[Take8435]

Birth rates would also improve when boys and men are educated. Both genders need education and child support programs. Men/Boys need to understand what responsibilities they have, if they choose to have a child. They also need to understand the effects that having a child has on a woman's body.

Governments around the world would benefit their society by investing in family planning, family support (esp. child care) to enable parents to work and provide for their family.

An educated and healthy populace (from infant to old age) benefits everyone.

[bhagyeshsp]

This is almost the opposite of what happens.

The more educated/developed a nation, the lesser their birth rate is going to be.

I understand the "shoulds" but that's not what the data suggests.

In essence, we can't have the pie and at the same time eat it.

The most useful thing education does for children is reduce child-mortality rate.[1]

Sources: https://raphael-godefroy.github.io/pdfs/mali_final.pdf

[1] https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503923

[Take8435]

This is misleading. Education is not the panacea. I am saying it's a "whole of family" approach. Governments need to also provide more support to families. This is clear to any parent.

[bhagyeshsp]

Let us take your previous comment as the basis

> Birth rates would also improve when boys and men are educated.

There is no evidence of this being true. This is certainly a narrative peddled by many ideologues.

> Both genders need education and child support programs.

Poorest of poor and illiterate people happen to have more children than the rest.

> Men/Boys need to understand what responsibilities they have, if they choose to have a child.

If men are educated on responsibilities of alimony and child support, with almost no rights, they would neither marry nor have legitimate children.

> They also need to understand the effects that having a child has on a woman's body.

This maybe your personal dream and that's fine. But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

> Governments around the world would benefit their society by investing in family planning, family support (esp. child care) to enable parents to work and provide for their family.

Family-planning is euphemism for reducing children per woman. There's no benefit of having less children -> leading to less economic activity in the future. The family support you keep touting about is moot point. Government does not have their own money. People pay taxes which are used by government.

> An educated and healthy populace (from infant to old age) benefits everyone.

Agreed on this point. The definition of benefits are subjective but overall, it is agreed that it is a net positive.

[Take8435]

> Poorest of poor and illiterate people happen to have more children than the rest.

Just curious, why do you think this is? Please elaborate.

> If men are educated on responsibilities of alimony and child support, with almost no rights, they would neither marry nor have legitimate children.

Here's the corollary. A woman's body is absolutely ravaged by pregnancy. Her career outlooks suffer. There's a historical reasons why men have to pay child support or alimony. Because many men just don't want children, I guess, but they seem perfectly OK with not using contraception. Those men helped create a situation where an entire legal system that was created to prevent such situations. Because all men have to worry about is financial issues. Imagine it being your physical health instead (like a woman) or your career (like a woman). Maybe, just maybe, men should work together to not be absent and show up for the family they help create. Peer pressure should be stronger by men and men's circles to have respect for women. If you are a good father, great. You have nothing to worry about.

Governments, society and individuals all need to understand the effects _on everyone_. I'm not saying men shouldn't have respect or dignity or whatever. But let's be real, women have not _historically_ had that luxury men have had and still have to fight for their rights too (to this day). The mere fact that you seem to totally miss ALL OF THIS indicates to me that the system of alimony/child support is still very much needed. Because men can't seemingly understand anything beyond financial pressure. Gee wiz.

Your comment is entirely "have children as much as possible" and just doesn't seem to have any consideration for the opportunity, physical or emotional costs of that decision. Like, at all.

> Government does not have their own money. People pay taxes which are used by government.

Yes, this is what society does. An educated and prosperous society builds safety nets for each other. You seem to only care about birth rates but not .. supporting people after they are born. Terrible. We need better policies for family planning. That's what I'm advocating for. You seem to not want any of that. Am I mistaken?

[bhagyeshsp]

Looks like I mistook an ideologue zealot for a rational being.

Bbbye

[lelanthran]

> Birth rates would also improve when boys and men are educated. Both genders need education and child support programs. Men/Boys need to understand what responsibilities they have, if they choose to have a child.

