Of course, no woman can take back the relationships that she’s already entered into, or the children that she’s already had. But over time women do learn––when they come to see what the new reality is––and over time the birth rates (along with marriage and intimacy rates overall) drop. This is especially so now that women today are increasingly delaying having children, thus giving them more time to become wise to the ways of the world and the society around them.
Because why would any woman want to bear the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum and develop a strong and natural bond with her child––a bond that is unique to only mothers that men and fathers can neither know, understand, nor share in––if she knows that the end result will be that she will only lose that child? Or even if she simply perceives that the probability is simply greater than not that she will lose her child? Alternatively, why would any woman bear children whenever she knows that the best she can ever hope for as soon as something goes sour in the relationship (if indeed there’s even a real relationship in the first place) is to be locked for years on end into some kind of “co-parenting” arrangement with an ex she wants nothing to do with? Thus, once the myth of the maternal preference is gone, so too are the birth rates.
The more that states[12]––or even countries[13]––move away from the maternal preference to prefer joint-custody or other arrangements, the lower the birth rates drop. And undoubtedly a society that realistically saw half of all children taken from their mothers, against the mother’s will, either completely out of their custody or into these joint-custody arrangements––like the progressives and the men’s and father’s rights activists desire––would likely be a society where no children would even be born. And whatever marginal uptick in birthrates[14] that might be obtained via using the power of the state to literally compel women against their will to bear children that they otherwise would not have––along with all of the attendant social problems that inevitably result as a consequence––such tactics are unlikely to have much long-term success at reversing the current situation of declining birth rates.
No, only traditional gender roles and honoring and uplifting the role of the wife and mother in the home and in her child’s life can ever do that. Of course, the government will ignore this and continue on with the same tried-and-failed policy goals to try and get “people” to have more children––but it won’t work. In the end, it will have to come down to what it will take to get women––not people, but women––to actually desire, and be willing, to have children.
Of course, all that I speak of is not the case for feminist and egalitarian-minded women. These women are overjoyed that the law no longer favors mothers nor views the female sex as “naturally nurturing” or in need of some kind of chivalric protection from men or the law. They’ve worked for decades to get society and the law to stop viewing women in such a “stereotypical” way. Feminist women have long advocated that dad––or anyone else for that matter––should just go ahead and take the kids so that mom can focus more on a career.[15] They have no desire to be nurturing or stay with their babies because it holds them back from “equality” with men in the political and economic sphere and keeps them from moving up in their careers. Thus, the law and the culture are designed to accommodate these women at the expense of traditional, feminine women––whatever of them that are actually left––that want traditional patriarchal marriages and to keep, full-time raise, and stay in the home with their babies.[16] The law and culture accommodate the feminist/progressive viewpoint on life that says that a mother’s unique role in her child’s life ends at childbirth.[17][18]
The law and the culture also play right into the hands of these men’s and father’s rights movements as nobody whatsoever would ever advocate for protecting mothers because to do so would send society straight “back to the 1950s.” It would derail all the “progress” of feminism right back to its roots. It would be propping up “the patriarchy” and women’s natural dependence on men.
It’s my viewpoint, of course, that the “men’s rights movement” has not truly, in and of itself, ever been successful. After all, these groups have been around advocating for the same policies since the 1960s. But lacking any true mainstream organization until the 1990s (at least) (male plaintiffs during the 1960s and 1970s were typically represented by mainstream civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and women’s rights groups themselves) and clearly facing opposition from society, they were never truly successful until “women’s liberation.” Indeed, it is rather the feminist and progressive movement that has been successful––and their policies simply fall right into line with it. I don’t believe that the “men’s rights” movement could exist without the progressive movement. Likewise, the progressive movement today could never exist without them. It’s my belief that feminism itself probably would have fizzled out and died back in the 1990s if it hadn’t been for the newly formed progressive father’s and men’s rights agenda.
