Home  Maps  About

Home > OTChat

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]


view flat

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 17:44:51 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 17:16:04 2012.

Women do NOT want to spend their lives pregnant. It takes a toll on the body.

That's what women's bodies are for. Women's lib is great, and I support it, but let's not lose sight of basic natural facts.

It makes one unable to work, and unsuitable for the workplace. Time off for sick care and obligations is still not looked upon favorably in the workplace, which has an impact on women's ability to earn and succeed in a career.

Perhaps those two conflicting factors are supposed to be in conflict. I don't know what the cause of the poor fertility in the developed world is, but it could be that the conflict between work and family is keeping fertility down, which is suggested by...

Conservatives don't necessarily have more children, they use contraceptives just as much as anyone else.

Again, the numbers speak for themselves. Fertility is higher in red states, and it seems to increase as one goes up the wealth scale:
Adam Carstens of North Star Leadership Group looked up some useful information in the General Social Survey database. He found that for incomes below $50k (in 1998), white Republicans only have a very small advantage in number of children over white Democrats. But at higher incomes, Republicans have significantly more children. For example, white "Strong Republicans" with incomes of $50k or more average 2.16 children versus 1.62 children for white Democrats of either "Strong" or "Not Strong" fervency of the same income range. That's 1/3 more children.

At $90k and above, "Strong Republicans" average 2.47 children versus 2.04 kids for "Not Strong Republicans," and 1.56 for Democrats as a whole. The sample sizes are little small for slicing and dicing too narrowly, but the pattern seems apparent.

It'll be my guess that greater marriage stability (which weighs on women's decision to have children) X greater religious fervor (no opposition to large families in principle) X greater incidence of stay-at-home moms (as per you comment on women in the work place) is responsible for these results. I suppose I might take a new look at the GSS data to see if the pattern holds as of late. But my point is not that women need to "spend their lives pregnant", but that people of means and health shouldn't curb the number of children they have (unless you are Santorum, that could have done us a favor) because of "overpopulation" and ideally not because of the demands of their careers. I admit the latter is easier said than done.


Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:



Before posting.. think twice!

[ Return to the Message Index ]