Today let's look at this next public policy issue effecting men and women, marriage and children----and the ability of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to gain employment and enough wealth to support ourselves and family. Our millennial citizens may not remember the protesting and condemnation of Chinese policies over 1 CHILD tied to population control but it was well reported in what was then a free press in US and the US as well as all DEVELOPED nations were clear these were not policies tied to FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. There were other reasons for our educated Western nations to condemn these kinds of population control policies....tied to SCIENCE. It is no accident that human child births fall along a normal curve of equal boys and girls. Close to 50% 50% throughout human evolution. This trait tied to natural selection and survival of species developed with the goal of each member of a species having a mate with which to reproduce. This dynamic even works for our GBLT population as two males partnered balances two females partnered.
So, the US stance was against China and 1 child because of justice issues and concerns about the negative effects to China's societal structure.
FAST FORWARD TO CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----THE US POLICY IS WORSE THAN THE CHINESE POLICY IN MOVING FORWARD EXTREME POPULATION CONTROL WITH NO RIGHTS, NO FREEDOM, LIBERTY, OR JUSTICE.
'We are pleased to announce that all medical services offered by The Fertility Institutes are available internationally. We work with affiliate clinics in over 42 countries'.
'They were told by their local fertility physician that gender selection was illegal in Canada'.
There were any number of societal disasters in China from these 1 child policies. Chinese citizens lost all standards of society tied to honoring family, mother/father, respecting life, needing marriage to survive in developing nations with extreme wealth extreme poverty. The percentage of men grew to around 65-70% and women fell to 35-40%. Men like to think they get along better without women but thousands of years of history show----IT IS THE OPPOSITE. Especially for low-income/poor. A man needs that wife and those children as combined efforts to create a family economy that allows for survival. This is why poor families have lots of children -----rich families have one or two children.
What we saw in China were men unable to marry leaving the country or dying from black market violence or suicide. What we saw was violence against women in forced abortions-----women unable to give a male child tossed aside for a next wife----the KING HENRY THE 8TH SYNDROME----and women losing that daughter we know help in female tasks-----now that wife has all the work of caring for family. We have no idea what the real stats from these few decades of forced 1 child are-----we do know simply lifting citizens into higher income brackets lower the rate of population growth as much if not more than the BRUTAL AUTHORITARIAN DICTATE of denying people the right to reproduce.
So, we are told China is now lifting 1 child policies but KNOW WHAT? China was one of the first to install artificial manipulation of sex chromosome BIOGENETIC gender control and sterilization. They have been doing this these few decades and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA grew all those global fertility corporations overseas doing just that----bringing them back to US during OBAMA deregulation and dismantling of all oversight and accountability of our US public health care system.
World
How China's One-Child Policy Led To Forced Abortions, 30 Million Bachelors
February 1, 20161:43 PM ET
Heard on Fresh Air
One Child
The Story of China's Most Radical Experiment
by Mei Fong
Last October, China ended its 35-year-old policy of restricting most urban families to one child. Commonly referred to as the "one-child" policy, the restrictions were actually a collection of rules that governed how many children married couples could have.
"The basic idea was to encourage everybody, by coercion if necessary, to keep to ... one child," journalist Mei Fong tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.
Fong explores the wide-ranging impact of what she calls the world's "most radical experiment" in her new book, One Child. She says that among the policy's unintended consequences is an acute gender imbalance.
"When you create a system where you would shrink the size of a family and people would have to choose, then people would ... choose sons," Fong says. "Now China has 30 million more men than women, 30 million bachelors who cannot find brides. ... They call them guang guan, 'broken branches,' that's the name in Chinese. They are the biological dead ends of their family."
Fong says the policy also led to forced abortions and the confiscation of children by the authorities. Looking ahead, China is also facing a shortage of workers who can support its aging population.
"Right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That's pretty good, that's a very healthy ratio. In about 20 years that's going to jump to about 1.6 working adults to support one retiree," Fong says. "The one-child policy drastically reshaped the composition of China's people. So now they have a population that's basically too old and too male and, down the line, maybe too few."
On the economic and cultural implications of losing your only child in China
It means a lot, economically speaking, because a lot of families still don't have any kind of a financial security, so losing one child is basically a pension plan, so that's one thing. For the Chinese, culturally speaking, the continuance of the family line was very important, so when you die without any issue you are basically violating all sorts of duties to your ancestors, which is very important. ... Chinese society is still very family-centric even if it's just a small family size, you're not considered fully an adult until you are married, and you're not considered complete until you have a child, and when you lose that child, you fall quite far down the societal totem pole.
So, for example, this family that I covered that had lost their only child [in an earthquake], they lost a lot of status in their village. They said that their neighbors were avoiding them and shunning them, basically, that they were worried that this childless couple would now be hangers-on, clinging onto them, borrowing money, not having any sort of protection — so that's what losing your one child means.
Today in Chinese context there's a name for these people who have lost their only child, it's called shidu, and it means, "parents who've lost their only child." And for parents who are shidu, some of them find it hard to get admitted into nursing homes. Some nursing homes won't take them. They say, "You have no progeny to authorize treatments or payments or anything, so we'd prefer not to admit you." They also have difficulty buying funeral plots for the same reason. Who is going to service the maintenance costs of your cemetery down the line? So these are very sad issues.
On exceptions to the one-child policy
They would have some certain exceptions, because they found that they could not make everybody keep to that one-child rule without allowing for certain exceptions. So you could technically have a second child if you had a certain job that was hazardous, like if you were a coal miner or a fisherman. You could also have a second child maybe if you were one of China's minority tribes or if you lived in a rural area and your first child was a girl and they recognize that a lot of people want to try for sons. But the end result was that with all of these exceptions coming down the line, a lot of people didn't really necessarily know what the rules were, so it was very easy to contravene them and be fined for them.
On how the one-child policy was enforced
If [a woman] lived in a small village, for example, she would probably be scrutinized by a group, she would probably be grouped together with a set of households and come under what they call a cluster leader, somebody who sort of monitors the progress and fertility rights of a certain set of households. ... So if this woman ... fell pregnant then most likely this cluster leader would know about it very quickly and then she would report to higher up. ... Probably at first a village leader would show up at their doorstep and say, "You know very well you should not have this; you could have all sorts of problem with this. You may have to pay a fine." I've met enforcers who have gone to these houses and say, "We used to take away something valuable to show that we mean business." ... Like a television set, for example, or a pig, or sometimes if the household was a very poor household they'll take away homespun cloth or grain or something, something that had to make it hurt, basically — that was in a village setting, of course.
In a city setting they could maybe, if you worked for a [civil service-like] job they might threaten to fire you. ... This is for having a child. If you went for a termination, all of this would go away. But, of course, then there were people who really wanted the child and then they would try and evade the whole process of being taken away for a forced abortion, because here's the thing: Between your conception and your delivery date, all bets are off — they can make you.
On the aging population in China
The one-child policy drastically reshaped the composition of China's people. So now they have a population that's basically too old and too male and down the line, maybe too few. So the too old issue is that right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That's pretty good, that's a very healthy ratio. In about 20 years that's going to jump to about 1.6 working adults to support one retiree, and that's because that big population boom that we talked about, that big cohort of people are all living longer and getting older and therefore hitting their 70s, 80s and 90s, so by the time 2050 comes around one in four Chinese people will be a retiree.
The entire population of retirees in China would be the third largest nation in this world, if they were to form their own country. So that has nothing to do with the one-child policy, that's just a function of people living longer and growing older, but the problem is then you have this very small working cohort to support that, and that has everything to do with the one-child policy. You just drastically shrank the number of working adults who support this huge, aging tsunami and that's the problem going ahead.
On technology allowing parents to know the sex of the fetus
In the beginning when the policy came around in 1980, at that time they did not have scanning machines that could determine the gender of the fetus at an early stage, so people who delivered girls, for example, and wanted to keep their quota for that one boy -- because if you used up your quota for a girl and then you gave birth to another girl and you would lose that — so people would either abandon their daughters or there would be infanticide, or they would give them away, which is part of the reason why we saw so many adoptions of Chinese babies, mostly girls, in the West.
But later in the 1990s, technology made it easier for people to do all these scans and companies like General Electric made these scanning machines that were portable and small enough that you could go from village to village and you could determine the sex of your fetus ... for as little as $10 or $20, so people would just have an abortion instead of carrying a child to full term. ... The Nobel economist Amartya Sen estimated there were about 100 million missing women, women that were never born or killed or aborted across Asia.
On a generation of women being more educated and professionally successful because of the one-child policy
Let's say you were born after 1980 in a big city, chances are you probably don't have a sibling. And if you're a girl and you don't have a sibling, you don't have to fight with your sibling for resources. So your parents will want to send you to college. They won't be debating a question of whether they should spend the money on your brother or yourself; it's all for you. So imagine this scenario replicated a million times over and the end result is urban women born after 1980 achieved way more than any other generation before them.