If men, of course, are concerned with their own rights, then the proper way to secure those rights is not to attack and degrade the primacy of the role of the mother. That only breeds more feminism, and more women that come to age not viewing their sexuality as precious. It only breeds more masculine women who don’t know how to love, be loved, and nurture. It only breeds more distrust and division. It only breeds more women who are completely okay with having sex casually or co-habiting with their boyfriend, splitting everything––including care of children––50/50 like college roommates like it’s no big deal. It only further degrades marriage and the traditional family. (No big deal … let’s just do this “co-parenting” thing together casual like.). Degrading the role of the mother as the primary caregiver in her child’s life teaches women to not seek to be nurturing and feminine or place a high value on their sexuality, thus breeding even more feminism and keeping the cycle forever going.
[12] See, e.g., Maria Cancian, Daniel R. Meyer et.al, Who Gets Custody Now? Dramatic Changes in Children’s Living Arrangements After Divorce 51 Demography 1381(2014) (“between 1988 and 2008, the proportion of mothers granted sole physical custody fell substantially, the proportion of parents sharing custody increased dramatically…” in Wisconsin); Anja Steinbach & Lara Augustijn, Children’s Well-being in Sole and Joint Physical Custody Families 36 J. Fam. Psych. 301 (2022) (“…the numbers of [joint physical custody] families are already quite high in some European countries (e.g., Sweden or the Netherlands) and some U.S. states (e.g., Wisconsin), with a proportion of about 30% or more of separated or divorced parents…”).; Stephanie H. Murray, America Isn’t Ready for the Two-Household Child, The Atlantic (December 8, 2023), https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2023/12/child-joint-custody-us-public-policy/676276/ (“…a 2022 study found that, nationally, the share of divorces resulting in joint custody jumped from 13 percent before 1985 to 34 percent in the early 2010s … The same change appears to be happening in Europe: The prevalence of equal joint custody roughly doubled from the mid-2000s to 2021.”).
It’s extremely difficult to believe that this changing pattern of custody arrangements and changes in custody law have had absolutely no effect on birth rates, especially given that these changes have happened, and are happening, nearly perfectly in sync with declining birth rates.
[13] Interesting. Spain is in a crisis with a birth rate of less than 1.2 births per women. See, e.g., Spain’s Birth Rate Drops to the Lowest Level Since Records Began Over 80 Years Ago: The Spanish birth rate has now dropped almost 25% in the last decade (February 21, 2024, 10:46 AM), https://www.foxnews.com/world/spains-birth-rate-drops-lowest-level-since-records-began-over-80-years-ago (Spain fertility rate drops 25% in only a decade). Of course, since 2007, fathers have had “paternity leave” and “joint physical custody” See, e.g., Evolving Family Models in Spain: A new national framework for improved support and protection for families (February 3, 2022), https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/527d563b-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/527d563b-en (“In Spain, the increased availability of paternity leave and joint physical custody starting in 2007 appear to contribute to higher involvement by fathers … a 2019 reform made for equal leave between mothers and fathers.” Now, of course, Spain’s birthrates are at critical levels. Can it seriously be believed that there is no connection between the “higher involvement of fathers” ––as opposed to mothers––in childcare and the availability of shared custody and the drastic reduction in birth rates that have, again, happened right in sync with these policies?).
40% of children are in joint custody arrangements in Spain, see, e.g., id., (“Despite its relatively recent introduction in 2005, joint physical custody is now granted in 37.5% of cases.”). It typically takes about 10-15 years to see the results of these policies. The more fathers get involved in childcare–and the less they play the role of provider–and the more egalitarian the laws and policies become, the lower the birthrates. The same result has been seen in America. It only took about 10-15 years to see the results (drastically lowered birthrates below replacement level) of the 1990s joint-custody policies and fatherhood initiatives that attempted to get fathers to play a more “hands-on” “involved” and “nurturing” role. For a background on the origins of these fatherhood initiatives, see Carol Harrington, What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter? 24 Men & Masculinities 345 (2020) (discussing 1990s policies that advocated for “engaged fatherhood as an antidote to toxic masculinity”).
