Women, especially those living in
poverty feel pressure to have many children. According to Rachel Chapman, “In
this environment of economic insecurity exacerbated by congested living
conditions, women report competing for scarce resources, including male support
and income”(1). In third world countries, women are most likely uneducated and
unemployed. These women really have no option and are forced into the roles of
being wives, mothers, and caregivers. In comparison to women in the western
world, the women in third world countries are not given many options or an
option at all to go to school and pursue a real career. For this reason, the
pressure to be fertile and be able to have as many children as these women and
their spouses desire, is very high. Many women living in poverty must rely on
their fertility to have a spouse and live a better life. Infertile women are
belittled and seen as worthless to men because they are not able to so freely
have children. I believe that the pressure for women to have children is unfair
and unnecessary. Women should not be
defined and categorized just by their ability or even desire to want to have
children. In poorer communities couples rely on having many children in order
to have more family support when they are older and to also have a greater the
chance of passing on the family name. I think that some families in these poor
communities may have the mentality of “the more the merrier”versus carefully planning ahead and knowing that they can fully support their families.
I feel a lot of sympathy for the
women living in poverty because they must rely so heavily on their body to
determine the outcome of their future. You really have no control over whether
or not you can have a baby or not. It’s not like it is a personal choice women
make to be fertile or infertile. Women are capable of doing more than just having children and taking care of them. I think in many countries around the world women are still seen as incapable of doing harder and more strenuous work that men do. I think many traditional men still have a feminist mentality and think that they must take up the role of the provider of the family.
This first picture represents the
pressure women feel to have children. In the women’s thought the idea of having
children almost seems like a factory because the strollers are lined up with
numbers on them. It’s as if as after she’s had one child it’s on to the next one.
Having children should be something women really want not feel like it's just a job they are required to do.
Some people strongly criticize
couples in third world countries that decide to have a lot of children. I am
currently taking a Global Inequality class and we recently learned about the
Malthusian Theory. According to Malthus, “poor people grew their numbers
irresponsibly and were kept in check by their own bad habits and
addictions”(Whitty 6). The Malthusian Theory blames those living in poverty for
the current state of overpopulation in the world because they are sexually
irresponsible. Malthus believed that there should be a limit on how
many children couples should be able to have, or else the world’s resources
would run out and would not be able to support mankind any longer. The
Malthusian Theory did eventually lead to the creation of contraception’s in
attempt to decrease the amount of childbirths in the word. This theory is really just pointing the finger at people living in poverty and
blaming them for the problems that the world faces. The western society always believed that they were more dominant and knew better than the south and
therefore could not be the cause of the lack of resources in the nation.
I don’t agree with the Malthusian theory because there should not be a limit to how many children a couple can have. At the same time I think that people should have children responsibly and know that they have enough money and resources to take care of all their children. The women in poverty who depend on their ability to have children do live in very different circumstances than the rest of the world.
I don’t agree with the Malthusian theory because there should not be a limit to how many children a couple can have. At the same time I think that people should have children responsibly and know that they have enough money and resources to take care of all their children. The women in poverty who depend on their ability to have children do live in very different circumstances than the rest of the world.
I chose to use this second picture
because it represents the Malthusian Theory and the idea that the world is
becoming overpopulated and we are slowly running out of resources. The bird
appears to be struggling to be able to fly because it is being weighed down by
the weight of all the babies he is carrying. This picture is portraying the
idea that there are more humans on the earth and not enough resources to
provide for all of us.
I think the Malthusian Theory really ties together with Rachel Chapman's ideas because it is true that couples in impoverish countries tend to have more children then those in western societies. But contradictory to the Malthusian theory, these couples in poorer communities are not necessarily being "sexually irresponsible", but rather just doing what they feel is necessary for their families. I feel like women are viewed as the problem and cause of all the conflicts concerning having children but it is not true. Women should not be viewed as any less just because they are infertile or don't want to have children. Men should not blame women if they are unable to provide children because that is really something women can't control over their bodies. A women's ability to have children should not define who she is as an individual.