________________________________________
You will notice NPR/PBS will remind US citizens of these kinds of repressive authoritarian policies but NONE OF THEM have educated the US citizens black, white, and brown 99% of the current status of population control here in US, its goals, its methods. National media simply keeps getting those 5% players to make their own population group think they are WINNING as with our 99% of women all those workplace laws ---those few percent getting high-level jobs----all those women as politicians and media personalities as women are killed the most in far-right wing authoritarian population control policies MOVING FORWARD IN US.
People at least KNEW they were being denied rights to decide family issues---today global biogenetic engineering corporations are being allowed to sterilize people and fetuses without parents knowing.
Why is the human population roughly 50/50 male/female?
Why is there an equal amount of human females and males?
The probability that any given child will be male (or female) is exactly 50%. This is because of how reproduction works in humans. Male and female sex cells are formed by a process called meiosis, where the diploid chromosomes divide and separate. Normal cells have 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. Sex cells have 23 individual chromosomes. For a woman, all of her cells will contain the X chromosome, as all of her cells have a double-X pair. But for men, all of whose cells have an XY pair, their sex cells will contain an equal split of Xs and Ys.
The probability of any given sperm cell fertlising an ovum being approximately equal, the X sperm and the Y sperm have the same chance as each other of being the first past the post. So the probability of the sex of the child, which is determined by whether they get an X or a Y chromosome from their biological father, is exactly 50:50. And so the ratio of male to female births is also 50:50.
Note that in practice, the distribution of sexes worldwide slightly favours women. (I believe it's something like 51.3%.) And I've ignored biological rarities like XXY, as they don't materially affect the probabilities.
Global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA do not care about societal structures---MOVING FORWARD is about killing all human civilized societal structures developed over thousands of years to create a NEW WORLD ORDER -----we are told not to FEAR CHANGE-----we do not FEAR CHANGE---we simply do not want and refuse the changes being brought by MOVING FORWARD.
What global biogenetic engineering corporations around human genome and especially sex chromosome manipulation have as a goal is making it impossible for any individual citizen ---in US or globally-----to trust that a normal birth at a global health corporation system by OB-GYNs will not end in that fetus being MANIPULATED and/or sterilized. No matter how much a US OB-GYN smiles and acts as though they LOVE CHILDREN ---what US global health system corporations have for doctors are third world predatory and profiteering ---they have these jobs BECAUSE they will work for only CORPORATE PROFITS and global 1% banking.
The Sciences
Is a pregnant woman's chance of giving birth to a boy 50 percent?
Marc Weisskopf, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, explains. In most industrialized countries about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, for a ratio of 1.05, known as the secondary sex ratio, or SSR; the primary sex ratio is the ratio at conception. This is often expressed as the percentage of boys among all births, or about 51.2 percent. Thus, the short answer to the question is: "On average, no." The percentage of males among all births is not fixed, however. Since the 1950s and 1960s the overall SSR has been declining in the U.S., Canada and several European countries, but some groups display different trends. In the U.S., the SSR is declining for whites, whereas among African-Americans and other races, the SSR has been increasing since the 1960s. Currently the SSR among African-Americans in the U.S. is only about 50.7 percent. There are also both personal and environmental factors that affect the average sex ratio.
The chance of having a boy appears to decline with the mother's age, the father's age and the number of children the family already has. These effects are small. One study in Denmark found that the SSR of children born to fathers younger than 25 was 51.6 percent, which decreased to 51.0 percent among children of fathers at least 40 years of age. Therefore it is unlikely that the declining SSR in many countries results solely from large-scale changes in such personal factors.
With regard to environmental factors, improved prenatal and obstetrical care during the first part of the 20th century is largely responsible for an increased SSR over this period in many countries. The male fetus is more susceptible to loss in the womb than is the female fetus, so with more conceptions reaching term, proportionally more males are born.
It is difficult to discern how much of the decrease in sex ratio since the 1950s arises from contaminants in the environment. What is known is that drug use, high occupational exposures and environmental accidents can affect SSR. For example, hopeful mothers taking clomiphene citrate (Clomid) for infertility bore babies with an SSR of only 48.5 percent. Workers producing 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill worms in agriculture, experienced even larger decreases in the number of male babies they welcomed into the world. Effects of DBCP on sperm quality were discovered incidentally when male workers found that they were unable to father children. After the exposure ended, male workers experienced some recovery of sperm quality and 36 children were born to 44 workers. Of these 36 children only 10 were boys--an SSR of just 27.8 percent. Decreases in the SSR of offspring from fathers exposed to dioxin and dioxinlike chemicals occurred following an explosion in an herbicide factory in Seveso, Italy, in 1976 and contamination of rice oil used for cooking in Yu-Cheng, Taiwan. The decreases were most extreme among the children of fathers who were exposed at earlier ages: an SSR of 38.2 percent was recorded for fathers exposed before age 19 in Seveso, and fathers exposed before age 20 in Yu-Cheng experienced an SSR of 45.8 percent.
These dramatic changes resulting from extreme exposures raise the concern that chemicals in the environment at lower concentrations may also change the SSR by exposing people over longer periods of time. For example, there are reports that parental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, each of which is widely distributed in the environment, can affect the sex ratio. Confirming such effects will take careful work on large populations, but the results may be quite important for other reasons as well. In the general population, sperm quality deteriorated and testicular cancer and abnormalities of male genitalia increased over the same period that SSR declined. Furthermore, for men who go on to develop testicular cancer, both their semen quality and the SSR of their children are significantly reduced, suggesting a possible biological link between these male reproductive characteristics. Thus, effects of environmental contaminants on the sex ratio may be only the tip of the iceberg.
__________________________________________
What we see in national media these several years of OBAMA making all of what has been undercover now public is medical professionals coming out for or against these manipulations----this idea of population control sterilization of infants. We always see these divisions along the lines of PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS TIED TO OB-GYN being against these issues as they harm both mother and child----and PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS tied to GLOBAL BIOGENETIC ENGINEERING CORPORATIONS coming out in support of the right of corporations to earn profits anyway they can.
What we do not read in media is the fact that today's OB-GYNs are married to global medical corporations. So, again we have those 5% FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT DOCTORS----pretending to want to keep US health care and medical bioethics in place while working for these very same corporations.
WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% US AND GLOBAL CITIZENS need to know we have NO ADVOCATES in our US public health system----these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have assured only 5% players in public health departments and taken in as MEDICAL STUDENTS NOW DOCTORS. Those foreign doctors filling our US health care systems come to US bringing that third world profiteering ethos ----
WE HAVE NO ADVOCATE IN NGOs -----THOSE NATIONAL POLITICIANS PRETENDING TO BE LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AS DR JILL STEIN, BERNIE SANDERS, GABBARD, ELIZABETH WARREN, ET AL ALL KNOW WHAT MOVING FORWARD BIOTECH IS BRINGING --DO YOU HEAR THEM SHOUTING THESE FEW DECADES AGAINST POPULATION CONTROL AND STERILIZATION PROCEDURES?
'Yet most of the major medical societies, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have wildly different attitudes about when and where these techniques should be allowed, the study noted. The ASRM typically defers to a client's wishes on issues such as sex selection, for instance, whereas the ACOG advocates prohibiting sex selection because of its potential to lead to sex discrimination against women in society'.
What were private practice OB-GYNs have these several years been forced to become SALARIED employees doing whatever that global health system policy stance tells them. Our men/husbands/life partners have never been intimately involved in women's reproductive health care------know what? Men often feel that male doctor or professional has a better sense of what is right then the woman. We need our US 99% of men working with our 99% of US women in guarding against interruptions in fertility----in ability to have children ----and please stay away from DESIGNER BABIES ----99% of citizens will LOSE with these policies.
More Doctors Giving Up Private Practices
By GARDINER HARRISMARCH 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — A quiet revolution is transforming how medical care is delivered in this country, and it has very little to do with the sweeping health care legislation that President Obama just signed into law.
But it could have a big impact on that law’s chances for success.
Traditionally, American medicine has been largely a cottage industry. Most doctors cared for patients in small, privately owned clinics — sometimes in rooms adjoining their homes.
But an increasing share of young physicians, burdened by medical school debts and seeking regular hours, are deciding against opening private practices. Instead, they are accepting salaries at hospitals and health systems. And a growing number of older doctors — facing rising costs and fearing they will not be able to recruit junior partners — are selling their practices and moving into salaried jobs, too.
As recently as 2005, more than two-thirds of medical practices were physician-owned — a share that had been relatively constant for many years, the Medical Group Management Association says. But within three years, that share dropped below 50 percent, and analysts say the slide has continued.
For patients, the transformation in medicine is a mixed blessing. Ideally, bigger health care organizations can provide better, more coordinated care. But the intimacy of longstanding doctor-patient relationships may be going the way of the house call.
And for all the vaunted efficiencies of health care organizations, there are signs that the trend toward them is actually a big factor in the rising cost of private health insurance. In much of the country, health systems are known by another name: monopolies.
With these systems, private insurers often have little negotiating power in setting rates — and the Congressional health care legislation makes little provision for altering this dynamic. If anything, the legislation contains provisions — including efforts to combine payments for certain kinds of medical care — that may further speed the decline of the private-practice doctor and the growth of Big Medicine.