Just like in Spain and other countries, after gender-neutral policies are introduced that wipe away the mother’s traditional nurturing role, what shortly follows is a sharp decline in birth rates. I’d say the figures are way too extraordinary to be mere coincidence. There is no way that there is no connection between egalitarian laws and policies and low birth rates. Other European and Nordic countries who have introduced joint-custody and gender-neutral leave policies have seen the same predictable reduction in birth rates a little over a decade later too. See Steinbach& Augustijn, supra note 12.; Henry Mance, Birth Rates are Falling in the Nordics. Are Family-Friendly Policies No Longer Enough? Financial Times (January 28, 2024), https://www.ft.com/content/500c0fb7-a04a-4f87-9b93-bf65045b9401 (“Finland’s fertility rate has fallen nearly a third since 2010.… In Europe in 2023, the rate fell in “Hungary, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, all the ones who were really high or were paraded as examples.”).; Darel E. Paul, The Failure of Feminist Natalism, Compact (January 26, 2024, https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-failure-of-feminist-natalism/ (“Europe is living through a stunning fertility collapse.… For 2023, births in the Czech Republic are forecast to fall 11 percent from the previous year and a shocking 19 percent since 2021.… In neighboring Poland, 2023 births are likely to drop more than 10 percent from 2022 and nearly 18 percent from 2021, figures the country hasn’t experienced since World War II. To the west, births in Germany in 2023 will fall more than 7 percent following an equally grim 2022.… [The] data are broadly similar in Finland (down 13 percent since 2021), Denmark (10 percent), and the Netherlands (9 percent). Even in France, Europe’s recent fertility leader, 2023 births are down 7 percent from 2022 and 9 percent since 2021, declines not seen since the mid-1970s.… Since 2021, the number of births in Sweden is down more than 12 percent, and the fertility rate has fallen almost 14 percent.… Cohort fertility in Sweden has been in steady decline for a decade, and Swedish women born in 1982—aged 42 in 2024—thus far have the lowest cohort fertility in more than 70 years.… And among the gender-egalitarian family-friendly countries of Europe, Sweden is hardly the worst performer. Fertility and family formation are declining in Norway and Finland even more dramatically.… Sweden hasn’t experienced any notable reversals in gender equality. The country continues to be ranked as the most gender-equal country in the European Union, and it has neither pulled back on its generous family policies nor slashed daycare slots. The same is true across the Nordic countries, France, and the Netherlands. Yet the family is in sharper decline here than anywhere else in the Western world.”).
[14] Perhaps we can celebrate that anti-abortion laws led to a 2% uptick in Texas birth rates…. Or did they? See, e.g., Julian Gill, Teen Birth Rates in Texas Rise for First time in 15 Years Amid Abortion Ban, Report Finds, January 22, 2024, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/texas-teen-birth-rate-sees-first-rise-15-years-18621083.php (“2% increase in fertility across all racial groups … while black and white women saw their fertility rates drop by 0.6% and 2%, respectively”). For Hispanic–and some Asian–women birth rates increased. But what is significant here is that births among white and black women only declined further–and significantly at that. This uptick in the birth rate all went nearly exclusively to Hispanic women–and in a year with an absolutely historically unprecedented rate of migrant encounters at the international border and immigration. (See e.g., Mike Schneider & The Associated Press, U.S. Population Increase in 2023 Was Driven by the Most Immigrants Since 2001–and Immigration Will Be ‘Main Source of Growth in the Future’, Fortune (December 20, 2023 3:27 A.M.), https://fortune.com/2023/12/20/u-s-population-increase-in-2023-was-driven-by-the-most-immigrants-since-2001-and-immigration-will-be-the-main-source-of-growth-in-the-future/ (“The number of immigrants to the U.S. jumped to the highest level in two decades this year, driving the nation’s overall population growth.… The United States added 1.6 million people, more than two-thirds of which came from international migration.… After immigration declined in the latter half of last decade and dropped even lower amid pandemic-era restrictions, the number of immigrants last year bounced back to almost 1 million people.… The last time immigration surpassed 1.1 million people was in 2001…”).
