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own married biological parents. The underlying premise of its work is that families and communities, freedom and prosperity, and the political order itself – both at home and abroad – are all critically dependent upon the existence of a strong healthy, pervasive marriage culture among the citizenry.”[4]
IFS is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as “think tanks” and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.
That’s not a credible source at all.
TIL, but also I mean, I wouldn’t trust it to interpret data or give me unbiased information but there’s only so much you can mess with in a survey. They’d also be more blatant about it if the data was doctored.
They can absolutely fuck with surveys. How questions are phrased is one way. We have no idea how they collected this data. They’re not a trustworthy source because they have an agenda to force women to have more children.
When given a choice, women choose to have fewer babies.
No? Most women say they’d have more kids if they could afford it.
Which most can’t, so they wisely choose not to when given a choice.
Not doing something because one can’t afford it isn’t a choice; women in developed countries aren’t choosing not to have children any more than I’m choosing not to buy a private jet.
I mean, you’re right and you’re not right:
Non-wealthy but not destitute and dominated women can decide to limit the number of children they have to an economically and otherwise responsible amount. That’s an ACTUAL available choice.
The aforementioned destitute and dominated women (whether due to patriarchal dictates, authoritarian legislation, or other impediments to their freedom of choice) might not have that choice, but that doesn’t mean that those WITH the choice aren’t often choosing to forgo additional/any children for partly or wholly economic reasons.
That’s an ACTUAL available choice.
It’s technically an available choice, but my argument is that the consequences to not making the optimal choice are so harsh that it might as well not be a choice at all. For a somewhat absurd example, one could technically choose not to work and just be homeless, but obviously that doesn’t mean we’re free to choose whether or not to work. Freedom is a spectrum and birth rates for the working class (especially working class women) tend to be closer to “not free” than “free” on that spectrum.
PS: To be clear my intention isn’t to invalidate anyone’s choice to have or not to have children; my problem is with presenting the current situation as the unavoidable result of women’s liberation when in reality there’s a clear set of avoidable incentives leading to declining birthrates.
But choosing to not have children because they can’t afford it is a relatively new freedom women have.
Be as pissy as you want, contraception has changed our fertility and birth rates. Poor women didn’t have a choice before even if they couldn’t afford to have more kids.
deleted by creator
-
The descent into Idiocracy has begun.
Right? Like, I understand not wanting to have kids, it’s not that it’s an irrational decision. But that’s the whole point of the intro to Idiocracy. If only irrational people are pumping out kids, it’s only a few generations before the population is composed entirely of the irrational and their kids.
Take it to the next step then - what option other than allowing women to have the choice do we have?
I’m not convinced to start stripping women of their right to choose because we might become a plot of a movie.
This is a manufactured problem being used to control women.
Why do you think abortion is illegal again in some states in the US?
Because having a kid gives people a lot of leverage over you. Suddenly, you need to think twice about leaving a shit job or a shit spouse or a shit anything else.
That’s true, but women should still be allowed to choose that for themselves.
Having a kid can also be motivation to leave those situations.
Uh, I think you’ve radically misconstrued my point.
I’m asking you clarifying questions.
Not really? I didn’t say anything about what people should or shouldn’t be allowed to do. Obviously women should have the autonomy to not have children if they so choose. I’m just observing that, like with every choice, there are consequences.
Children born to conservative parents arent doomed to be conservative the rest of their lives.
I don’t like this insinuation that it’s women’s fault if conservatives (correction: the “irrational”) take over because they are choosing to not have children.
I know many children of conservative parents, and many of them are, in fact, conservative. Not that they’ve given it much thought. Still, it contributes to a rightward trend.
But when did I say anything about anything being anyone’s “fault”? Again, you’re misconstruing my point.
This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics, which has repetitively been empirically refuted.
We’ve been in the idiocracy for decades, what else is new?
This sounds like the study was funded by anti abortion losers. Contraception isn’t the problem, its billionaires, lobbyists, and politicians making it utterly unaffordable and morally wrong in multiple ways, but only left leaning people would even consider holding back on having children based on how much suffering they would guarantee their own children by merely giving birth to them.
Also correlation is not causation. People living in denser cities both tend to lean left and have a higher cost of living, which makes a family less practical. People living in rural areas tend to lean right, have a lower cost of living, and live closer to more family, which makes starting a family of their own much easier.
conservatives think people should have more children and the study finds they do in fact have more children. i don’t see what the problem is here
Translation: people who recognize this shit sucks and don’t want to inflict it upon a child happen to be leftists.
Just like animals, humans don’t like to breed in captivity.
When given the choice, women choose to delay having children and they don’t have as many children as they were forced to before contraception was available.
The economy doesn’t help, but it’s not the main driving force.
You will find that men agree to the same extent.
Right, but men didn’t gain contraception access and education and career opportunities the same way women did.
They already had it.
Great. It’s being posted in more places.
Hypothetical, polarized fantasy.
Every quote from the actual science is about how it is only correlation. Nothing factual or remotely concrete.
Another over-hyped nothing burger.
Oh no.
Anyway.
Pretty much, in meat-space the only people ive seen who actually think this is a problem are conservative bellends or economists.
Okay, so young people are a lot more conservative than before because left-leaning people don’t have kids. Enjoy losing every election?
Well, it’s not like conservatives raise conservative kids at a one to one. How can you be sure leftist gene is passed?
No, we need to build giant breeding factories and cull the non believers in their youth!
Oh My God! I can walk again!
The left is not raising all leftist kids either. As long as it’s way north of 50% it’s an issue
Forcing leftist women to have more children than they want sure isn’t the solution.
I don’t want to force anyone, I’m stating a clear problem
It’s not a problem. Women choosing how many children they want and when they want to have them is not a problem.