The trend away from small private practices is driven by growing concerns over medical errors and changes in government payments to doctors. But an even bigger push may be coming from electronic health records. The computerized systems are expensive and time-consuming for doctors, and their substantial benefits to patient safety, quality of care and system efficiency accrue almost entirely to large organizations, not small ones. The economic stimulus plan Congress passed early last year included $20 billion to spur the introduction of electronic health records.
For older doctors, the change away from private practice can be wrenching, and they are often puzzled by younger doctors’ embrace of salaried positions.
“When I was young, you didn’t blink an eye at being on call all the time, going to the hospital, being up all night,” said Dr. Gordon Hughes, chairman of the board of trustees for the Indiana State Medical Association. “But the young people coming out of training now don’t want to do much call and don’t want the risk of buying into a practice, but they still want a good lifestyle and a big salary. You can’t have it both ways.”
In many ways, patients benefit from higher quality and better coordinated care, as doctors from various fields join a single organization. In such systems, patient records can pass seamlessly from doctor to specialist to hospital, helping avoid the kind of dangerous slip-ups that cost the lives of an estimated 100,000 people in this country each year.
And yet, the decline of private practices may put an end to the kind of enduring and intimate relationships between patients and doctors that have long defined medicine. A patient who chooses a doctor in private practice is more likely to see that same doctor during each office visit than a patient who chooses a doctor employed by a health system.
The changes have increasingly put the public and private provision of health care at odds. In the Medicare and Medicaid program, the government sets most prices related to hospitalization and doctor visits. And so organized health systems are seen as a way to increase quality and lower costs, in part because salaried doctors may order fewer procedures than those in private practice.
But in the private-insurance setting, where big hospitals and health care chains have more clout in setting rates, the push for quality may put health insurance out of reach for much of the middle class.
There are political consequences, too. As doctors move from being employers to employees, their politics often take a leftward turn. This helps explain why the American Medical Association — long opposed to health care reforms — gave at least a tepid endorsement to Mr. Obama’s overhaul effort.
OH, REALLY????
TURNING LEFT BY ENDORSING GLOBAL 1% OBAMA?
Gordon H. Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Association, said that his organization had changed from being like a chamber of commerce to being like a union.
Dr. Michael Mirro of Fort Wayne, Ind., is among those caught in the tide. A 61-year-old cardiologist, he began his career like so many of his peers in a small private practice with two other cardiologists. They gradually added doctors until, by last year, they had 22 cardiologists, making theirs one of the largest private heart clinics in Indiana.
But in December, Dr. Mirro and his partners sold everything to Parkview Health, a growing health system that owns the hospital across the street from their building. “We had to hire more and more people to contact insurers and advocate for people to get the care they needed,” Dr. Mirro said. “That’s expensive.” As insurance rates rose and coverage weakened, patients were forced to pay out of their own pockets an increasing portion of Dr. Mirro’s bills. When the economy soured, many stopped trying.
“In the last year, the share of our patients from whom we could not hope to collect any money rose to about 30 percent,” Dr. Mirro said. Dr. Mirro and his partners had been thinking of selling for years. But they made the decision after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided last year to cut reimbursements to cardiologists by 27 to 40 percent, depending on the type of practice. The Medicare savings in cardiology are to be used to pay more to primary care doctors, widely seen as under great financial strain.
In the wake of the government decision, cardiology practices across the country began selling out to health systems or hospitals. Dr. Jack Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology, estimated that the share of cardiologists working in private practice had dropped by half in the past year.
__________________________________________________
It is now supposedly LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE being POLITICALLY CORRECT to promote and support our citizens who remain childless. Single and childless adults are indeed STIGMATIZED in developing nations AND Western nations.
This is how we know this is not coming from left---but right wing global 1%-----STUDY FINDS 'MORAL OUTRAGE' towards adults without children. Remember, national media like WASHINGTON POST work to promote global 1% policies-----when articles like this appear to protect childless adults----when the global 1% goal is FORCING US CITIZENS TO BE CHILDLESS-----this is from where those terms come---it is the FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% RELIGIOUS right.
Before US citizens start creating tensions and factions around single citizens with no children----think of what global 1% goals are----and protect the rights of people to decide and make sure they are not being FORCED INTO BEING CHILDLESS.
'And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable—that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate'.
'That conclusion was reconfirmed in a study detailing the stigmatization, social backlash and “moral outrage” toward child-free people'.
Solo-ish
Perspective Americans are having fewer kids. But child-free people are still stigmatized.
By Laura Barcella March 7
Americans are having fewer kids. The U.S. fertility rate is at an all-time low, with more single and coupled people choosing to delay or forego parenthood. However, remaining child-free still isn’t socially accepted.
That conclusion was reconfirmed in a study detailing the stigmatization, social backlash and “moral outrage” toward child-free people.
In the study, Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, a psychology professor at Indiana University, asked 197 college undergraduates from a large Midwestern university to read a vignette about a married graduate from the school who was described as male or female, with either zero or two children.
Asked to assess their feelings toward the graduates on a scale of 1 to 5, Ashburn-Nardo wanted to discern whether her participants — who had an average age of 20 — would view the child-free alums as more or less psychologically satisfied than their parent peers.
What she found was astonishing, Ashburn-Nardo wrote in an email. She discovered that the child-free alums were “perceived to be significantly less psychologically fulfilled” than those who were parents — and that participants experienced such reactions as disgust, disapproval, annoyance, outrage and anger when evaluating the child-free folks.
There was no gender gap in how the nonparents were viewed; participants believed both child-free men and women were less likely to lead happy lives. Ashburn-Nardo’s findings indicate that at least some young people see parenthood as more of a moral obligation than a personal choice — and that people who don’t have kids should prepare to be judged, even stigmatized.
“The [moral outrage] was the most surprising,” Ashburn-Nardo wrote. “It’s still shocking to me that people can report such feelings toward a person they’ve never met, and never could meet.”
As a single 40-year-old woman who has long waffled about wanting kids, I found this research disheartening. I’ve always despised being the subject of others’ pity, and this study confirmed that people like me are ripe for others’ scorn. But being child-free is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. In fact, it was never a concrete decision at all.
As an adopted child, I’ve always longed for a more cohesive sense of family (a boyfriend once told me I wouldn’t be able to “heal my childhood wounds” until I became a mother myself). And though I’ve never been especially maternal, for years I harbored a fantasy of finding the perfect partner — the kind of mate who would make having a child feel like an inevitability instead of a question mark. I believed that if I was “in love enough,” I’d feel that primal push toward motherhood that seemed to grip so many of my friends.
That ideal partner hasn’t come along yet, and neither has an unwavering desire to be a mom. But after some soul-searching, I realized that even as a child, when I imagined my grown-up future, I didn’t necessarily picture motherhood. I saw a warm, passionate long-term relationship with a man I loved, plus good friends, glamorous travels, a cozy home and lots of animals. In addition to a few relatives, that might be all the family I need. Why that very personal — but also painful — realization would offend others makes me feel even further stigmatized.
Though Ashburn-Nardo, who typically studies racism and how to combat it, is married, she’s all too familiar with feeling judged. She recalled how strangers at dinner parties have often assumed that she and her husband were parents and have even asked about their nonexistent kids. “I understand that … most people our age have children,” she acknowledged. But when she corrected them, strangers’ reactions -- “a look of disdain, like we’d done something wrong” — were what drove her toward this research.
That disdain is correlated with the umbrella term “moral outrage” used in Ashburn-Nardo’s study. “People experience moral outrage when they perceive someone has violated a morally prescribed behavior, something we’re ‘supposed to do’ because it’s what we see as right,” she explained. “In this case, there’s a societal expectation that people should desire to have children.”
What does this outrage on the part of the college-aged participants say to other young people who choose to forego child-rearing? And what does it say to child-free adults like me? According to Ashburn-Nardo, it sends the message that “parenthood is not only something we all should want, but that it is the [only] recipe for happiness and fulfillment.” However, most scientific literature shows that’s, well, not true. “Meta-analyses of hundreds of studies demonstrate that having children negatively affects relationship satisfaction,” Ashburn-Nardo pointed out.
_____________________________________
This article shouts what is a REAL LEFT social progressive stance on having children and population control--------as we discussed during public policy tied to CLIMATE CHANGE----how 5 degree temperature rise will make life different and harder for 99% of global citizens----ADAPTATION WITH 99% SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES would allow our human populations to exist with normal choices of having fewer children. This is why we say these population control stances from global 1% have nothing to do with ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY----they are only EUGENICS---and they are only EUGENICS FOR THE GLOBAL 1%-----
'And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable—that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate'.
We are heading into a deliberately created DEEP DEPRESSION ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF US DOLLAR bringing 99% of black, white, and brown citizens into deep poverty, unemployment----with a global labor pool filling US cities to build SMART CITY GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES. These global labor pool 99% will overwhelmingly be MEN----and their ability to bring their wives or family will not last long.
