The Have-None and the Have-Too Many: Fertility Rate Masks Hidden Class-Divide Timebomb

Hannah Roberts, Daily Mail (London), September 28, 2011

The average American woman has 2.1 children, a seemingly healthy fertility rate.

But the misleading figure is disguising a growing fertility class divide in the United States.

The US is like two countries, which are experiencing two different, serious crises, two new studies show.

The rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute.

The gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years.

Rates of childlessness among corporate professional women are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises, another study, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents.

43 per cent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless, the study found.

Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals.

About one quarter of all women with bachelor’s degrees and higher in the United States wind up childless.

By comparison, in England, which has one of the highest percentages of women without children in the world, 22 per cent of all women are childless.

The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a worrying 53 per cent.

At the same time, the numbers of both unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women have climbed in recent years.

About half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned, with poor women now five times more likely than higher-income women to have an unplanned pregnancy, and six times more likely to have an unplanned birth, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s recent analysis.

Ultimately poorer women with unplanned pregnancies are more likely to smoke, drink, and go without prenatal care.

Their births are more likely to be premature. Their children are less likely to be breastfed, and more likely to be neglected and to have various physical and mental health effects.

And, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman’s chances of being poor.

Only about 40 percent of women who needed publicly funded family planning services between 2000 and 2008 got them, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

With no national paid leave law in place and no decent subsidised childcare system, US policies make it more difficult to simultaneously work and parent than many European countries.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Wealthy White women can afford abortions. Killing White babies is a sacrament, according to Rev. Ragsdale, the Episcopal High Priestess of White Baby Genocide.

    Either we convince White girls to have mulatto babies by forcing them to believe that “Making White babies is a hate crime against global dignity,” or we tell them they are joining the long line of heroic and courageous civil rights leaders and icons by preventing another stain of White privilege to be born. Abortion is a sacrament in the war against White privilege.

    40,000,000 abortions since Roe? How many were White?

    Feminism and the homosexual agenda are destroying the White Future, and what they don’t ruin, the drug culture will. White Humanity is fitting itself only for slavery to the coming Afro-Mex-Muslim-Chinese majority.

  • Anonymous

    The movie “Idiocracy” is like a movie filmed through the future. If you have not seen it, you ought to.

  • margaret

    White and asian women work to support their children.

    Black and hispanic children have children to support themselves.

    Simple If you work, children are a drain on your income. If you are on welfare, each child adds to your income.

  • E Pluribus Pluribus

    “43 per cent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless, the study found”

    ===

    Many of these women, many graduates of elite universities, have/had delusional beliefs about their potential for fertility into their 40s and even 50s. See:

    THE BIOLOGICAL CLOCK: 60 MINUTES

    August 17, 2003

    Transcript

    http://tinyurl.com/w3fy5

    OPENING PARAGRAPHS

    (CBS) All the stories these days about miraculous high-tech fertility treatments and 50 year-olds having babies might make you wonder, as 60 Minutes first did in June 2002, has the biological clock been reset?

    It seems that young women think so – women like Leslie Feeney, who works at a software company, and Lisa Bourne and Ani Vartanian, who just graduated from Harvard Business School. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.

    CONTINUED AT LINK

  • Fr. John

    As I have said on my blog, There is such a thing as the “Eugenics of God.”

    And the sooner Whites reclaim that science from the fear-mongerers, the better.

  • Anonymous

    “The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a worrying 53 per cent.”

    Never fear, air travel and unchecked immigration makes it possible to double the asian population every 10 years.

    I have always wondered if the whole feminist thing that every girl could grow up to be a Dr, lawyer or high ranking manager

    was really part of the Cloward Priven Alinsky Harrington plan.

    The really smart White girls could become high level professionals but not have children. The middle class White girls who would normally would be nurses and secretaries and marry Drs, lawyers and executives they met at work would be replaced by hispanic and black women.

    Sort of genocide by making it difficult meet, marry and reproduce. Of course marriage is an evil White construct.

  • Anonymous

    “Wealthy White women can afford abortions”

    Wealthy White women don’t have to have abortions. They use birth control and have babies only when they want to have them.

    Whites have the lowest rate of abortions.

  • Anonymous

    40,000,000 abortions since Roe? How many were White?

    Mostly hispanic and black. Hispanics have the highest rate of abortions.

  • Dave

    “White and asian women work to support their children.

    Black and hispanic children have children to support themselves.

    Simple If you work, children are a drain on your income. If you are on welfare, each child adds to your income.”

    I agree; the only thing I question is whether Black birth rates would decline all that much if we pulled the plug on welfare. Having had extensive dealings with the urban poor (nearly all Black of course); I can say that many are so irresponsible that they wouldn’t think twice about having unprotected sex with their boyfriends even without the promise of more government (i.e. White people’s) money. Indeed, some are so lazy and irresponsible they need White social workers to literally drive them to the appointment or fill out the forms for them to claim the benefits.