There are people who want you to think it’s a problem so they can be allowed to strip women of their reproductive rights.
Women who want to have kids but can’t afford them is definitely an issue
Then you haven’t actually read many articles about this issue. You’ve just read headlines and assumed.
40% of women don’t have kids because they can’t afford it
Just a wee bit of well placed eugenics and we can finally overcome that pesky Southern Tribe once and for all!
Let me guess before I open: The intro to idiocracy?
Edit: Gotta love it
Did they correct and account for geography? Urban vs rural have different living conditions and other influential factors.
Just a few obvious influences: My cousins had some food advantages being on a farm as its a little easier to keep pigs and chickens. Meanwhile in the Tristate area I had access to better medical. Education was a toss up in someways in that I had a lot of economic advantages at the cost of over capacity (FFF: Facility and Faculty always gets Fucked with the budget). My long time partner grew up in Wisconsin and just my graduating class was bigger than her entire high school, middle school, elementary.
Don’t worry, Christians are capitalizing on widespread porn
addictionuse by suggesting men can reclaim their power by saving their valuable sperm inside their balls.This isn’t a joke.
Edit: I used addiction wrong, porn use can be associated with sex based compulsivity but is not indicative of an addiction.
Thank you for bringing this up!
Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction, You Should, Too
Over recent years, numerous studies have begun to suggest that there is more to the story than just porn. Instead, we’ve had growing hints that the conflicts and struggles over porn use have more to do with morality and religion, rather than pornography itself. I’ve covered this surge of research in numerous posts and articles.
Now, researchers have put a nail in the coffin of porn addiction. Josh Grubbs, Samuel Perry, and Joshua Wilt are some of the leading researchers on America’s struggles with porn, having published numerous studies examining the impact of porn use, belief in porn addiction, and the effect of porn on marriages. And Rory Reid is a UCLA researcher who was a leading proponent in gathering information about the concept of hypersexual disorder for the DSM-5. These four researchers, all of whom have a history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does.
Right, I misused addiction — but my point still stands. Christians are trying to convince young men that life force is stored in the balls, and jerking off diminishes that life force.
I never understood that line of thought. If you need to “hold onto your life source” then get a vasectomy.
No that cuts off the life force, you need to allow it to gestate in the fertile seeds that are the balls.
I hate that I had these thoughts.
Somebody posted to Asklemmy the other day on the subject who wasn’t christian but instead referenced an islamic background.
Well Evangelists would love for Christianity to be more like Islam, so that tracks.
Oh I’m agreeing with you :)
The article I linked supports your comment about Christians pushing that porn addiction is a thing.
Also, the lack of Pirates causes climate change: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/
Are you trying to make a point that correlation does not equal causation? Cause I have been scratching my head wondering what your comment has to do with the current discussion in this thread.
Yes. To quote the Forbes article:
So, when someone proposes a cause and effect relationship between two things - reduction in pirates causing global warming; Obama creating the global economic crisis; young people ruining American business - ask for the data that shows they’re related, rather than simply that they’re happening at the same time.
Isnt this one of the beliefs of Pastafarians?
The data shows that belief in pastafarianism is caused by understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
I’ve been fed that line that I’m selfish for not wanting kids. I ask them why they had theirs. They’ll feed me some BS, but we all know the majority had them for selfish reasons.
Yeah the choice to have or not have children should be regarded with much more respect by everyone.
Not everyone in here is child-free by the way.
I assume most of the people here have kids.
Ah so you decided to feed all of us the line that we’re selfish for having kids in a comment where you’re complaining about being told you’re selfish for not having kids.
Thanks for clarifying.
I said the majority of people have kids for selfish reasons. Why did you have kids?
Does it matter? We shouldn’t judge others’ personal decisions for their own lives, right?
I judge those that judge me, but thanks for clarifying. I never said there was anything wrong with having a kid for selfish reasons. I just think it’s important to be honest with one’s self.
When we put our thoughts out into the world, sometimes people will respond to them.
I hope you have a great end to your week and have a relaxing weekend.
Not having kids with the state of the world the way it is is pretty selfless. I respect that
I feel so guilty for having my kids. In all my life I never expected this to be reality. I hope they forgive me.
People have been having children in terrible conditions for a long, long time. I like to focus on the small joys when I start to feel this way about having kids.
Remember the joy you see on their faces when you’re spending time with them. Celebrate their cleverness and their love. Focus on building your real community around you for them and for yourself. Help neighbors. Grow plants. Reconnect with the good parts of life.
We all make decisions with what we know at the time. It’s easy to beat ourselves up when we have more information and wisdom than we did before.
Very kind of you to say, thank you.
How long before we are just mass growing babies in petri dishes and decanting bottles on an assembly line like brave new world?
Considering the attack on IVF, I don’t think that’s what conservatives have in mind for the solution to this supposed problem.
Yeah they clearly plan on the easier, cheaper, and more vile option: forcing pregnancy onto people via denial of access to contraceptives
i think it’d be more akin to the kriegsmen being mass produced in iron wombs ala 40k, personally.
Who Wants to Grow a Baby?
Pilot episode.
“Joel, you’ve had some experience in this arena before. Willing to let us know where Sample 1 stands?”
“Sure, Candy!”
sip sip sip
swish swish swish
spit
“This semen has a smoky flavour, but not from the test tube it was stored in. It’s more acrid, and heavy with PFSAs than you’d expect, leading me to conclude it comes from the southern Arizona region. Historically, sibling pairing has been noted in that area, and this drop doesn’t do anything to disabuse me of the notion the donor is, indeed, the offspring of brother and sister. All in all, a fairly inexpensive affair, but still unable to justify the price tag. One to be avoided, I think”.
We see how fucked up the world is and don’t feel ok with bringing more into it