It is NOT a LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE stance to tell individuals NOT to have children as environmental activism-----it is STOP MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES global corporate campuses and global factories----we support the right of each individual to CHOOSE whether they want children or not. We support the right for women to CHOOSE to be STAY AT HOME MOMS----or working MOMS.
Stop Telling People Not to Have Kids to Save the Planet
I'm terrified of climate change, but I became a parent anyway.
Kate Lunau
Jul 12 2017, 4:17pm
As a science journalist and editor, I spend most of my days thinking about climate change—our rapidly heating planet, a melting Arctic, species loss, political inaction, and public apathy. In the evenings I go home and take care of my daughter, who is two.
So when a new study came out today suggesting that having fewer kids is the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions—sparking media headlines like "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children" in The Guardian—I had to stop what I was doing and read it. It notes that a US family choosing to have one fewer child would be responsible for the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teens who "adopt comprehensive recycling" for the rest of their lives.
With the global population projected to reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100, up from 7.6 billion today, there are urgent questions about how we'll feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for so many people in the face of climate change and its accompanying threats, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and desertification.
And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable--that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate.
Setting aside the question of what sort of a planet young children will actually inherit—a question that plagues me every day—I had to come back to all of this and worry over it again, like an old hangnail. Certainly, as Broadly has pointed out, some people are opting not to have children at all because the future is looking so grim. So if I'm legitimately concerned about climate change, and I am, is it irresponsible for me to have kids?
The empowerment of women, access to birth control, and female education are inextricably tied to climate change
To start with, it's important to look at what the new paper, published in Environmental Research Letters, actually finds—not that we should all stop procreating entirely, but that "having one fewer child" has the greatest potential to reduce an individual's annual carbon emissions (in developed countries, an average of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent reduction per year), alongside living car-free, avoiding long flights, and being vegetarian, although these last three didn't produce nearly the same bang-for-your-buck as the first option.
How many resources a baby consumes has to do with where and how she (and her family) lives. In Western countries, where individuals tend to have a larger carbon footprint, the fertility rate is already falling quite a bit. We are having fewer children.
In the US in 2016, the birth rate was the lowest on record, with 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down one percent from the year before. Canada's seen a similar trend, as have European countries, and Australia. (I mention these places here because the researchers' paper specifically cites them.)
Countries that do have rising birthrates are mostly in the developing world. There, women can often benefit from better access to healthcare and education, which is why admonishments to "have fewer children" can't exist alongside threats to take money away from women's healthcare or to restrict access to abortion. The empowerment of women, access to birth control (including abortion), and female education are inextricably tied to climate change, and will play a huge part in how we deal with it in the years to come.
Donald Trump caught a lot of flak for leaving the Paris Agreement, but his Executive Order banning international NGOs from even offering information on abortion services if they want to keep getting funding from the US—well, that's a climate issue, too.
To me, an important point in this new paper is the finding that "incremental behavioural changes"—stuff that's easy to do, like recycling—don't necessarily make a huge difference in reducing carbon emissions overall. Not to say you shouldn't recycle. You should. But climate change is a political problem, one that will require large-scale political solutions.
I don't think that "have fewer children" is bad advice, necessarily, even though I do object to how quickly oversimplified peoples' choices can become. Better access to healthcare, education, and birth control are about giving women a choice, and should be seen as part of the climate fight.
On a personal note, having a kid is what gives me hope for the future, even when environmental catastrophe is keeping me up at night—that it has to work out, because she's here.
______________________________________________
AND HERE COME THE FEMI-NAZIS----the HILLARY 5% WOMEN corporate feminists ------working for the global 1% of men----selling those global 1% men's talking points to women as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE when it is the OPPOSITE.
'Among the one-child cheerleaders are Brandeis University professor Linda R. Hirshman, who urged women to have only one child to protect their earning power in her book “Get to Work,” and author Bill McKibben, who argued that large families are environmentally reckless in “Maybe One: The Case for Smaller Families.”'
We shared last week in discussing women's public policy issues these same Hillary 5% global corporate FEMINISTS-----that time it was HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL WOMEN DOCTORS being those feminists 5% FAKE RELIGIOUS leaders. We shouted last week---THESE ARE NOT 99% WOMEN LEADERS---THEY ARE 5% PLAYERS. That is what we are seeing in these articles.
YOU DON'T HEAR THEM FIGHTING TO PROTECT WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIES FROM GLOBAL BIOGENETIC SEX CHROMOSOME MANIPULATION STERILIZATION GENDER BLENDING OR DESIGNER BABY POLICIES!
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY was a leader in early 20th century civil rights -----it is NOT THE SAME UNIVERSITY TODAY. The Nation is a global 1% media outlet ----so we would not expect to read REAL LEFT social progressive policy from THE NATION----from NEW REPUBLIC-----
Notice this article was written in Bush-era 2006------our 99% of US women black, white, and brown citizens really, really need NOT TO BE SEDUCED by temporary high-paying jobs and positions---it is just that ---temporary ----think about the future only a few decades down the road.
Today, Some Feminists Hate the Word 'Choice'
By PATRICIA COHENJAN. 15, 2006
THROUGHOUT its lifetime, feminism has spawned its share of catchphrases and epithets. Simone de Beauvoir gave us "the second sex." Betty Friedan invented "the feminist mystique." Arlie Hochschild labeled the daily housework that followed office work "the second shift," while Rush Limbaugh contributed "feminazis" to the discourse.
Now another phrase -- choice feminism -- is suddenly gaining currency, while managing to annoy people on the left, right and just about everywhere in between.
This seemingly innocuous term, coined by a lawyer and scholar, Linda R. Hirshman, in the December issue of The American Prospect, refers to the popular feminist philosophy that in her words declares "a woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one, marry or stay single." "It all counted as 'feminist' as long as she chose it," Ms. Hirshman wrote.
The concepts behind choice feminism took over the mainstream in the 1980's, replacing more militant agendas that derided or neglected family life. The idea was that women should decide for themselves how to combine children, career, romance and vacuuming. What it didn't tell them was how to make the right decision. Figuring out the balance between home and work turned out to be a lot trickier than anyone thought.
Ms. Hirshman would like to help -- though not in a way many women would welcome. In her article she denounced choice feminism as a con. It promised liberation, she said, but actually betrayed women by leaving traditional sex roles intact. In short, women were still stuck with the housework and child-rearing. The public sphere, outside the home, she argued, is the only place where women can fully flourish. And that, she proclaimed, is where they should be.
She issued a few simple rules: Marry someone poorer or socially inferior; increase your tolerance of dust. And, as she puts it: "Have a baby. Just don't have two."
On the Web and elsewhere, responses were quick, numerous and fierce. There were a few supporters, but many more critics. Conservatives saw her argument as another example of how feminists are intent on destroying the family. Liberals criticized her for being authoritarian and defining success only by money and status. Mothers denounced her for just about everything.
What is perhaps most surprising, though, is not that feminists like Ms. Hirshman believe homemaking is second-class drudgery, but that so many people still get worked up over the issue. After all, feminist thinkers have been proclaiming the need to free women from the bondage of housework for a long time. It is, as Ms. Hirshman freely acknowledges, precisely what Ms. Friedan argued in "The Feminist Mystique," first published more than 40 years ago.
"The only kind of work which permits an able woman to realize her abilities fully," Ms. Friedan wrote, "is the kind that was forbidden by the feminine mystique, the lifelong commitment to an art or science, to politics or profession." Not homemaking, not motherhood.
In an interview, Ms. Hirshman said that in the course of researching a book, she began to wonder when feminism switched from offering a clear blueprint for liberation to choosing from Column A and Column B.
"I was curious to see when we got to the place when they decided to sidestep the definition of the good life by Friedan," she said, "to whatever floats your boats."
She traced the change to the late 80's, when the women's movement decided to frame the debate over legalized abortion as a question of a woman's choice. The language, she says, "spilled over."
That Ms. Hirshman's views on family life now sound so radical is a testament to how roundly the mainstream has rejected them. While rigid doctrines may have made sense in the early days, they don't now, when major goals have been won and a more diverse group of women are in the picture. Indeed, the common critique of the women's movement in the 60's and 70's was that it was too elitist and dogmatic, that it didn't respect women who wanted to stay home.
Choice feminism was an adjustment to reality. But reality, of course, is messy and confusing. It's not clear what should give when women are still responsible for a disproportionate share of the housework, they miss their children while they're at work all day, good child care is expensive, and time off or part-time work hampers a career.
In the continuing Web discussion about Ms. Hirshman's article, many women angry with her conclusions still agreed with her complaints about the unequal burden between men and women for home and family.
A Web site called the Half Changed World, for example, written by a self-described mom and policy wonk, said: "I honestly don't know what's going to break through the domestic glass ceiling. I used to think that it just was going to take time, that of course the younger generation would adopt a more equitable distribution of labor. I don't see that happening."
Choice feminism doesn't provide any formula or model for happily balancing family, work, love, chores, play, sleep and more. Nothing does anymore.