Did abortion bans really lead to the above mentioned (miniscule) increase in births, especially when births among both black and white women continued to decline even more sharply regardless of the bans? See also infra, note 39. For an update on the national U.S. birth rate see Jennifer Calfas & Anthony DeBarros, U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low: Fewer Babies Were Born in the U.S. in 2023 than any year since 1979, Wall Street Journal (April 25, 2024, 12:01 AM), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/america-birth-rate-decline-a111d21b (“The total fertility rate fell to 1.62 births per woman in 2023, a 2% decline from a year earlier, federal data released Thursday showed. It is the lowest rate recorded since the government began tracking it in the 1930s.”); Alexander Tin, U.S. Birth Rate Drops to Record Low, Ending Pandemic Uptick, CBS News (April 25, 2024 12:01 AM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-birth-rate-drops-record-low-2023-after-pandemic-uptick/ (“The pace of babies born each year in the U.S. has slowed to a new record low.… At least 3,591,328 babies were born in the U.S. in 2023, down 2% from the 3,667,758 born in 2022. This is on par with annual declines seen before the pandemic, the report said, which averaged around 2% fewer babies each year.”).
[15] Far and apart from being against fathers or men, most feminists wanted the maternal preference to end because it would end gender roles and the gendered division of labor in households. See, e.g., Herbert Jacob, Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States 136 (1988) (“Many feminists, such as those belonging to the National Organization for Women (NOW), generally favored the respite that joint custody promised them. On the other hand, conservative women, such as those supporting Phyllis Schlafly’s campaign against abortion, were loath to oppose fatherhood.…Most important, perhaps, was the ambivalence many feminists felt toward joint custody. One feminist objective was to promote shared parenting with fathers so that wives would be emancipated from sole responsibility for the drudgery of housework and could enter the labor market on a more equal footing. That led them to advocate the elimination of gender from custody laws.”).
Indeed, society has now 100% in all ways adopted the feminist perspective now that the unique and traditional role of women and mothers has been wholesale eliminated. Both feminists and antifeminists, “conservatives” and liberals, have worked tirelessly for decades against mothers and motherhood. Even “conservatives” like Schlafly who fought against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) were nonetheless vocal supporters of joint custody, showcasing sympathy towards men’s and father’s rights policy goals in contrast to the traditions of our culture and our laws. (See also infra, note 26). It’s probably not too much to say that violent convicted felons have more social and legal support than your simple, average, everyday mother or housewife.
[16] See e.g., F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism 295 (1998) (“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women … The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interest of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the [ACLU Women’s Rights Project] was concerned. In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother.… The one most grievously injured by this so-called reform grounded in feminism’s commitment to sexual fungibility is the homemaker who is most devoted to her children.”
[17] See generally F. Carolyn Graglia, A Nonfeminist’s Perspectives of Mothers and Homemakers Under Chapter 2 of the ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution 3 BYU L. Rev. 993 (2001) (a review of the proposed (adopted) changes in the law and the effects on mothers and homemakers and the traditional family unit).
[18] Such a sentiment––that the unique role of the mother ends at childbirth––is also echoed throughout the antiabortion movement, which can often be found holding up signs at “pro-life” demonstrations advocating to “love them both” (the both referring to both the woman and the fetus), with sentimental pictures of pregnant women and an outline of an alleged fetus inside of a woman’s body. After birth, however, the mother goes right back to being expendable and the focus turns right back to a focus on egalitarian and gender-neutral laws and policies which degrade and diminish the role of the mother and which strip her of her traditional bargaining power and legal protections to maintain the full care and custody of her child, as well as full decision-making power should her and the father not be married.
B. A. Hunter 