Sources
Chapman, Rachel. "Endangering Safe Motherhood in Mozambique : Prenatal Care as Pregnancy Risk." Anthropology : People : Faculty : Rachel R. Chapman. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
Whitty, Julia. "The Last Taboo." Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
I think the Malthusian Theory really ties together with Rachel Chapman's ideas because it is true that couples in impoverish countries tend to have more children then those in western societies. But contradictory to the Malthusian theory, these couples in poorer communities are not necessarily being "sexually irresponsible", but rather just doing what they feel is necessary for their families. I feel like women are viewed as the problem and cause of all the conflicts concerning having children but it is not true. Women should not be viewed as any less just because they are infertile or don't want to have children. Men should not blame women if they are unable to provide children because that is really something women can't control over their bodies. A women's ability to have children should not define who she is as an individual.
Sources
Chapman, Rachel. "Endangering Safe Motherhood in Mozambique : Prenatal Care as Pregnancy Risk." Anthropology : People : Faculty : Rachel R. Chapman. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
Whitty, Julia. "The Last Taboo." Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
Your blog entry tackled a complicated topic: the pressure to get pregnant. In particular, you claim that women in the third world are more likely to have a higher demand for children placed upon them. You said, “These women really have no option and are forced into the roles of being wives, mothers, and caregivers. In comparison to women in the western world, the women in third world countries are not given many options or an option at all to go to school and pursue a real career. For this reason, the pressure to be fertile and be able to have as many children as these women and their spouses’ desire is very high.” You also referenced the Malthusian theory: the idea that overpopulation is the fault of the impoverished and that a limit on the number of children a couple has should be put into place. You disagreed with this claim, and instead proposed, “…I think that people should have children responsibly and know that they have enough money and resources to take care of all their children.” You explained that the Malthusian theory puts all of the blame on overpopulation on the low-income parents, instead of tackling bigger problems like social inequality. The larger issue, it seems, is that women have no control over their bodies, or must use their bodies to gain a social advantage by having kids and being fertile.
ReplyDeleteI was confused by some of the claims you made in your blog entry. For example, you said, “I think that some families in these poor communities may have the mentality of ‘the more the merrier’ versus carefully planning ahead and knowing that they can fully support their families.” I strongly disagree with this statement. I don’t think impoverished families have some “happy-go-lucky” attitude when it comes to family planning. Overpopulation is a serious world concern, and part of the problem is a lack of healthcare and social inequality. I do agree that women have an unfairly high degree of the burden placed upon them to provide children for the family. But I was deeply puzzled by your explanation that “traditional men still have a feminist mentality and think that they must take up the role of the provider of the family.”If by “traditional” you mean men who are acting upon cultural beliefs that provide less social freedom for women, then the adjective “feminist” should probably not describe the mentality of such men. However, I think your overall idea that women are expected to be fertile is accurate. I think it would have been interesting delve deeper into sexual inequality with contraception in your entry as well. Many women who would like to practice birth control in third (and first) world settings cannot because they feel unequal to their sexual partners. This presents a problem for control of sexually transmitted diseases. If a husband has unprotected sex with a prostitute, he is at risk of transmitting a disease to his wife, especially if the wife feels unable to ask him to use condoms. Your blog entry was thought provoking and presented an interesting dilemma for women the world over.
This blog introduces the topic of women fertility and the pressures to follow through in having children as their duties in life. It is discussed not only why women feel pressure to birth many children but also the theories of possibly solutions to correct this feeling. I got interested in this particular blog entry because I am very active in fighting for women’s rights and the life of children. It not only poses sides that I am agreeing on but also there are some that I do disagree with as well. The images really stood out to me especially because I did not see a side of having the responsibility of having children in that way.