How are you defining "improve"? Is it "increase" or "decrease"?

I feel that informing males beforehand about the responsibilities of fatherhood would decrease the birth rate. Maybe you consider that an improvement? Many people in this thread consider increasing the birth rate an improvement.

[Take8435]

I want to know, "I feel that informing males beforehand about the responsibilities of fatherhood would decrease the birth rate", why do you feel this way? Increased responsibilities should only fall on the mother? Please explain your rationale. If I misunderstand, please explain.

[lelanthran]

> I want to know, "I feel that informing males beforehand about the responsibilities of fatherhood would decrease the birth rate", why do you feel this way?

Because telling someone "$FOO comes with all these responsbilities which you did not know about" can only decrease their desire for $FOO, whether $FOO is "becoming a father" or "becoming a beekeeper".

> Increased responsibilities should only fall on the mother?

Which part of my post addressed allocation of responsibilities? My post deals with awareness of responsibilities, not with the actual allocation of responsibilities.

And it's not just with pregnancies, or with men; it's with everything and both sexes - giving people mandatory obligations for anything is going to reduce their desire for that thing.

[y-curious]

Not the person you’re writing to, but a lot of our birth rate was propped up by unplanned, unmarried pregnancies pre-2000. There is a large subsection of men that simply never want to have children, but will step up and father them due to societal pressure. It’s like the military draft: many people that don’t want to be soldiers end up being adequate soldiers when the rubber meets the road.

[jazz9k]

"Men/Boys need to understand what responsibilities they have, if they choose to have a child. They also need to understand the effects that having a child has on a woman's body."

This will only reduce birth rates. I have two kids and it's hard. I would still have them if I knew just how hard it would be (especially during winter, when everyone is sick).

There are also many men that just don't care if they have a child, what it does to a woman's body. This won't change with more education.

[Take8435]

So, the solution is to... not provide education? The logic doesn't make sense. You say this yourself: "I would still have them if I knew just how hard it would be"

If it reduces birth rates, that's not due to education alone. That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families.

You should know this with two kids. Any help is better than no help. Women want to work. Women want to go to school. That's what this topic is about.

[filoleg]

> So, the solution is to... not provide education?

Where did the parent comment say that? This is about as bad faith of a take as it gets.

They said that providing more education is not going to help with increasing birth rates, and is likely to do the opposite. That doesn't mean that more education shouldn't be provided. Those two things are not contradictory.

Another example in the same category: increasing quality of life and wealth of the citizens is negatively correlated with birth rates. But it would be extremely silly to suggest that someone stating that actually means "we should not be increasing our quality of life and wealth."

[Take8435]

> Where did the parent comment say that? This is about as bad faith of a take as it gets.

I'm asking a question. It's not a bad faith take. How else should I reply to it? Just accept it and move on? I don't agree and want to know more (from the OP, not from you, by the way)

Parent comment talked about having kids. Guess what, I have kids. My opinion matters too.

[traderj0e]

You'd be surprised how much people "want" to do something has to do with what they're told or pressured to do growing up. Ask kids why they're going to college and you'll see.

[giantg2]

"That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families."

Please show the evidence for this being true. Birthrates are low even in countries that provide a lot of support.

[acdha]

No country provides a lot of support. Some countries provide more but inevitably if you poll people they’ll mention that they mention significant financial deterrents, not to mention things like climate change, all of which are valid. People only need one of them to be true to decide to have fewer children, while society needs to help address all of them.

For example, if your government provides housing and childcare support—and say that’s the unicorn where those are consistently available, high quality, and cover the full cost—but still culturally tends to mommy-track careers into dead ends, despite doing those other things well you are going to have a lot of women decide not to risk multiple decades of lifetime earnings.

[giantg2]

"No country provides a lot of support."

The evidence suggests this is not true. The rest of your comment points to non-financial issues.

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-birth-rate-fertility-rate-pa...