  • Anonymous

    Many of these women, many graduates of elite universities, have/had delusional beliefs about their potential for fertility into their 40s and even 50s.

    That’s true. Another problem for them is that almost no one except for affirmative action alternative to welfare goverment slugs works at the same job until retirement age.

    More and more highly paid professionals along with the ordinary workers are laid off at 45 or 50 and never find comparable work again. The emloyer hires 30 year olds with several years experience that need no training and dumps them 20 years later after sucking their best years out of them.

    Waiting till 45 to have your first child means you will be 63 when the child graduates from high school. If you lose your highly paid job at 55 the child will be 10 and it will be a struggle to raise the child and find work at an age when employers just do not hire.

    Dianne Keaton adopted at least 2 maybe 3 kids when she was in her late 60’s. But she has millions, not so much from her acting career but from real estate all over S. California.

    The average professional woman is not so rich.

  • Anonymous

    To the previous poster-research how feminism ad the CIA are connected.

  • Anonymous

    Whites should not be made to compete with black on the basis of fertility. Of course they are more fecund than we. So are Lampreys and Zebra Mussels.

  • Anonymous

    Complex motives are at work, obviously, but could this be

    appreciably mitigated by paying some of them to “go surrogate”

    rather than just carry what’s been naturally seeded into them??

    “Marriage” these days as a de facto arrangement exists in

    a fragile way quite apart from legal marriage & it might be possible, then, to facilitate “plural relationships” with abler

    males in this de facto “marriage” world?

  • sbuffalonative

    Intelligent people know how to live within their means. Hence, intelligent people will generally have the number of children they know they can comfortably support.

    In our welfare state, having more kids gets you more money.

    Unless we can stop paying the poor to have babies, the income-birth gap will only accelerate.

  • rockman

    It is the duty of all white women to reproduce only white children and have at least 3 children. the number of white women I know that have had mulatto children and then been abandoned by the father is extremely high. they met the father in college get pregnant and its good by babe. Young white women with black men often look lost and scared I have noticed.

  • Anonymous

    Propaganda. Most women settle down and have children. The only ones who don’t are those of average-below average looks who no man will bother with ( hence such women venting their frustrations in the corporate world, politics, and education ), and those with a chemical imbalance. Such an article seems to slyly encourage women not to have children so they can be equated with “success”.

  • MadMac

    Margaret #3 has said it clearly and simply. We are paying for the rope to hang us.

  • Seek

    Whites should not play the “catch up” game, trying to outbreed nonwhites. It’s a lose-lose proposition in the long run. What we need instead are far fewer immigrants from the Third World. The real crisis in this country, in other words, is not “demographic winter,” but “long, hot summers,” the latter created by murderous, rioting blacks and Hispanics.

  • Sonya

    rockman wrote: It is the duty of all white women to reproduce only white children and have at least 3 children.

    Ahhh…so it is the duty of White women. Nothing to do with White men I see. One would think you might add “it is the duty of all white men to find a white wife, support her, and encourage her to have at least 3 children.”

  • Anonymous

    Poster 11. Thank you.

    I know Steinem got a job right out of college with a useless liberal arts degree at a CIA Ford Foundation front group. I know that she came from a welfare family who could not afford Smith College 10 years before student loans were thought of. I know the same people who financed Smith college for her were behind Angela Davis’ education.

    I wonder if there is more to the connection. Feminism was a communist front. One of the biggest early spokescritters Buffalo Bella Abzug was a proud member CPUSA.

    Interesting that both Steinem and Obama’s Mother had the same hard left background and worked for the Ford foundation no?

    I always thought she was selected for her looks. She was the only pretty feminazi.

    Until about 1980 CIA was dominated by the old 1930’s world government will bring peace on earth idealists like Cord Meyers. Useful idiots all of them.

    Rockefeller foundation financed and founded all that 1930’s and 40’s peace on earth world goverment nonsense.

    Adlai Stevenson, candidate for president, governor, son of a 19th century vice president, millionaire in his own right from a family fortune married to the heiress of Borden Milk was the major front man for the world government group.

    I better get hold of myself or I will become a conspiracy theorist.

  • Anonymous

    Poster 11

    I just looked at http://www.henrymakow.com/180302.html

    Henry Makow’s site apparently CIA has funded MS Magazine all these years. I always thought it must have been the Russian comintern. Therefore CIA funded affirmative action for women

    even before all those court rulings dictating affirmative action for women.

    “Women and minorities encouraged to apply” means only minority women will be hired.