. "We've been living through this massive transformation where those predictable pathways have really eroded," said Kathleen Gerson, a New York University sociologist.
That is why edicts that order women either to get out of the house or to stay there inevitably resurface. Issuing marching orders is simple. "Viva la revolución!" is a lot catchier than "Muddle Through!" It's just not helpful.
So, the US stance was against China and 1 child because of justice issues and concerns about the negative effects to China's societal structure.
FAST FORWARD TO CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----THE US POLICY IS WORSE THAN THE CHINESE POLICY IN MOVING FORWARD EXTREME POPULATION CONTROL WITH NO RIGHTS, NO FREEDOM, LIBERTY, OR JUSTICE.
'We are pleased to announce that all medical services offered by The Fertility Institutes are available internationally. We work with affiliate clinics in over 42 countries'.
'They were told by their local fertility physician that gender selection was illegal in Canada'.
There were any number of societal disasters in China from these 1 child policies. Chinese citizens lost all standards of society tied to honoring family, mother/father, respecting life, needing marriage to survive in developing nations with extreme wealth extreme poverty. The percentage of men grew to around 65-70% and women fell to 35-40%. Men like to think they get along better without women but thousands of years of history show----IT IS THE OPPOSITE. Especially for low-income/poor. A man needs that wife and those children as combined efforts to create a family economy that allows for survival. This is why poor families have lots of children -----rich families have one or two children.
What we saw in China were men unable to marry leaving the country or dying from black market violence or suicide. What we saw was violence against women in forced abortions-----women unable to give a male child tossed aside for a next wife----the KING HENRY THE 8TH SYNDROME----and women losing that daughter we know help in female tasks-----now that wife has all the work of caring for family. We have no idea what the real stats from these few decades of forced 1 child are-----we do know simply lifting citizens into higher income brackets lower the rate of population growth as much if not more than the BRUTAL AUTHORITARIAN DICTATE of denying people the right to reproduce.
So, we are told China is now lifting 1 child policies but KNOW WHAT? China was one of the first to install artificial manipulation of sex chromosome BIOGENETIC gender control and sterilization. They have been doing this these few decades and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA grew all those global fertility corporations overseas doing just that----bringing them back to US during OBAMA deregulation and dismantling of all oversight and accountability of our US public health care system.
World
How China's One-Child Policy Led To Forced Abortions, 30 Million Bachelors
February 1, 20161:43 PM ET
Heard on Fresh Air
One Child
The Story of China's Most Radical Experiment
by Mei Fong
Last October, China ended its 35-year-old policy of restricting most urban families to one child. Commonly referred to as the "one-child" policy, the restrictions were actually a collection of rules that governed how many children married couples could have.
"The basic idea was to encourage everybody, by coercion if necessary, to keep to ... one child," journalist Mei Fong tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.
Fong explores the wide-ranging impact of what she calls the world's "most radical experiment" in her new book, One Child. She says that among the policy's unintended consequences is an acute gender imbalance.
"When you create a system where you would shrink the size of a family and people would have to choose, then people would ... choose sons," Fong says. "Now China has 30 million more men than women, 30 million bachelors who cannot find brides. ... They call them guang guan, 'broken branches,' that's the name in Chinese. They are the biological dead ends of their family."
Fong says the policy also led to forced abortions and the confiscation of children by the authorities. Looking ahead, China is also facing a shortage of workers who can support its aging population.
"Right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That's pretty good, that's a very healthy ratio. In about 20 years that's going to jump to about 1.6 working adults to support one retiree," Fong says. "The one-child policy drastically reshaped the composition of China's people. So now they have a population that's basically too old and too male and, down the line, maybe too few."
On the economic and cultural implications of losing your only child in China
It means a lot, economically speaking, because a lot of families still don't have any kind of a financial security, so losing one child is basically a pension plan, so that's one thing. For the Chinese, culturally speaking, the continuance of the family line was very important, so when you die without any issue you are basically violating all sorts of duties to your ancestors, which is very important. ... Chinese society is still very family-centric even if it's just a small family size, you're not considered fully an adult until you are married, and you're not considered complete until you have a child, and when you lose that child, you fall quite far down the societal totem pole.
So, for example, this family that I covered that had lost their only child [in an earthquake], they lost a lot of status in their village. They said that their neighbors were avoiding them and shunning them, basically, that they were worried that this childless couple would now be hangers-on, clinging onto them, borrowing money, not having any sort of protection — so that's what losing your one child means.
Today in Chinese context there's a name for these people who have lost their only child, it's called shidu, and it means, "parents who've lost their only child." And for parents who are shidu, some of them find it hard to get admitted into nursing homes. Some nursing homes won't take them. They say, "You have no progeny to authorize treatments or payments or anything, so we'd prefer not to admit you." They also have difficulty buying funeral plots for the same reason. Who is going to service the maintenance costs of your cemetery down the line? So these are very sad issues.
On exceptions to the one-child policy
They would have some certain exceptions, because they found that they could not make everybody keep to that one-child rule without allowing for certain exceptions. So you could technically have a second child if you had a certain job that was hazardous, like if you were a coal miner or a fisherman. You could also have a second child maybe if you were one of China's minority tribes or if you lived in a rural area and your first child was a girl and they recognize that a lot of people want to try for sons. But the end result was that with all of these exceptions coming down the line, a lot of people didn't really necessarily know what the rules were, so it was very easy to contravene them and be fined for them.
On how the one-child policy was enforced
If [a woman] lived in a small village, for example, she would probably be scrutinized by a group, she would probably be grouped together with a set of households and come under what they call a cluster leader, somebody who sort of monitors the progress and fertility rights of a certain set of households. ... So if this woman ... fell pregnant then most likely this cluster leader would know about it very quickly and then she would report to higher up. ... Probably at first a village leader would show up at their doorstep and say, "You know very well you should not have this; you could have all sorts of problem with this. You may have to pay a fine." I've met enforcers who have gone to these houses and say, "We used to take away something valuable to show that we mean business." ... Like a television set, for example, or a pig, or sometimes if the household was a very poor household they'll take away homespun cloth or grain or something, something that had to make it hurt, basically — that was in a village setting, of course.
In a city setting they could maybe, if you worked for a [civil service-like] job they might threaten to fire you. ... This is for having a child. If you went for a termination, all of this would go away. But, of course, then there were people who really wanted the child and then they would try and evade the whole process of being taken away for a forced abortion, because here's the thing: Between your conception and your delivery date, all bets are off — they can make you.
On the aging population in China
The one-child policy drastically reshaped the composition of China's people. So now they have a population that's basically too old and too male and down the line, maybe too few. So the too old issue is that right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That's pretty good, that's a very healthy ratio. In about 20 years that's going to jump to about 1.6 working adults to support one retiree, and that's because that big population boom that we talked about, that big cohort of people are all living longer and getting older and therefore hitting their 70s, 80s and 90s, so by the time 2050 comes around one in four Chinese people will be a retiree.
The entire population of retirees in China would be the third largest nation in this world, if they were to form their own country. So that has nothing to do with the one-child policy, that's just a function of people living longer and growing older, but the problem is then you have this very small working cohort to support that, and that has everything to do with the one-child policy. You just drastically shrank the number of working adults who support this huge, aging tsunami and that's the problem going ahead.
On technology allowing parents to know the sex of the fetus
In the beginning when the policy came around in 1980, at that time they did not have scanning machines that could determine the gender of the fetus at an early stage, so people who delivered girls, for example, and wanted to keep their quota for that one boy -- because if you used up your quota for a girl and then you gave birth to another girl and you would lose that — so people would either abandon their daughters or there would be infanticide, or they would give them away, which is part of the reason why we saw so many adoptions of Chinese babies, mostly girls, in the West.
But later in the 1990s, technology made it easier for people to do all these scans and companies like General Electric made these scanning machines that were portable and small enough that you could go from village to village and you could determine the sex of your fetus ... for as little as $10 or $20, so people would just have an abortion instead of carrying a child to full term. ... The Nobel economist Amartya Sen estimated there were about 100 million missing women, women that were never born or killed or aborted across Asia.
On a generation of women being more educated and professionally successful because of the one-child policy
Let's say you were born after 1980 in a big city, chances are you probably don't have a sibling. And if you're a girl and you don't have a sibling, you don't have to fight with your sibling for resources. So your parents will want to send you to college. They won't be debating a question of whether they should spend the money on your brother or yourself; it's all for you. So imagine this scenario replicated a million times over and the end result is urban women born after 1980 achieved way more than any other generation before them.
________________________________________
You will notice NPR/PBS will remind US citizens of these kinds of repressive authoritarian policies but NONE OF THEM have educated the US citizens black, white, and brown 99% of the current status of population control here in US, its goals, its methods. National media simply keeps getting those 5% players to make their own population group think they are WINNING as with our 99% of women all those workplace laws ---those few percent getting high-level jobs----all those women as politicians and media personalities as women are killed the most in far-right wing authoritarian population control policies MOVING FORWARD IN US.
