Posted on 06/25/2010 3:16:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Nearly one in five American women in her early 40s is childless, according to a report that shows a striking increase in women who don't have biological children.
The trend was much less common in the 1970s, when one in 10 women did not have children by 40 to 44, the age bracket researchers use to designate the end of childbearing years.
The report, released Friday by the Pew Research Center, cites social and cultural shifts behind the change, including less pressure to have children, better contraceptive measures and expanded job opportunities for women.
(snip)
Overall, the report found that white women are more likely to be childless, as are women with more education. The analysis, based largely on census data, comes amid changing attitudes about women who do not have children.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
To be fair some of them are really ugly, and not just physically.
All of them are, except one, who is the “inside” cat, who never goes outside.
There is nothing meaner than cat ****!
I could maybe handle one good natured cat indoors but I am suspicious
Not gonna say it. Wouldn't be prudent. Nope.
I would rather have kids underfoot for the most part.
Although we were banished to the outside except for dinner and sleep because we were holy terrors! LoL!
Medical technology - labor saving inventions - leisure and entertainment have all influenced or blunted our God given, natural reproductive instincts.
There is no one reason - we have to consider all individual and societal influences that guide our lives.
Children raised in broken homes, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, IVF, materialism, movies, celebrity fads; all of which affect young men and women - before or during their search for a *mate* i.e. the mother or father of their progeny. The sixth sense.
This is virtually the first time in history that the most educated, employed, wealthy, fit, etc., are not having as many children as the uneducated and lower class.
It used to be survival of the fittest - the ones who had the brains and the resources (money, food) reproduced. The exact opposite is happening now worldwide. People who can’t afford children are rewarded for having them, especially here in the US and Europe. And don’t get me started on how the Islamic culture is reproducing like rabbits.
Socialism has inadvertently created the demographic of our destruction.
The world will devolve into a very strange oligarchy if the trend continues.
If someone wants the Nobel, just prove what is causing this rise in autism.
If you feel the desire for children but feel you are too old, perhaps consider fostering an older child?
Yes, but having your house back after raising them is kinda nice, too--
“...we have plenty of friends in their 40’s who have infants.
That was never the case 30-40 years ago...”
-
As a geneological researcher, I can honestly tell you that
40 year olds having children is not now, and
has not been in the past, an uncommon event.
No, not uncommon. I'm 24-years younger than my oldest brother. My own mom had two kids in her forties.
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language. Don't you think that the percentage of children born to parents in their 40s is MUCH greater than it was 30+ years ago?
we have always had autistic children. And, the medical community is getting better at diagnosing autism. So, surely many children were undiagnosed before the 1970s, which would at least partially account for the HUGE uptick in diagnosed autism cases.
But, giving the certain increase in babies born to parents their forties relative to all babies born, might be something for researchers to look at more closely. That's all I was saying.
Unless you're an "empty and unfulfilled cat-farmer" your panties should not have gotten into such an uncomfortable state. I wasn't insulting you.
Just curious, why are you pinging these legions of women to my posts? Your first response called in the first half of the FR female population, the second response summoned the remainder.
What's up with that?
I think that anybody who doesn’t want kids has some mental issues..
Isn’t every father older than his child?
Bingo Brother
Of course, eugenics predicted this many years ago. William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, once suggested that the government pay low IQ people to be sterilized, at the rate of $1,000 per IQ point below 100.
I have knowledge of a young lady, very sweet, but borderline mentally retarded. She has around seven children, and lives at a near total poverty level. Her husband accidentally killed one of the children when he was backing out of the driveway. She's been on welfare almost her entire life, and does not remotely have the tools necessary to cope with the complexity of living without someone looking after her.
Eugenics went underground after the horrors of the Third Reich, but it's starting to make a comeback. Many government agencies have an unstated agenda of (1) reducing the number of low IQ children and (2) preventing social stratification by IQ. One of the big reasons for changing college standards to to get a cross section of IQ levels into college.
“I can be alone and actually enjoy it.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Those who cannot stand to be alone for an hour, and there are some, believe me, cannot understand how some of us consider an occasional day spent without seeing another human being to be a great luxury. I don’t want to be a hermit but sometimes solitude is the only thing I really crave.
Seems the opposite is true.
The lowbrows are reproducing up a storm while the intelligentsia mentally masturbate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.