2 months ago
Lately, many people have began to rule out the option of having children for some wannabe noble reasons. And they are even pushing others to follow in their footsteps. Historically, childlessness isn’t a new concept. For example, among women born in the Czech Republic between 1910 and 1920, 15 percent had no child.
Among women born in 1919, 12 percent were childless, but on the other hand, an average woman had 2.53 children. The majority of women had three or more children. When the majority of women have only one or two children, the percentage of childless women in society drags the average below 2.1, under the so-called replacement fertility rate.
Overall, the number of childless women has always been rather high. Thus, it can hardly be considered a sensation. In Germany, among the generation of 1968, one in four women has no child. While in Spain and Italy it is over 20 percent. There are more childless women of that generation than those with three or more children.
Yet, women with children don’t have an urge to exhibit. Even though their daily-life problems are considerably worse. Today’s European society isn’t made for big families. And despite that, the anti-natalist movement wants us to believe that childlessness is a taboo.
In fact, they’re living in a reality of a totally different cultural circle. When I went to Tanzania, I learned that not high natality, but sterility is an issue there. It is a disgrace and an acceptable reason for a man to leave his wife.
In Europe, we have a consensus that it’s a woman’s right to decide whether to have children or not. And that she is not to be discriminated against if she decided to be childless. Actually, many women who would love to have children cannot have them. So, a campaign for discretion would be more appropriate.
Instead, we’re witnessing campaigns by crazy activists who try to turn childlessness into a political issue. Allegedly, their reasons are altruistic to the planet and to children, which is just absurd.