People at least KNEW they were being denied rights to decide family issues---today global biogenetic engineering corporations are being allowed to sterilize people and fetuses without parents knowing.
Why is the human population roughly 50/50 male/female?
Why is there an equal amount of human females and males?
The probability that any given child will be male (or female) is exactly 50%. This is because of how reproduction works in humans. Male and female sex cells are formed by a process called meiosis, where the diploid chromosomes divide and separate. Normal cells have 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. Sex cells have 23 individual chromosomes. For a woman, all of her cells will contain the X chromosome, as all of her cells have a double-X pair. But for men, all of whose cells have an XY pair, their sex cells will contain an equal split of Xs and Ys.
The probability of any given sperm cell fertlising an ovum being approximately equal, the X sperm and the Y sperm have the same chance as each other of being the first past the post. So the probability of the sex of the child, which is determined by whether they get an X or a Y chromosome from their biological father, is exactly 50:50. And so the ratio of male to female births is also 50:50.
Note that in practice, the distribution of sexes worldwide slightly favours women. (I believe it's something like 51.3%.) And I've ignored biological rarities like XXY, as they don't materially affect the probabilities.
Global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA do not care about societal structures---MOVING FORWARD is about killing all human civilized societal structures developed over thousands of years to create a NEW WORLD ORDER -----we are told not to FEAR CHANGE-----we do not FEAR CHANGE---we simply do not want and refuse the changes being brought by MOVING FORWARD.
What global biogenetic engineering corporations around human genome and especially sex chromosome manipulation have as a goal is making it impossible for any individual citizen ---in US or globally-----to trust that a normal birth at a global health corporation system by OB-GYNs will not end in that fetus being MANIPULATED and/or sterilized. No matter how much a US OB-GYN smiles and acts as though they LOVE CHILDREN ---what US global health system corporations have for doctors are third world predatory and profiteering ---they have these jobs BECAUSE they will work for only CORPORATE PROFITS and global 1% banking.
The Sciences
Is a pregnant woman's chance of giving birth to a boy 50 percent?
Marc Weisskopf, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, explains. In most industrialized countries about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, for a ratio of 1.05, known as the secondary sex ratio, or SSR; the primary sex ratio is the ratio at conception. This is often expressed as the percentage of boys among all births, or about 51.2 percent. Thus, the short answer to the question is: "On average, no." The percentage of males among all births is not fixed, however. Since the 1950s and 1960s the overall SSR has been declining in the U.S., Canada and several European countries, but some groups display different trends. In the U.S., the SSR is declining for whites, whereas among African-Americans and other races, the SSR has been increasing since the 1960s. Currently the SSR among African-Americans in the U.S. is only about 50.7 percent. There are also both personal and environmental factors that affect the average sex ratio.
The chance of having a boy appears to decline with the mother's age, the father's age and the number of children the family already has. These effects are small. One study in Denmark found that the SSR of children born to fathers younger than 25 was 51.6 percent, which decreased to 51.0 percent among children of fathers at least 40 years of age. Therefore it is unlikely that the declining SSR in many countries results solely from large-scale changes in such personal factors.
With regard to environmental factors, improved prenatal and obstetrical care during the first part of the 20th century is largely responsible for an increased SSR over this period in many countries. The male fetus is more susceptible to loss in the womb than is the female fetus, so with more conceptions reaching term, proportionally more males are born.
It is difficult to discern how much of the decrease in sex ratio since the 1950s arises from contaminants in the environment. What is known is that drug use, high occupational exposures and environmental accidents can affect SSR. For example, hopeful mothers taking clomiphene citrate (Clomid) for infertility bore babies with an SSR of only 48.5 percent. Workers producing 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill worms in agriculture, experienced even larger decreases in the number of male babies they welcomed into the world. Effects of DBCP on sperm quality were discovered incidentally when male workers found that they were unable to father children. After the exposure ended, male workers experienced some recovery of sperm quality and 36 children were born to 44 workers. Of these 36 children only 10 were boys--an SSR of just 27.8 percent. Decreases in the SSR of offspring from fathers exposed to dioxin and dioxinlike chemicals occurred following an explosion in an herbicide factory in Seveso, Italy, in 1976 and contamination of rice oil used for cooking in Yu-Cheng, Taiwan. The decreases were most extreme among the children of fathers who were exposed at earlier ages: an SSR of 38.2 percent was recorded for fathers exposed before age 19 in Seveso, and fathers exposed before age 20 in Yu-Cheng experienced an SSR of 45.8 percent.
These dramatic changes resulting from extreme exposures raise the concern that chemicals in the environment at lower concentrations may also change the SSR by exposing people over longer periods of time. For example, there are reports that parental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, each of which is widely distributed in the environment, can affect the sex ratio. Confirming such effects will take careful work on large populations, but the results may be quite important for other reasons as well. In the general population, sperm quality deteriorated and testicular cancer and abnormalities of male genitalia increased over the same period that SSR declined. Furthermore, for men who go on to develop testicular cancer, both their semen quality and the SSR of their children are significantly reduced, suggesting a possible biological link between these male reproductive characteristics. Thus, effects of environmental contaminants on the sex ratio may be only the tip of the iceberg.
__________________________________________
What we see in national media these several years of OBAMA making all of what has been undercover now public is medical professionals coming out for or against these manipulations----this idea of population control sterilization of infants. We always see these divisions along the lines of PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS TIED TO OB-GYN being against these issues as they harm both mother and child----and PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS tied to GLOBAL BIOGENETIC ENGINEERING CORPORATIONS coming out in support of the right of corporations to earn profits anyway they can.
What we do not read in media is the fact that today's OB-GYNs are married to global medical corporations. So, again we have those 5% FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT DOCTORS----pretending to want to keep US health care and medical bioethics in place while working for these very same corporations.
WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% US AND GLOBAL CITIZENS need to know we have NO ADVOCATES in our US public health system----these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have assured only 5% players in public health departments and taken in as MEDICAL STUDENTS NOW DOCTORS. Those foreign doctors filling our US health care systems come to US bringing that third world profiteering ethos ----
WE HAVE NO ADVOCATE IN NGOs -----THOSE NATIONAL POLITICIANS PRETENDING TO BE LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AS DR JILL STEIN, BERNIE SANDERS, GABBARD, ELIZABETH WARREN, ET AL ALL KNOW WHAT MOVING FORWARD BIOTECH IS BRINGING --DO YOU HEAR THEM SHOUTING THESE FEW DECADES AGAINST POPULATION CONTROL AND STERILIZATION PROCEDURES?
'Yet most of the major medical societies, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have wildly different attitudes about when and where these techniques should be allowed, the study noted. The ASRM typically defers to a client's wishes on issues such as sex selection, for instance, whereas the ACOG advocates prohibiting sex selection because of its potential to lead to sex discrimination against women in society'.
What were private practice OB-GYNs have these several years been forced to become SALARIED employees doing whatever that global health system policy stance tells them. Our men/husbands/life partners have never been intimately involved in women's reproductive health care------know what? Men often feel that male doctor or professional has a better sense of what is right then the woman. We need our US 99% of men working with our 99% of US women in guarding against interruptions in fertility----in ability to have children ----and please stay away from DESIGNER BABIES ----99% of citizens will LOSE with these policies.
More Doctors Giving Up Private Practices
By GARDINER HARRISMARCH 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — A quiet revolution is transforming how medical care is delivered in this country, and it has very little to do with the sweeping health care legislation that President Obama just signed into law.
But it could have a big impact on that law’s chances for success.
Traditionally, American medicine has been largely a cottage industry. Most doctors cared for patients in small, privately owned clinics — sometimes in rooms adjoining their homes.
But an increasing share of young physicians, burdened by medical school debts and seeking regular hours, are deciding against opening private practices. Instead, they are accepting salaries at hospitals and health systems. And a growing number of older doctors — facing rising costs and fearing they will not be able to recruit junior partners — are selling their practices and moving into salaried jobs, too.
As recently as 2005, more than two-thirds of medical practices were physician-owned — a share that had been relatively constant for many years, the Medical Group Management Association says. But within three years, that share dropped below 50 percent, and analysts say the slide has continued.
For patients, the transformation in medicine is a mixed blessing. Ideally, bigger health care organizations can provide better, more coordinated care. But the intimacy of longstanding doctor-patient relationships may be going the way of the house call.
And for all the vaunted efficiencies of health care organizations, there are signs that the trend toward them is actually a big factor in the rising cost of private health insurance. In much of the country, health systems are known by another name: monopolies.
With these systems, private insurers often have little negotiating power in setting rates — and the Congressional health care legislation makes little provision for altering this dynamic. If anything, the legislation contains provisions — including efforts to combine payments for certain kinds of medical care — that may further speed the decline of the private-practice doctor and the growth of Big Medicine.
The trend away from small private practices is driven by growing concerns over medical errors and changes in government payments to doctors. But an even bigger push may be coming from electronic health records. The computerized systems are expensive and time-consuming for doctors, and their substantial benefits to patient safety, quality of care and system efficiency accrue almost entirely to large organizations, not small ones. The economic stimulus plan Congress passed early last year included $20 billion to spur the introduction of electronic health records.
