[alephnerd]

Or because having kids is much more limiting for women than it is for men...

It's almost like no one here has actually talked to women in their 20s and early 30s. While cost does play a role, almost every guy (and it's always guys) seems to ignore polling amongst women [0] that highlights this shift.

Women face the physical effects of childbirth and the subsequent recovery (if they recover), as well as stalled careers and the continued existence of patriarchical norms. Unsurprisingly, the younger generation of women are much less interested compared to men, because now they have a choice.

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons...

[throw310822]

Yah, but isn't this the same that the post is saying? The younger generation of women are much less interested because now they have a choice that procures them a better status. I hope it's clear that there is no moral judgement in this- it's perfectly legitimate, actually expected behaviour.

[watwut]

Better status is misleading label for "I will have more time for myself and things I like, for own dreams and hopes, I will be able to be more independent" and "my life wont be completely ruled by others needs with no reward" and so on.

Status is only loosely related to what those people want. It just just one of many aspects.

[throw310822]

This is also true. But let me also add to this: time for yourself and what you like, for your dreams and hopes... that depends on what your dreams and hopes are, and what you think are valuable goals to pursue, and ultimately your idea of a worthy life. These are cultural values, not absolutes. And when your society agrees that cool people attain these goals, then pursuing them becomes also a form of status. In other words, the coolest guy at a party is not the one with a family home, a stable job and four kids; it's the childless bachelor with a super interesting life.

[watwut]

> that depends on what your dreams and hopes are, and what you think are valuable goals to pursue, and ultimately your idea of a worthy life.

You are talking about grand ideas here, but I do not mean like that at all. I mean things like "being able to have time to read a book I like or being able to watch tv series". Or, "being able to leave it the relationship gets abusive". Or, "having a little thing of my own I created". Or like "not loosing all my interests and hobbies, being able to keep at least some of them". Or like, "having an hour of uninterrupted time".

I did not mentioned "coolest guy at the party". In relations to moms, we are talking about "not being completely isolated from society for prolonged time" or "being able to socialize often enough to not loose social skills" or "just going to a party once in a while". Or "being able to keep a semi interesting job". Or just "have a topic to talk about, so that the party does not consists of me sitting there having nothing to say feeling like I dont belong".

A lot of those are things that other people don't even see and have no way to judge. They are things you are taking as granted, but if you have kids, you are at risk of loosing those.

[throw310822]

Sure, part of it is basic, rational pleasure seeking. Although you seem to make you case a bit too extremely, as having two or three children doesn't entirely destroy free time and social life, doesn't per se make a person boring nor makes her powerless in case of abusive relationships. It's obvious that having children is a commitment that has trade offs, but the point of the argument is that it seems to have no upside at all. It's not considered socially worthy- in fact you have just described a woman with children as isolated, with reduced social skills, boring, helpless in the face of abuse. Can you name a socially positive trait you attribute to a mother that is dedicated to growing her children? Is there anything in it that inspires admiration and emulation? And otherwise, why would anyone take such a burden?

[alephnerd]

You do realize how physically and mentally demanding pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery is right?

It truly sounds like you think it's a cakewalk and does not have long term side effects. This is why plenty of women just aren't interested in having kids no matter how much money or status is offered.

Women have to deal with Lochia, Perineal Soreness, Uterine Cramps, Pelvic Floor Weakness, significant Hormonal Shifts, Postpartum Depression, Hypertension, Diabetes (yes, pregnancy does induce diabetes), Hemorrhages, and other physical and mental experiences that can take a significant toll.

A generation or two ago, most women had kids because they didn't really have a choice. Now you are seeing what the true choice is amongst a growing proportion of women.

[watwut]

> Although you seem to make you case a bit too extremely, as having two or three children doesn't entirely destroy free time and social life

I described what experience of having one or two children is. All those are real effects on women and if they trust you a little, they openly talk about them.

> nor makes her powerless in case of abusive relationships.

Specifically, yes, it makes you a lot more vulnerable. You are now forever tied to the dad, you have harder time to keep good job (so more dependent financially) and yes, the abuse tend to escalate.

> in fact you have just described a woman with children as isolated, with reduced social skills, boring, helpless in the face of abuse.

Yes that is the worry. The social isolation is very real and painful. The reduction on social skills is observed phenomenon and something openly talked about. And more helplessness is one of the consequences of having children (especially if with wrong person).

> Can you name a socially positive trait you attribute to a mother that is dedicated to growing her children?

I did not said THEY are bad. I said these are impacts and consequences of being mother dedicated to growing her children. So, the positive trait is that they suffer the above for the sake of kids. You are the one implicitly blaming them for natural consequences of the situation.

> And otherwise, why would anyone take such a burden?

Fertility is going down.

[toomuchtodo]

Indeed, women are affirming their desire for agency, autonomy, and self determination vs a decade or two of uncompensated labor. Women have chosen freedom, reflected in global fertility rate decline curves, and we’re still discovering what the neutral fertility rate is under these circumstances. It appears to be around a TFR of 1 (+-0.5), but still early days in the demographic compression to say what the next decade or two looks like.

The Fertility Rate of Every Country in the World - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/fertility-rate-of-world-pop... - May 17th, 2026

[alephnerd]

It's not about status dude.

Gestating and expulsing a living human being is very difficult to physically and mentally recover from.

All we as guys need to do is put our shlong in. Women have to deal with the physical and mental externalities of that, so unsurprisingly a lot of young women are increasingly uninterested in having kids even if status played a role (which it doesn't as polling amongst women points out).

[bad_username]

> About four-in-ten (39%) say a major reason they didn’t have children is that it just never happened.

This sounds.... circular? The reason they didn't have children is they just didn't? This study is strange.

[alephnerd]

That's for women who are 50 and older. I'd recommend reading the entire survey, or you know actual women in their 20s and early 30s.

57% of all American women under 50 don't want children as the Pew Survey showed. I honestly don't understand why it's so hard for so many guys to not get that a lot of women are uninterested in having kids.

And this is a common sentiment globally as living standards rise.

[b0rtb0rt]

most women are on medication that tricks their bodies into thinking they are already pregnant and suppresses their primary biological drive. this makes their “choice” a lot easier