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting point of view and wanted to read more on the opinions about Lilia’s interpretations of it.
When I read through the blog entry, I got mixed emotions and reactions. First, I do agree that women in third world countries are definitely going through a difficult life due to lack of money and resources. It makes me sad to see that they feel that having children is the only way to define them. Bearing children is a wonderful thing and should be seen as a joy and result from actually wanting to raise a baby. I thought that the second picture was a nice touch because it definitely supports the idea of the burdens being carried when resources can only hold so much. The Malthusian Theory does bring up imagined solutions for the world’s increasing population but it does not solve the problem of perhaps finding more resources. In some ways I do agree that being sexually irresponsible is part of the reason in so much poverty with women and having more than what they can handle with children but perhaps education will play a better role as well. Having children has a huge responsibility and those who cannot be an adult and provide for what they can handle should not think having children is the only way to make them worth something. I do agree in not agreeing with Malthusian Theory because I do not think having a set number of children will resolve that much. It really depends on how much responsibility adults are willing to commit to.
In my own opinion, I do believe it is a part of a woman’s job to have children since women’s bodies are made that way, but they should do it with more respect coming from men and with less pressure. Obviously if they feel that they cannot do it, men should respect their decision because it will create less chaos financially and also regarding to health. I enjoyed reading through this blog because it let me see the other side of a woman’s fertility. I liked what Lilia said: “But contradictory to the Malthusian theory, these couples in poorer communities are not necessarily being "sexually irresponsible", but rather just doing what they feel is necessary for their families” because it shows this other possibility for the result of having children. I do hope in the future women having children balances out with the proper care and more understanding societal views.
The main topic of this blog entry is the high pressure on women to bare children, how women living in poverty endure more pressure, and how infertility comes into play. I agree with Lilia’s over-arching claim of how “the pressure for women to have children is unfair and unnecessary. Women should not be defined and categorized just by their ability or even desire to want to have children.”
ReplyDeleteThe women living in third-world countries do not choose to be uneducated nor unemployed; that is generally just their role in their societies, a role placed upon by their culture. This role, however, is gradually changing, and the overall inequality between men and women is slowly reducing. Women are becoming more empowered everyday, and they are receiving the necessary resources to do so through organizations such as CARE. CARE is a nonprofit organization that recognizes how women can bring their families out of poverty, and thus places a special emphasis on working with women to create a permanent social change.
Lilia claimed, “Many women living in poverty must rely on their fertility to have a spouse and live a better life. Infertile women are belittled and seen as worthless to men because they are not able to so freely have children.” Biologically speaking, it is our role as humans to produce offspring to ensure the survival of our species. Men want to produce the most offspring to ensure that he is passing on his genes, so it is clear how the stigma of infertile women came about. Women do not choose to be infertile, so they should not be stigmatized based on that aspect. Many infertile women feel as if they have failed, for they are incapable of doing what they are biologically made to do, and that is a message that must be changed.
However, I feel as if Lilia contradicts herself in the following two statements, “In poorer communities couples rely on having many children in order to have more family support when they are older and to also have a greater the chance of passing on the family name. I think that some families in these poor communities may have the mentality of ‘the more the merrier’ versus carefully planning ahead and knowing that they can fully support their families.” She addresses how having more children means that there are more bodies to help support the family economically, even if there are more mouths to feed, but then turns around and claims that there is a “the more the merrier” mentality. They are not blindly reproducing as much children as they can in their lifetime. She does not address how throughout the world, having larger families is an aspect that is engrained in multiple cultures. I was born and raised on Guam, a tiny island in the Pacific Ocean, and larger families are normal. My father has six siblings, my grandmother had eight siblings, and my great aunt had twelve children. Another aspect I feel that was overlooked in this entry was the lack of available family planning resources. If you were living in poverty, would you spend your last ten dollars on a box of condoms, or would you rather use that money to provide dinner for your family? Not everyone has access to family planning resources if they so chose to utilize them.
