No, that just means their husbands decided they wanted fewer children. The women were just voiceless chattel.
And I remember reading that a lot of doctors would only prescribe the pill for married women and often only with the permission of the husband.
Exactly. My parents were born in the 50s and are both one of two kids. The pill wasn’t available yet, but other contraception was widely used.
Good idea. People who choose not to raise kids need to understand they are to some extent freeloading on those who do. And governments can also use the money to fund fertility treatment for those who aren’t able to have children naturally.
When the birth rate is above replacement, fewer births are preferable since they put less pressure on the world’s resources. When the birth rate is a little below replacement, we’re on a steady glidepath to sustainability. When the birth rate is a lot below replacement, we should adjust incentives accordingly. The problem is that carrots alone are very expensive. I opine that further research would help. I suspect the true answer would drill down into eg the differences between children raised by couples and children born to single teen mothers without an extended family.
In the 50s? No, my father wanted tons of kids. My mother originally agreed, and after having a few she decided she wasn’t to up to more. He would have been happy to keep going, but she was the one doing all the child care. So they stopped. Okay, that was the sixties, but still.
My mother was one of two children. All her parents’ friend had two children. They were using birth control. And the women were definitely involved in those decisions.
Sounds like a free society to me. Those of us without kids are already subsidizing those with.
I’m going to point out a couple of things:
-
the Pill was not approved as a contraceptive for general used until 1960. Prior to that, if I recall correctly, what was available was either condoms, diaphragms, or the rhythm method which, although they can reduce the chance of pregnancy when used properly are not as effective as hormonal contraception. This probably had some effect on the number of kids people had.
-
Women had fewer alternatives to being a wife and mother not just because of obstacles to higher education but also the fact it was legal to pay a woman less for doing the exact same work as a man, it was legal to fire a woman once she was known to be pregnant, there was no such thing as maternity leave, and so on.
-
NOT wanting to have kids, or having few kids, was seen as a sign of mental illness or, in a woman who was suffering from some other psychiatric disorder, as part of her mental illness. Women were supposed to want to have lots and lots of babies and any deviation from that was seen as something abnormal, possibly something that should be treated.
So… the environment of the 1950’s had sufficient differences from today that I suspect the comparison does not hold up.
Comparing US women from 1850 to 1950? Well, the contraceptive diaphragm, although invented in the 19th Century, did not exist in the US until Margaret Sanger smuggled some into the country in the 1920’s. The IUD did not exist until the 20th Century. In the 1850’s women had ::: checks notes :::: douching, withdrawal (requiring considerable cooperation from a male partner), rhythm, and condoms. The last of which was typically vulcanized rubber when it wasn’t animal intestine and apparently they were reused.
I submit that the differences in contraception between the different eras could explain the difference in per rates per woman.
It’s supposed to work that way.
People without kids pay a small portion of raising the children of others because taxes pay for schools, headstarts, WIC, etc.
Then when people without kids collect social security, it comes from the paychecks of those kids whose education they helped fund.
I think it’s a pretty good system.
Fine, but I don’t need a tax levied on me specifically because I don’t have kids.
Thanks.
I didn’t mean to imply it was just obstacles of higher education. It was a social milieu that believed the only acceptable career for a woman was rearing children. That was reinforced in all manner of ways, including wage and benefit laws.
Another example: a woman who had kids around 1960 told me that when she got pregnant, she was fired (because you’re pregnant) and her husband got a raise (because you’ll need to support a family). And she wasn’t fired because her boss felt like it, it was company policy that any employee who got pregnant would be let go. And that was totally normal at the time. Oh, and his job paid for her maternity care. Hers didn’t, of course.
It was also typically illegal to rent an apartment to two unrelated women, because of course unmarried women living without men must be prostitutes. (Or possibly a widow, who could live alone, i guess.)
And absolutely nothing else changed from 1850 to 1950, so clearly female choice was the only variable /s
This is possible. And may not be a bad thing, depending on circumstances. My parents planned to have two kids, but ended up with three, and I’m pretty sure they are happy my youngest sister is around. I think for the majority of parents it’s not a hardship to have three kids instead of two, and their preference for a particular number fairly weak so it’s usually not going to be something they regret.
True. Though I do wonder why anyone would employ men if they could pay a woman less for doing the same work.
I think changing the environment would be a necessary condition for getting the birthrate up, but hopefully not by going back to the very limited opportunities, and lesser freedom of the 50s.
That’s kinda nuts. Surely that wasn’t true everywhere? I know my mum moved out at 16 to live in a bedsit, which would have been about 1970 I guess. So it must’ve been normal for young women to live alone by then.
- cultural bias/tradition
- perception that the work of men was inherently worth more than the work of woman
- desire to retain/pay more to an employee one perceived would be around long term vs. the assumption than any woman hired would soon become a mother and drop out of the job market.
And the social contact that it was important to pay men.
My friend’s husband got a raise because he was going to be a father, not because he was doing better work.
Things were a little different in the 70s - but also , I’m not sure what a “bedsit” exactly is. Is it an apartment with a bathroom and kitchen or is it a room in a house/apartment with a shared kitchen and bath and how many people can live in one?
Also, @Broomstick said it was illegal to rent an apartment to “two unrelated women” , which is not the same as it being illegal to rent an apartment or room to a single (in both senses) woman or even two sisters. In NYC, it was illegal at least until 2010 ( maybe still is) for a landlord to rent an apartment to more than 3 unrelated people no matter how many bedrooms or how large the apartment is. The rationale is to prevent something I saw often in a previous job - a two bedroom apartment would be divided up to make , for example two bedrooms out of the living room and two more out of the dining room so that six people could each have their own room. And then , everyone would put locks on their bedroom door, since they were basically strangers who rented their rooms individually. The bedroom locks and divided rooms can be dangerous to both occupants and firefighters in case of emergency.
There are/were exceptions for college dorms , extended stay hotels and similar set-ups that were built for rooms to be rented individually.
Pretty sure i said that, not broomstick.
Anyway, there were a ton of laws and customs designed to restrict the choices of women to do anything other than marry and rear children. Kids are expensive, especially for women.
Oops- my mistake.
I agree about the laws and customs restricting choices. Just trying to say the rental laws aren’t necessarily as crazy as they sound - the real problem would have been less the law forbidding two unrelated women from renting an apartment and more their families/society deciding they must be at least promiscuous if not worse if they didn’t live with either their parent or their husband.
Yep, it was @doreen, not me, who said that. Although I was aware of that, as well, it’s just not me who mentioned it.
Google says it’s the UK term for a studio apartment.
Even more insane. Where did students live? And young people who just got their first job?
They could have just banned this sort of living situation, surely?
It’s a pity about the misogyny, because that is remarkably pro-social. Probably pro-natalist too, since it demonstrates to people that their decision to have kids is valued by others, in a way benefits enforced by the government do not.
Yeah, I think that probably made a lot more difference than improved contraceptive options.
Though I still think negativity towards the idea of having kids in general, and slow life history are significant factors.