For older doctors, the change away from private practice can be wrenching, and they are often puzzled by younger doctors’ embrace of salaried positions.
“When I was young, you didn’t blink an eye at being on call all the time, going to the hospital, being up all night,” said Dr. Gordon Hughes, chairman of the board of trustees for the Indiana State Medical Association. “But the young people coming out of training now don’t want to do much call and don’t want the risk of buying into a practice, but they still want a good lifestyle and a big salary. You can’t have it both ways.”
In many ways, patients benefit from higher quality and better coordinated care, as doctors from various fields join a single organization. In such systems, patient records can pass seamlessly from doctor to specialist to hospital, helping avoid the kind of dangerous slip-ups that cost the lives of an estimated 100,000 people in this country each year.
And yet, the decline of private practices may put an end to the kind of enduring and intimate relationships between patients and doctors that have long defined medicine. A patient who chooses a doctor in private practice is more likely to see that same doctor during each office visit than a patient who chooses a doctor employed by a health system.
The changes have increasingly put the public and private provision of health care at odds. In the Medicare and Medicaid program, the government sets most prices related to hospitalization and doctor visits. And so organized health systems are seen as a way to increase quality and lower costs, in part because salaried doctors may order fewer procedures than those in private practice.
But in the private-insurance setting, where big hospitals and health care chains have more clout in setting rates, the push for quality may put health insurance out of reach for much of the middle class.
There are political consequences, too. As doctors move from being employers to employees, their politics often take a leftward turn. This helps explain why the American Medical Association — long opposed to health care reforms — gave at least a tepid endorsement to Mr. Obama’s overhaul effort.
OH, REALLY????
TURNING LEFT BY ENDORSING GLOBAL 1% OBAMA?
Gordon H. Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Association, said that his organization had changed from being like a chamber of commerce to being like a union.
Dr. Michael Mirro of Fort Wayne, Ind., is among those caught in the tide. A 61-year-old cardiologist, he began his career like so many of his peers in a small private practice with two other cardiologists. They gradually added doctors until, by last year, they had 22 cardiologists, making theirs one of the largest private heart clinics in Indiana.
But in December, Dr. Mirro and his partners sold everything to Parkview Health, a growing health system that owns the hospital across the street from their building. “We had to hire more and more people to contact insurers and advocate for people to get the care they needed,” Dr. Mirro said. “That’s expensive.” As insurance rates rose and coverage weakened, patients were forced to pay out of their own pockets an increasing portion of Dr. Mirro’s bills. When the economy soured, many stopped trying.
“In the last year, the share of our patients from whom we could not hope to collect any money rose to about 30 percent,” Dr. Mirro said. Dr. Mirro and his partners had been thinking of selling for years. But they made the decision after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided last year to cut reimbursements to cardiologists by 27 to 40 percent, depending on the type of practice. The Medicare savings in cardiology are to be used to pay more to primary care doctors, widely seen as under great financial strain.
In the wake of the government decision, cardiology practices across the country began selling out to health systems or hospitals. Dr. Jack Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology, estimated that the share of cardiologists working in private practice had dropped by half in the past year.
__________________________________________________
It is now supposedly LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE being POLITICALLY CORRECT to promote and support our citizens who remain childless. Single and childless adults are indeed STIGMATIZED in developing nations AND Western nations.
This is how we know this is not coming from left---but right wing global 1%-----STUDY FINDS 'MORAL OUTRAGE' towards adults without children. Remember, national media like WASHINGTON POST work to promote global 1% policies-----when articles like this appear to protect childless adults----when the global 1% goal is FORCING US CITIZENS TO BE CHILDLESS-----this is from where those terms come---it is the FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% RELIGIOUS right.
Before US citizens start creating tensions and factions around single citizens with no children----think of what global 1% goals are----and protect the rights of people to decide and make sure they are not being FORCED INTO BEING CHILDLESS.
'And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable—that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate'.
'That conclusion was reconfirmed in a study detailing the stigmatization, social backlash and “moral outrage” toward child-free people'.
Solo-ish
Perspective Americans are having fewer kids. But child-free people are still stigmatized.
By Laura Barcella March 7
Americans are having fewer kids. The U.S. fertility rate is at an all-time low, with more single and coupled people choosing to delay or forego parenthood. However, remaining child-free still isn’t socially accepted.
That conclusion was reconfirmed in a study detailing the stigmatization, social backlash and “moral outrage” toward child-free people.
In the study, Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, a psychology professor at Indiana University, asked 197 college undergraduates from a large Midwestern university to read a vignette about a married graduate from the school who was described as male or female, with either zero or two children.
Asked to assess their feelings toward the graduates on a scale of 1 to 5, Ashburn-Nardo wanted to discern whether her participants — who had an average age of 20 — would view the child-free alums as more or less psychologically satisfied than their parent peers.
What she found was astonishing, Ashburn-Nardo wrote in an email. She discovered that the child-free alums were “perceived to be significantly less psychologically fulfilled” than those who were parents — and that participants experienced such reactions as disgust, disapproval, annoyance, outrage and anger when evaluating the child-free folks.
There was no gender gap in how the nonparents were viewed; participants believed both child-free men and women were less likely to lead happy lives. Ashburn-Nardo’s findings indicate that at least some young people see parenthood as more of a moral obligation than a personal choice — and that people who don’t have kids should prepare to be judged, even stigmatized.
“The [moral outrage] was the most surprising,” Ashburn-Nardo wrote. “It’s still shocking to me that people can report such feelings toward a person they’ve never met, and never could meet.”
As a single 40-year-old woman who has long waffled about wanting kids, I found this research disheartening. I’ve always despised being the subject of others’ pity, and this study confirmed that people like me are ripe for others’ scorn. But being child-free is not a decision I’ve reached lightly. In fact, it was never a concrete decision at all.
As an adopted child, I’ve always longed for a more cohesive sense of family (a boyfriend once told me I wouldn’t be able to “heal my childhood wounds” until I became a mother myself). And though I’ve never been especially maternal, for years I harbored a fantasy of finding the perfect partner — the kind of mate who would make having a child feel like an inevitability instead of a question mark. I believed that if I was “in love enough,” I’d feel that primal push toward motherhood that seemed to grip so many of my friends.
That ideal partner hasn’t come along yet, and neither has an unwavering desire to be a mom. But after some soul-searching, I realized that even as a child, when I imagined my grown-up future, I didn’t necessarily picture motherhood. I saw a warm, passionate long-term relationship with a man I loved, plus good friends, glamorous travels, a cozy home and lots of animals. In addition to a few relatives, that might be all the family I need. Why that very personal — but also painful — realization would offend others makes me feel even further stigmatized.
Though Ashburn-Nardo, who typically studies racism and how to combat it, is married, she’s all too familiar with feeling judged. She recalled how strangers at dinner parties have often assumed that she and her husband were parents and have even asked about their nonexistent kids. “I understand that … most people our age have children,” she acknowledged. But when she corrected them, strangers’ reactions -- “a look of disdain, like we’d done something wrong” — were what drove her toward this research.
That disdain is correlated with the umbrella term “moral outrage” used in Ashburn-Nardo’s study. “People experience moral outrage when they perceive someone has violated a morally prescribed behavior, something we’re ‘supposed to do’ because it’s what we see as right,” she explained. “In this case, there’s a societal expectation that people should desire to have children.”
What does this outrage on the part of the college-aged participants say to other young people who choose to forego child-rearing? And what does it say to child-free adults like me? According to Ashburn-Nardo, it sends the message that “parenthood is not only something we all should want, but that it is the [only] recipe for happiness and fulfillment.” However, most scientific literature shows that’s, well, not true. “Meta-analyses of hundreds of studies demonstrate that having children negatively affects relationship satisfaction,” Ashburn-Nardo pointed out.
_____________________________________
This article shouts what is a REAL LEFT social progressive stance on having children and population control--------as we discussed during public policy tied to CLIMATE CHANGE----how 5 degree temperature rise will make life different and harder for 99% of global citizens----ADAPTATION WITH 99% SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES would allow our human populations to exist with normal choices of having fewer children. This is why we say these population control stances from global 1% have nothing to do with ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY----they are only EUGENICS---and they are only EUGENICS FOR THE GLOBAL 1%-----
'And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable—that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate'.
We are heading into a deliberately created DEEP DEPRESSION ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF US DOLLAR bringing 99% of black, white, and brown citizens into deep poverty, unemployment----with a global labor pool filling US cities to build SMART CITY GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES. These global labor pool 99% will overwhelmingly be MEN----and their ability to bring their wives or family will not last long.
It is NOT a LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE stance to tell individuals NOT to have children as environmental activism-----it is STOP MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES global corporate campuses and global factories----we support the right of each individual to CHOOSE whether they want children or not. We support the right for women to CHOOSE to be STAY AT HOME MOMS----or working MOMS.
