It’s all moms fault

Here’s a new twist on demographic issues. Russell Shorto, an experienced and well published author, takes a look at the demographic crisis facing much of Europe and comes to the conclusion that it’s all because of stay-at-home moms.’,’He makes the case that countries that offer more support for working mothers, like Sweden, have a higher birthrate because women can work and have children. He gives Italy as an example of a country where stay-at-home moms have fewer children than working moms and concludes that the demographic crisis is caused in part by stay-at-home moms.

It’s a long feature piece, but provides a lot of interesting information. Unfortunately, he doesn’t dig deep enough. Since he relies on anecdotal evidence, I’ll bring in a bit of my own. My experience in Italy (living there for 6 years) was that many of the mothers who stayed home did so because it was a status symbol.  It was an indication that they were wealthy enough to do so. Well, people who are motivated by such status usually aren’t keen on having los of children. They have one or two as a way to contribute to their status. Many seem to think that they don’t “need” more than one child. They also believe that having a child costs an exorbitant amount of money because they accessorize their child with designer clothing, prams, etc.

Working moms in Italy actually have it pretty good – they get close to 12 months of maternity leave and have a guaranteed job waiting for them. Ironically, Shorto points to the US and claims that our birthrate is higher here because we have a more “flexible” work system. Yet, aren’t we always hearing just how inflexible the professional world is for women in the US? Women aren’t having more children in the US because the work force is friendlier to them. Our economy, even as bas as we say it is now, happens to be better and tax credits for children aren’t a bad place to start. Not to mention the fact that some women make a conscious decision to stay home with their children because they think it’s the best thing for their family.

Newsflash – there are other motivators besides the economy and we happen to be a country that is particularly privileged because we have the mindset that things can actually be done. An Italian might say, instead, “Ma, non si fa.” (translation – it’s not done or it’s not possible.) Other modern cultures have been taught to give up before they even start.

Shorto also could have looked at the role of religious faith and demographics. Religious faith doesn’t just shape our ideas of family size (e.g. the question of contraception). It also shapes one’s entire existence. It can give hope when there might not be hope otherwise, the hope of things unseen. But essentially to blame the demographic crisis on stay-at-home moms is absurd. If a woman consciously puts her family before her career, she will most likely be open to having more than 1.7 or 1.3 children. If she stays home because it demonstrates a certain level of affluence, chances are that her interests lie elsewhere than taking care of and nurturing small children.