In this blog, Lilia talks about the life of women in third world countries and how important fertility is to them. Unlike the modern Western view of women, women in third world countries are still treated as not equal to men. Lilia mentions that men take on the role “provider” of the family; women are forced to be the “caregiver”. They have to stay home and take care of their family, being a house wife, a mother. Women are still viewed as being not as productive as men at work. This makes it very hard for them to get a job to support themselves. This culture forces women to be dependent on the men; they need the men to support them. Finding a spouse is very important to them in order to have a decent life. I think she gets the right idea here because feminist view and sex discrimination are still very popular in those countries. Women’s rights are almost nonexistent and have never been heard of to them. This is when fertility becomes so important. Because men in third world countries love to have a big family, they want their wives to be able to have many children. If a woman is infertile, she won’t be able to find a spouse. She will have to live without anyone supporting her and she cannot support herself either. Lilia points out that the fertility of a woman determines the outcome of her future. She says that women should have the right to choose to whether she wants to have children or not. I agree with her completely because in a family, I believe that the females should have the same power to decide as the males.
ReplyDeleteShe then talks about the issue that most third world countries is still facing right now: having too many children. In those countries, they believe that having a lot of children is good because their children can help them later on. However this view is completely wrong because having many children also requires more care and support. Most people over there are not wealthy. In fact, a lot of them are poor; they just simply don’t have the resource to support their children. Having many children only lower their living condition. She mentions Malthusian Theory which states that those couples who have many children without being able to support them all are “sexually irresponsible”. I agree with her that the decision of those people about having a lot of children is wrong. Most of the decisions are made by the men instead of the women. This is also wrong. But I think all that is happening right now is because women in third world countries can’t support themselves. We can’t change their view about women, but if women can work and make money to support themselves, they don’t have to rely on men. They can live their lives happily without worrying about finding a spouse that “accepts” their infertility. Overall, I think the blog is very well written.
I largely agree with Lilia’s post on women having their agency constrained by child-bearing expectations. There are many cultures where having a lot of children is considered paramount to a woman’s role in society. This expectation is part of a cycle of misogyny where women are not given the same access to work and education as men because they are considered less capable. I think Lilia hits on same major points concerning neo-liberalism and how the world perceives women. Culturally though, there are also points that I disagree with. For example, there are many cultures that are aware of just how costly children are, and therefore is not a goal that many families have. Also, the idea that men taking care of women is a feminist act is something I have issue with. However, I agree with Lilia’s overarching argument, which is that women should be able to do what they want with their own bodies and not be judged on their reproductive values.
ReplyDeleteLilia states a very obvious fact which is that: “Women are capable of doing more than just having children and taking care of them.” I agree with this entirely. In social contexts, I can very much see being a woman synonymous with illness. In the realm of biomedicine, is there anything wrong with being assigned female at birth? No. In the realm of social interactions, is there anything wrong with being a woman? According to the way women are treated around the world, yes. It is unfavorable to be a woman and there are fewer career and living options in most parts of the world when you are a woman or assigned female at birth. They are deemed to be less capable and overall weaker than cisgender men.
I think another interesting point is the inherent value in fertility, and fertility is not something that the individual can control in the first place. This is interesting commentary on agency is further constrained for women by their own bodies. First their value is degraded by restricted access to work and education, then is taken out of their hands entirely by their genetics. This only reinforces and internalizes the idea in women that they are less to begin with and that they need men to survive. Which touches on Lilia’s point that men feeling the need to provide for women in a feminist mentality. It is not, at all. This is misogynistic exactly in the fact that men feel like they have to provide for women. It Is part of the implication that women are not capable of taking care of themselves and only emphasizes the role of masculinity as the only type of valuable social power. Men can mean well by wanting to take care of the women in their life, but assuming that they must do so is a backhanded way of telling women that they cannot survive on their own.