  • Anonymous

    FACT: Here’s a list of how the kind of feminism advocated by Gloria Steinem has actually BENEFITED the business community when it pushed women into the work place:

    (1) Women work for less (and Black, Asian and Hispanic women work for A LOT LESS).

    Why do you think the salaries of Drs has stagnated? Asian women. Black and Hispanic women get all sorts of government benefits such as low income housing, food stamps and child care even when working. White women earning the same amount of money are denied these welfare benefits.

    (2) Women are more docile and less likely to deviate from company policies (Asian and Hispanic women are the most docile workers of all).

    (3) Women are less likely to join labor unions.

    (4) By increasing the size of the labor pool, women created more competition for jobs thus reducing wages.

    (5) In two-income families, one person is more likely to work part-time or as a temporary, such workers get paid less and they don’t get benefits.

    (6) Taking children away from their mothers at an early age tends to increase their anxiety levels and results in higher rates of tension-relieving consumption as they grow up. It also means that liberal indoctrination can start at 3 rather than 5.

    (7) The loss of women’s household services increases purchases of various forms of fatty fast foods, which have higher profit levels than home-cooked meals. Compare the cost of 5 servings of plain raw rice to the cost of 5 servings of a precooked and flavored rice mix.

  • Dave

    You can adopt a child at any age, but beware. By almost any measure, people adopted as babies resemble their genetic parents much more than their adoptive parents, and the former obviously made some very poor life choices.

    I know a very liberal Jewish couple in a nice neighborhood who had one daughter naturally, and couldn’t concieve a second time. So they completed their family by adopting a white baby girl. Now the first daughter is married to a PhD, and will soon complete her own PhD, both in hard-science fields. Meanwhile, her adopted sister, now 17, has dropped out of high school, and disappeared to parts unknown with a dirtbag boyfriend.

    If you’ve seen “Idiocracy”, you know which sister will have six children by different men, and which will die childless.

  • Anonymous

    Dave wrote at 9:38 PM on September 28:

    “White and asian women work to support their children.

    Black and hispanic children have children to support themselves.

    Simple If you work, children are a drain on your income. If you are on welfare, each child adds to your income.”

    I agree; the only thing I question is whether Black birth rates would decline all that much if we pulled the plug on welfare. Having had extensive dealings with the urban poor (nearly all Black of course); I can say that many are so irresponsible that they wouldn’t think twice about having unprotected sex with their boyfriends even without the promise of more government (i.e. White people’s) money.

    I agree with this poster. I am in a field where I see a lot of young and even mid-30’s women, mostly “African American” as we say these days, who have multiple children by multiple men.

    I have heard of calculation on their part as to decisions to have children; what I have seen is sort of more disturbing. A middle class type couple will ask themselves whether they can afford medical care, education, day care (a big expense). The “poor” are afforded all these as a matter of right. Just as a fish does not know it is in water, the typical low intellect, low functioning woman (and some who are a lot smarter and should know better) just creates the child without even a thought as to expenses. There is a large component of American children who do not even know any child who has two married parents.

  • Anonymous

    It’s good to see posts mentioning how all these social changes seem to be planned out. Here are a few I’ve noticed.

    1) Feminism right after WWII – There’s a film by Myrna Loy in the late-’40s where she plays a female scientist who is barred from the higher institutions of science because of her gender. Such a film would have been unthinkable a decade or two before.

    Another one I’ve noticed is the immediate assertiveness of women in film post-1945. One sees the odious PC trademark of women bossing and being “better” than men in every way possible even as early as the “halcyon” 1950s which conservatives endlessly harp about.

    2) Civil Rights and Feminism – Why did both gain such an upsurge at the same time and why didn’t the government do their utmost to stop it? The country’s fundamental structure was being threatened and ruptured and only southerners showed any backbone in stemming the tide!

    3) PC and Multiculturalism – one can only shake one’s head at the tsunami of the two since the millennium. Why? A time as recent as the 1990s seemed like a golden age compared to what’s been going on in the past decade.

  • Spirit Wolf

    I agree with #18, we don’t need to play catch-up. It isn’t that whites aren’t breeding, they’ve been breeding responsibly. It’s just that compared to the breeders amongst our species, we SEEM to have a “low” birthrate. Also, remember that the idea of growth, growth, growth, is a mantra, almost a dogma – the idea of a STABLE population is anathema to businessmen and politicians alike, as well as those who think it’s their “right” to breed uncontrollably, without even the natural predators and disease and other controls that even wild animals have on _their_ populations.

    What we need to do is let the starving masses starve, since I can’t suggest we CULL them, just like we do with populations of other species (and think it’s the absolute right thing to do. Start with our own species, first, then we’ll talk about others, OK?)

    Cut off trade, even, if you have to. Let us learn to grow tea and coffee and such in greenhouses or the lab right here in Canada.