Stop Telling People Not to Have Kids to Save the Planet
I'm terrified of climate change, but I became a parent anyway.
Kate Lunau
Jul 12 2017, 4:17pm
As a science journalist and editor, I spend most of my days thinking about climate change—our rapidly heating planet, a melting Arctic, species loss, political inaction, and public apathy. In the evenings I go home and take care of my daughter, who is two.
So when a new study came out today suggesting that having fewer kids is the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions—sparking media headlines like "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children" in The Guardian—I had to stop what I was doing and read it. It notes that a US family choosing to have one fewer child would be responsible for the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teens who "adopt comprehensive recycling" for the rest of their lives.
With the global population projected to reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100, up from 7.6 billion today, there are urgent questions about how we'll feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for so many people in the face of climate change and its accompanying threats, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and desertification.
And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable--that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate.
Setting aside the question of what sort of a planet young children will actually inherit—a question that plagues me every day—I had to come back to all of this and worry over it again, like an old hangnail. Certainly, as Broadly has pointed out, some people are opting not to have children at all because the future is looking so grim. So if I'm legitimately concerned about climate change, and I am, is it irresponsible for me to have kids?
The empowerment of women, access to birth control, and female education are inextricably tied to climate change
To start with, it's important to look at what the new paper, published in Environmental Research Letters, actually finds—not that we should all stop procreating entirely, but that "having one fewer child" has the greatest potential to reduce an individual's annual carbon emissions (in developed countries, an average of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent reduction per year), alongside living car-free, avoiding long flights, and being vegetarian, although these last three didn't produce nearly the same bang-for-your-buck as the first option.
How many resources a baby consumes has to do with where and how she (and her family) lives. In Western countries, where individuals tend to have a larger carbon footprint, the fertility rate is already falling quite a bit. We are having fewer children.
In the US in 2016, the birth rate was the lowest on record, with 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down one percent from the year before. Canada's seen a similar trend, as have European countries, and Australia. (I mention these places here because the researchers' paper specifically cites them.)
Countries that do have rising birthrates are mostly in the developing world. There, women can often benefit from better access to healthcare and education, which is why admonishments to "have fewer children" can't exist alongside threats to take money away from women's healthcare or to restrict access to abortion. The empowerment of women, access to birth control (including abortion), and female education are inextricably tied to climate change, and will play a huge part in how we deal with it in the years to come.
Donald Trump caught a lot of flak for leaving the Paris Agreement, but his Executive Order banning international NGOs from even offering information on abortion services if they want to keep getting funding from the US—well, that's a climate issue, too.
To me, an important point in this new paper is the finding that "incremental behavioural changes"—stuff that's easy to do, like recycling—don't necessarily make a huge difference in reducing carbon emissions overall. Not to say you shouldn't recycle. You should. But climate change is a political problem, one that will require large-scale political solutions.
I don't think that "have fewer children" is bad advice, necessarily, even though I do object to how quickly oversimplified peoples' choices can become. Better access to healthcare, education, and birth control are about giving women a choice, and should be seen as part of the climate fight.
On a personal note, having a kid is what gives me hope for the future, even when environmental catastrophe is keeping me up at night—that it has to work out, because she's here.
______________________________________________
AND HERE COME THE FEMI-NAZIS----the HILLARY 5% WOMEN corporate feminists ------working for the global 1% of men----selling those global 1% men's talking points to women as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE when it is the OPPOSITE.
'Among the one-child cheerleaders are Brandeis University professor Linda R. Hirshman, who urged women to have only one child to protect their earning power in her book “Get to Work,” and author Bill McKibben, who argued that large families are environmentally reckless in “Maybe One: The Case for Smaller Families.”'
We shared last week in discussing women's public policy issues these same Hillary 5% global corporate FEMINISTS-----that time it was HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL WOMEN DOCTORS being those feminists 5% FAKE RELIGIOUS leaders. We shouted last week---THESE ARE NOT 99% WOMEN LEADERS---THEY ARE 5% PLAYERS. That is what we are seeing in these articles.
YOU DON'T HEAR THEM FIGHTING TO PROTECT WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIES FROM GLOBAL BIOGENETIC SEX CHROMOSOME MANIPULATION STERILIZATION GENDER BLENDING OR DESIGNER BABY POLICIES!
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY was a leader in early 20th century civil rights -----it is NOT THE SAME UNIVERSITY TODAY. The Nation is a global 1% media outlet ----so we would not expect to read REAL LEFT social progressive policy from THE NATION----from NEW REPUBLIC-----
Notice this article was written in Bush-era 2006------our 99% of US women black, white, and brown citizens really, really need NOT TO BE SEDUCED by temporary high-paying jobs and positions---it is just that ---temporary ----think about the future only a few decades down the road.
Today, Some Feminists Hate the Word 'Choice'
By PATRICIA COHENJAN. 15, 2006
THROUGHOUT its lifetime, feminism has spawned its share of catchphrases and epithets. Simone de Beauvoir gave us "the second sex." Betty Friedan invented "the feminist mystique." Arlie Hochschild labeled the daily housework that followed office work "the second shift," while Rush Limbaugh contributed "feminazis" to the discourse.
Now another phrase -- choice feminism -- is suddenly gaining currency, while managing to annoy people on the left, right and just about everywhere in between.
This seemingly innocuous term, coined by a lawyer and scholar, Linda R. Hirshman, in the December issue of The American Prospect, refers to the popular feminist philosophy that in her words declares "a woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one, marry or stay single." "It all counted as 'feminist' as long as she chose it," Ms. Hirshman wrote.
The concepts behind choice feminism took over the mainstream in the 1980's, replacing more militant agendas that derided or neglected family life. The idea was that women should decide for themselves how to combine children, career, romance and vacuuming. What it didn't tell them was how to make the right decision. Figuring out the balance between home and work turned out to be a lot trickier than anyone thought.
Ms. Hirshman would like to help -- though not in a way many women would welcome. In her article she denounced choice feminism as a con. It promised liberation, she said, but actually betrayed women by leaving traditional sex roles intact. In short, women were still stuck with the housework and child-rearing. The public sphere, outside the home, she argued, is the only place where women can fully flourish. And that, she proclaimed, is where they should be.
She issued a few simple rules: Marry someone poorer or socially inferior; increase your tolerance of dust. And, as she puts it: "Have a baby. Just don't have two."
On the Web and elsewhere, responses were quick, numerous and fierce. There were a few supporters, but many more critics. Conservatives saw her argument as another example of how feminists are intent on destroying the family. Liberals criticized her for being authoritarian and defining success only by money and status. Mothers denounced her for just about everything.
What is perhaps most surprising, though, is not that feminists like Ms. Hirshman believe homemaking is second-class drudgery, but that so many people still get worked up over the issue. After all, feminist thinkers have been proclaiming the need to free women from the bondage of housework for a long time. It is, as Ms. Hirshman freely acknowledges, precisely what Ms. Friedan argued in "The Feminist Mystique," first published more than 40 years ago.
"The only kind of work which permits an able woman to realize her abilities fully," Ms. Friedan wrote, "is the kind that was forbidden by the feminine mystique, the lifelong commitment to an art or science, to politics or profession." Not homemaking, not motherhood.
In an interview, Ms. Hirshman said that in the course of researching a book, she began to wonder when feminism switched from offering a clear blueprint for liberation to choosing from Column A and Column B.
"I was curious to see when we got to the place when they decided to sidestep the definition of the good life by Friedan," she said, "to whatever floats your boats."
She traced the change to the late 80's, when the women's movement decided to frame the debate over legalized abortion as a question of a woman's choice. The language, she says, "spilled over."
That Ms. Hirshman's views on family life now sound so radical is a testament to how roundly the mainstream has rejected them. While rigid doctrines may have made sense in the early days, they don't now, when major goals have been won and a more diverse group of women are in the picture. Indeed, the common critique of the women's movement in the 60's and 70's was that it was too elitist and dogmatic, that it didn't respect women who wanted to stay home.
Choice feminism was an adjustment to reality. But reality, of course, is messy and confusing. It's not clear what should give when women are still responsible for a disproportionate share of the housework, they miss their children while they're at work all day, good child care is expensive, and time off or part-time work hampers a career.
In the continuing Web discussion about Ms. Hirshman's article, many women angry with her conclusions still agreed with her complaints about the unequal burden between men and women for home and family.
A Web site called the Half Changed World, for example, written by a self-described mom and policy wonk, said: "I honestly don't know what's going to break through the domestic glass ceiling. I used to think that it just was going to take time, that of course the younger generation would adopt a more equitable distribution of labor. I don't see that happening."
Choice feminism doesn't provide any formula or model for happily balancing family, work, love, chores, play, sleep and more. Nothing does anymore.
. "We've been living through this massive transformation where those predictable pathways have really eroded," said Kathleen Gerson, a New York University sociologist.
That is why edicts that order women either to get out of the house or to stay there inevitably resurface. Issuing marching orders is simple. "Viva la revolución!" is a lot catchier than "Muddle Through!" It's just not helpful.
RSS Feed