However, how the world treats the situation doesn’t seem to be much better. As Lilia mentions, the Malthusian theory provides the framework to blame the poor for being poor. It is considered poor people’s fault for having a lot of children. They are having a lot of children because poor people are irresponsible, not because poor people have less access to health care and contraception. This is a very poignant and unfortunately familiar truth about the world. The world blames the poor for their own problems instead of looking at the systems of oppression that created the problems in the first place. This applies when it comes to issues with accessing healthcare, promoting gender equality and change societal frameworks that give women the opportunity to leave oppressive environments.
- James
After reading this paper, it reminds me a similar problem in China. Almost everybody in the world has heard about China’s One Child Policy. In order to control the growth of the population, China sets up harsh punishments for those who break the rules. Some families face large fines, some lose their jobs, and others are punished with jail time. With these strict laws in place, less people are willing to have more than one child. But many people still take this risk and break the law in different ways, whether in rural areas or modern cities. Pregnant women often go into hiding during their pregnancies to avoid being harassed by the government. Those who have the money may try to go to Hong Kong where a different set of rules exists, or may leave China altogether and live overseas. Others begrudgingly expect and pay the fines imposed by the government for a second pregnancy. Those short of money often leave their hometown and refuse to settle in one place for too long so as to avoid prosecution. They lead very difficult lives, especially if they or their children require medical care. There are numerous sad stories about how poor these families are, and how little education their children receive. Behind the phenomena of why people try so hard to pursue their dreams of having children, these women are actually victims of "traditional culture" and "family planning".
ReplyDeleteIn China, male children are important to the family. This stems from a deep-rooted traditional concept. In the Chinese mind, males are the only ones that can carry on the existence and name of a family (which is stupid). They are seen as being brighter than females and thus the family generally places more emphasis on educating males. They are thought to be responsible for the continuing success of the family. Thus, it is a great sadness if a family is not blessed with a boy. The couple will feel ashamed by their lack of success if they have a baby girl. More sadly, the conclusion often appears to be that the wife is the one responsible for this, not the man. This is a reflection of the male dominated culture in traditional Chinese society. Because of this traditional concept women have to accept the contemptuous eyes from others about their fertility. This pressure has caused many women to risk their health with multiple pregnancies and abortions.
The Malthusian Theory is wrong, especially about those who live in poverty. Many of them have many kids are not because they are sexually irresponsible but rather their cultural backgrounds. They have many children also for economic reasons. By looking the statics, farmers are often the main force among the group of “overproducers”. Yes, we have learned that bearing many children in a family can have negative impact on their finances. They will need more money for education, medical care, as well as clothing and food. But from a farmer’s perspective, they also need field workers. This is also a reality. To them, more kids also mean a greater source of income.
However, the reasons beyond “fertility” are complex social and cultural issues. The sad part is that no matter what’s driving this to happen, women are the ones to carry the pregnancy and give birth to children. They are the ones who suffer the impact of this subject.
This blog entry focuses on the pressure women have for getting pregnant. Many see that bearing children is a woman’s duty in life because their bodies are made for it and they are the only ones with the ability to do so. The blogger, Lilia mentions that there is an obvious worldwide trend of fertility. Developing countries almost always, except for China, have high fertility rates, whereas more developed and wealthier countries have much lower rates of fertility. She also mentions that in developing countries, couples are more likely to have more children because later down the road, they will have a larger family to support them when they grow old. Lilia then goes on to explain the Malthusian Theory, which led to the creation of contraception. The theory’s attempt was to decrease the number of births around the world to control overpopulation.