[acdha]

Yes, support does not have to be financial. If you read the entire article you posted note the experts quoted made the same point: opportunity cost is real. Career impact is real. The shift to getting educated and established in a career is real.

Societies have to address many different sources of no because the only reason rates used to be higher in the past was women not having a choice.

[liveoneggs]

countries with high birth rates right now have government support for families?

[traderj0e]

More educated men have fewer children on average, but it's less of a difference than with women. It could even just be because they're marrying educated women.

[AdrianB1]

> They also need to understand the effects that having a child has on a woman's body.

I thought they were built for that. For tens of thousands of years women had on average 7 children or more, it looks like the process is very reliable. These days birth-giving mortality is very close to zero, also post-birth care is quite good, so we are in a better place than ever and still concerned?

[lotsofpulp]

Read this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1t6akt4/id...

Just because women used to birth 7 kids with high morbidity and mortality rates does not mean they wanted to.

[habinero]

We are not "built for it" lol. Humans evolved to have huge brains for thinking and a narrow pelvis for running, and those two things historically kill a reasonable fraction of women. Not so much that the population can't grow, but something like a 1%/birth rate. Roll that dice 20-30 times and you get a lot of dead people.

Mortality aside, pregnancy is incredibly hard on the human body. Demineralized bones, anemia, vaginal scarring and fistulas, etc etc. Whole lot of stuff can wreck your body without killing you.

[y-curious]

Well, again you are proving the point that education (knowledge of how pregnancy and delivery are actually traumatic) is discouraging reproduction. Many women won’t do this because they’re educated to the detriment of society, and it sucks because women deserve to be educated.

[habinero]

My dude, do you really think people didn't know about this in the past? I assure you they did lol.

[y-curious]

I think they knew it sucked, but I don't think they had statistics on, say, maternal mortality. Also, they didn't really have a choice, but that's besides the point. The more you read, the less you want to have kids.

[Qem]

> These days birth-giving mortality is very close to zero, also post-birth care is quite good

Also reliable and affordable DNA testing makes much easier collecting pensions from fathers that before would just vanish, or outright deny paternity. An underrated breakthrough in women and children rights enforcement.

[stackskipton]

Historically, women started having children around 16-18 years old so that 7 was much easier.

Societally, almost everyone would argue we shouldn't encourage women to have kids that young.

[habinero]

That doesn't seem to be broadly true.

For example, in Tudor England, women generally got married in their early 20s and men on their late 20s. People absolutely knew pregnancy was dangerous for girls who weren't full grown.

[stackskipton]

It's varied throughout history obviously but if you look at average marriage age now, it's still in low 20s in many places.

[Take8435]

I'm not talking about mortality. You injected that and glossed over what I said.

[saltyoldman]

Does this increase in birth rate happen before or after the various classes teach you to switch genders? I imagine maybe when you get into your phd level classes, it starts going up again, but definitely a big dip in highschool and undergrad college.

[neofrog]

If men/boys truly understand the current situation, they wouldn't want to marry nor have children at all. Legal system is essentially rigged against them. Paternal scams, alimony/divorce laws all are essentially designed to protect women at all times with no regard to the concerns of males.

[watwut]

Men do financially better off after divorce. They report higher loneliness, but then tend to find new partner sooner.

Women get poorer in divorce. They report higher hapiness after divorce and tend to stay single longer. And also, women file for divorce more often.

[aetherspawn]

Yeah that’s just because there are more narcissist men than women. Maybe maternal instinct slightly offsets narcissism or something.

The narcissist partner never wants to leave, but the victim wants out as soon as they can afford to do it.

How do you tackle narcissism as a problem when virtually everything (internet, social media, celebrities, politics) prolifically promotes a narcissistic way of life as a successful one?

[Take8435]

> How do you tackle narcissism as a problem when virtually everything (internet, social media, celebrities, politics) prolifically promotes a narcissistic way of life as a successful one?

This is what a government and/or society need to figure out. But no one really wants to ask or deal with those hard questions which is why the proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road.