  • Spirit Wolf

    #25 – I don’t know what people are going on about re: feminism – and that goes for BOTH sides. It was originally supposed to be about life choices – a woman should be free to settle down or not, have kids or not, just like a man, and should be free to pursue a career _she is capable of succeeding in_ (this concept should bar the “dumbing down” we see in the name of “affirmative action”); it should be so what if not many get in, but the ones who can handle it, do.

    I know I could never be a firefighter, for instance, my physical condition prevents it; I would be an idiot to demand the local FD (if it wasn’t totally voluntary) slide down the requirements just for me – lives are at stake. I can’t drag a 300-lb Homer Simpson to safety. However, I have seen some women who would be perfectly capable of doing so!

    It was supposed to be about proving oneself. Once you prove yourself, then no one has the right to say anything to you.

    As for women working “outside the home”, I hope y’all realize that this has gone on for centuries in European civilization, right? We had our cottage industries – sewing or pottery or other crafts for items to sell at the market, on top of your farm goods or your husband’s wares. Sometimes women of an entire village would set up shops – the first “factories”.

    When the Industrial Revolution came, do you think women didn’t work in the factories? Of course they did. They just got paid less than men, but more than children. It wasn’t just widows that were driven to the factories, either – wives whose husbands made dismal wages had to help make ends meet, _just like today_.

    However, with immigration (the Chinese coming to Canada probably hurt white woman and child labour more than male white labour in the late 1800s), we were out of work, because Sikhs and Chinese were even cheaper to hire.

    My own great-grandmother, a widower once and then abandoned by her second husband, resorted to rumrunning and bookie stuff to survive the 20s and 30s. If her criminal enterprise (which was quite extensive), was never made public, it was only because no one suspected a woman. Or they knew her situation and just busted her underlings, which were apparently just some stupid bunch of American kids from Detroit, anyway.

    It was simply a mark of a man’s social standing and income if his wife didn’t “work outside the home”. It was the rich ladies, like Eleanor Roosevelt and the like who had the luxury to get into “social circles”.

    The common woman did as she does now. Finds a way to make an income for to help feed her husband and kids.

  • Anonymous

    Spirit Wolf: You can’t possibly be blind to the changes that have been going on in the past forty years concerning women in society. Affirmative Action was created to dumb down standards in order to allow women and minorities in places which were the reserve of white men. They didn’t have that in 1625. We nowadays have the boy crisis where more women are finishing college than men despite the fact that men get higher grades than women in standardized tests. No such dilemma existed in 1927. For the past decade or so we’re inundated with endless films portraying white men as insignificant bumblings who need to be corrected and chastised by women and non-whites. Watch movies and tv shows from as recent as 1965 and name me ten flicks that follow such blatant and shameless propaganda.

  • Question Diversity

    28 Anonymous wrote:

    We nowadays have the boy crisis where more women are finishing college than men despite the fact that men get higher grades than women in standardized tests.

    I think the “boy crisis” is a bit overblown, and is largely a function of race. Not to say that there is now a difference between white men and white women, but I happen to think that the “boy crisis” is mostly a black and Hispanic boy and man “crisis.”

  • Spirit Wolf

    #28 – Of course I see that. I was talking about what it was meant to be, not what it has become.

    Humans have that weird way of taking good ideas to such an extreme, they become bad ideas in practice. “Moderation” seems to be as little a part of the actual natural human vocabulary as “share” is to a cat’s.

    And that’s exactly what makes humans the stupidest beasts on the planet.

  • kfz versicherung wechseln frist

    Address No,tradition ministry executive freedom convention power degree best world public select now resource wing path large much pool even very currently cost main trade apparent stick sex develop lead account both row limit meal image engineering avoid audience settle bed nuclear point for there bone version general there block practice therefore colour increase movement decision anybody normal computer observe search want tree himself correct deal amount slip attract initiative involve effective land cost settle receive leadership down writer cover component apparently measure however belong description mass approach form picture

  • Anonymous

    6 — Anonymous wrote at 7:01 PM on September 28:

    “The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a worrying 53 per cent.”

    Asian professionals are under cultural, tribal, clan and family duress to give large amounts of their paychecks to their parents and grandparents. It is the asian way, parents support the kids and then the kids support the parents and grandparents for the rest of their lives.

    The asian parents never consider that student loans and scholarships paid most of the cost of the expensive education.

    No, it is pay the parents back.

    Asian professional men are allowed to get married and use most of their salary to provide for their families. But asian parents are happy to live off their professional daughters for the rest of their lives.

    I’m just an ignorant White who has worked and lived among asians most of my life. I bet those great experts on the asian way Englemann, Sailor, Taylor and Rushton don’t know how asian parents exploit their adult children.

    Maybe Taylor does. He lived in Japan.