ReplyDeleteI think the Malthusian Theory believes having smaller families helps boost the economy because parents are investing more in each child’s education, which increases human capital. With smaller families, women are also able to take paid jobs, thus increasing the workforce. On the other hand, countries with high fertility are usually on the other end of the economic spectrum. Income inequality is constantly widening in developing countries. To me, it seems like a domino effect. Developing countries tend to have larger, poorer families. This tendency is passed down from mother to daughter. As the next generation comes along, there is a lot of youth dependency. And because these youth come from large families, the parents have quite the burden providing for their children. This is why I disagree with the blogger. I don’t think couples from developing countries are having more children because they want to have the support when they grow older, nor do they believe “the more the merrier.” These families are not being sexually irresponsible; that is not a good way to put it. These families are under a lot of economical, physical, and financial stress, which inhibits them from understanding the consequences of having too many children. The main factor to this problem is due to the lack of education in the area of family planning.
I agree that partners should be able to freely decide how many offspring they want; however, proper education in this area should be provided to aid couples in family planning. We need to make sure that couples are able to provide for their children because it would not be fair if the children had to suffer. If we look at Rachel Chapman’s article, we can see that women of Mozambique are at high levels of pregnancy risk because they do not know about the importance of prenatal care. There have been efforts to bring women to clinics and demonstrate how to reduce maternal/infant morbidity/mortality. Still, very few Mozambique women are visiting clinics for prenatal care, but we can see that the efforts have reached out to a number of women whom are becoming more cautious. It is not a matter of being sexually irresponsible, but a matter of having the proper education about childbirth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe blog titled, “Pressure to be Fertile” discusses the issue of being fertile amongst women living in poverty. According to Rachel Chapman, “In this environment of economic insecurity exacerbated by congested living conditions, women report competing for scarce resources, including male support and income” (blog). The women in these developing countries tend to be uneducated and many do not have actual jobs or established careers to support and provide for their family, thus many of them have to rely on their fertility for such support. These women are then forced into the roles of being a homemaker or stay at home mother because of the lack of resources for an education. The blog goes on to stating that women who infertile are often ostracized from the community because they cannot produce any offspring, which leaves them helpless and worthless in addition to being uneducated. Even in Western countries, couples that reside in a poorer community tend to embrace more children and not really plan ahead to fully provide for their young. Some people tend to criticize and question why poorer families would decide to have more children. The blogger is currently taking a Global Inequality class that discusses the Malthusian Theory. The Malthusian Theory is, “poor people grew their numbers irresponsibly and were kept in check by their own bad habits and addictions” (blog). According to the theory, the poor are blamed for the overpopulation and limited resources in the world. Malthus believed that there should be a limit on child bearing otherwise as the population increases resources will be limited and scarce and that the poor in doing so is being “sexually irresponsible”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the blogger that the Malthusian Theory should not blame the poor for overpopulation and limited resources. But do I have to question why this is though. From an evolutionary stand point the premise of procreation is so that one can contribute the most to the gene pool and to spread thy seed as much as possible. In doing so only the fittest can survive (in biological terms fit does not mean physical strength, but the ability to pass one’s genes). But what about the social, economic, and political factors of this evolutionary survival mechanism that also play a role? Other than biological reasons, why do the poor continue to procreate at a much rapid rate than those who are considered relatively wealthy? I do notice a trend in the social classes of family sizes. But if a woman is to bear children and become a caregiver to ensure for her survival such that a male can provide for the family, then why is that in the case of being poor wouldn’t one limit their amount of resources the family needs in order to survive. If I were poor I would not have more than one child because that means I would have to work even more hard to feed one more mouth. The blog states that poorer families are not being sexually irresponsible and that they are only trying to do what is necessary to ensure for their family’s survival. While I do agree with this statement, I do have to say that the necessary solution is to limit the number of mouths to feed. Yes women do have a pressure to be fertile and that is nothing more than just a biological mechanism to attract potential mates.
In Lilia Halimuddin’s article “pressure to be fertile”, she explores the realm of commodification within the process of childbearing by exposing the structural issues that women are facing in developing countries. Halimuddin argues that women are given few options for financial security and societal assimilation so they are forced to produce many children. She states, “These women really have no option and are forced into the roles of being wives, mothers, and caregivers. In comparison to women in the western world, the women in third world countries are not given many options or an option at all to go to school and pursue a real career. For this reason, the pressure to be fertile and be able to have as many children as these women and their spouses desire, is very high. Many women living in poverty must rely on their fertility to have a spouse and live a better life”. Halimuddin later states the Malthusian theory, suggesting that poverty stricken individuals are sexually irresponsible because numerous children would deplete resources available. Halimuddin explains her reluctance to adhere to the Malthusian theory, stating circumstance, not irresponsibility as the reasoning for numerous children.
ReplyDeleteMalthusian theory states that overpopulation is a result of sexual irresponsibility but I reject this claim. Like Halimuddin, I believe that the absence of monetary wealth doesn’t call into question an individual’s morals or reputation. For many different cultures, families view more children is a sign of prosperity and wealth. It is unfair to try to compare the western views of femininity and childbearing against the developing world’s view. The Malthusian theory assumes that these individuals will have nothing to contribute in their lifetime and that the numbers of resources are finite. There is no mention of the positive benefits an individual may have on the production of resources. For example: an individual may assist in manpower needed for production or even the creation of resource management strategies. In the beginning of this article, it is interesting to note that Halimuddin portrayed these women who produce many children in developing countries as victims of society; however, I would argue that these women actively participate and readily engage in this behavior as part of their culture. With the absence of a capitalist society, wealth is measured by different means. I come from a similar culture as the one mentioned in the article, I have only ever heard of the childbearing issue as “a woman’s duty”, familial roles are central to the feminine identity simply because of the biological function of pregnancy and childbirth. It may be discrimination if access to certain privileges like education and the workforce are strictly forbidden but in many cases for the developing world, child-bearing is a culture and brings with it a sense of education and work that is different from our traditional views of education and employment, but they qualify nonetheless. Education is not always learned in classrooms and work is not always performed under the watchful eye of a supervisor, there are cultural factors in this that we must consider as well.
Today in our society, people tend to live longer and marriages also occur at a later age, which brings pregnancies at the late 20’s to early 30’s. For now, I personally want to get married and have children in my early 30’s, but at the same time the pressure that I feel to have children is the late 20’s at the max. There’s also the concern of difficulties of child birth or even higher chances of getting some sort of disorders. But like you said, “Having children should be something women really want not feel like it's just a job they are required to do.”
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading through your blog post, there were some agreements and disagreements that I had about the pressures of being fertile. I could not understand how women living in poverty would have a pressure to bear more children when they don’t have enough money to even support themselves. They would want to limit the number of children instead in order to be able to support their family. I have talked and worked with people in poverty and they usually try not to have children or have one or two children because they know they can’t afford feeding or raising their children. Those who have children also ended up having them because they were raped, which is against their will. Women in poverty are exposed to more danger, which is why they get raped. So there are other factors to consider.
In a way, I could agree on the statement that “women in third world countries are not given many options or an option at all to go to school and pursue a real career. For this reason, the pressure to be fertile and be able to have as many children as these women and their spouses desire, is very high.” Most women in third world countries end up taking care of the house and raising their children. They also bear a lot of children not just because of the pressure to please their husbands and the family, but because there are also higher chances of the newborn dying. For example, in Africa children die at infancies or at toddler stages because there isn’t an adequate health facility/technology to prevent any illnesses or also due to malnutrition. Therefore, the mothers try to bear as much children as possible because there are no guarantees that all children will live.
Also, people in poverty are not necessarily the group of people that are responsible of contributing to the overpopulation. I think in today’s culture, it’s unfortunate that practicing safe sex is ok in today’s society and as a result, many end up getting pregnant even before marriage. There are so many “accidents” of getting pregnant around the world and it’s more of unintentional fertility.
It was interesting to read this blog, but I think it could have been a lot stronger if you expanded/focused of different groups of people like I have mentioned above.