The 3-Child Solution: Forced Motherhood and Underdevelopment on Behalf of Humanity’s Fear of Extinction

It’s been a while since women entered the labour market at large, contributing to the depression of global fertility rates to below replacement rate. The extinction of the family has been a major concern in both society and political discourse, especially among right-wing parties. However, solutions such as the infamous three children per woman goal, considered a solution for declining populations, has bigger implications for development than first meets the eye. Development and fertility are intimately intertwined and, in the fight for human preservation, women, some more than others, take on the responsibility of bearing and rearing children without seeing their condition as mothers improving.

In her The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir theorises the origin of gender inequalities in pregnancy and post-pregnancy care. According to de Beauvoir, the capability to produce transcendental work, as in the construction of ideas and material objects that would last beyond a lifetime and serve the community, is what ultimately separates female and male roles in society, uplifting the latter in the hierarchy of gender. When bipedalism became the norm for early humans, the pelvis narrowed to the benefit of our movement, but to the detriment of pregnancy. Babies started being born earlier, which resulted in dependency between mother and child for longer periods of time after giving birth. This evolutionary process trapped women into domestic labour, conceding free reign to their male counterparts to participate in more transcendental ways, such as hunting, war, tool production, cultural, religious, and political thinking. Maternity became devalorised by a male-centered superior order, thus excluding women from society-building activities. De Beauvoir concludes that gender inequalities are not biologically determined, but historically and socially forced upon women. The societal interpretation of the biological conditions of reproduction influence primitive gender stratification.

The concept of maternity as a patriarchal society trap that reinforces gender inequalities is more relevant than ever given the narratives surrounding our globally declining birth rate. In 1950, the average woman would have five children. Nowadays, that number has changed to 2.24 and is expected to dip below 2.1 by 2050. The global benchmark required for population stability is 2.1 children per woman. So in a few decades from now, against our philosophy of uninterrupted growth, we will be facing a shrinking population. Some fatalists have interpreted this data as a forewarning of human extinction. Head of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Natalia Kanem, explains that “right now, what we're seeing is a lot of rhetoric of catastrophe, either overpopulation or shrinking population, which leads to this kind of exaggerated response, and sometimes a manipulative response in terms of trying to get women to have more children, or fewer”. Prof Stuart Gietel-Basten, demographer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, adds that, under the catastrophe rhetoric, low fertility and population stagnation is being used as an excuse to implement nationalist, anti-migrant and gender conservative policies. The three children per woman ideal of many fertility-boosting policies transfers the pressure of preserving the species on women, while being at odds with underlying issues like economic constraints, career aspirations and societal mentality changes, and equally hindering advances in development.

There is, of course, a negative correlation between a higher birth rate and development. Fertility rates in developed countries are often below the 2.1 benchmark, while in less developed countries they reach above 5. Women in developed countries are unlikely to backtrack on the independence they have long fought for - as they shouldn’t, least of all for the benefit of a vacuous agenda of human preservation, so the yoke of global fertility befalls women of developing countries. Maternity, desired or not, implies some level of sacrifice for women. When that maternity is forced and prolonged, it starts to hold similarities to slavery. Childbearing and rearing trap women into domestic labour. This is especially true in less-developed countries, where women's education, contraceptive use, work-life balance, and financial stability is not guaranteed, and the state does little to nothing to amend this gender inequality. Unwittingly, we are not only trapping women of the Global South into motherhood, but we are trapping their countries into poverty as well. 

Fertility reduction seems to be a necessary condition for economic development. It allows governments to invest more in education and health, enhancing human capital for greater and more sustained economic growth. With fewer children to care and raise, families see their prospects of falling into poverty decreased. For women, having fewer or no children means accessing higher education and advancing further in their careers, augmenting their financial stability and independence from male partners. Faced with choosing between fertility and development, development should come first. If we are a society that enslaves, mistreats and disregards half of its population, then we should reconsider if we are worth preserving at all. This should start with recognising women as human beings with thoughts, dreams and aspirations rather than just surrogates for the preservation of the human species.

However, it is not entirely true that when women pursue higher education, they want fewer children. Most women today want the option of both a fulfilling career and a family. And those who do have children, want more than they are having. The problem lies in the incompatibility of the two. When having to choose, women tend to lean into their careers, since it allows for more freedom. Factors like free childcare availability, labour market conditions, social norms imposed on mothers, and cooperative fathers are decisive influences on modern fertility rates. Developed countries whose fertility rates are declining are simply not doing enough to facilitate motherhood. Development is not an explanation for lower birth rates; political inaction is. Take for example, the case of Sweden and Denmark, where public childcare has proliferated, accounting for a higher female employment and fertility rate than in countries with sparse childcare.

We are still failing to address, as a society, that maternity is the most transcendental activity a person can embark upon, since the survival of our whole species depends upon it. Yet, male contributions to society keep being regarded as superior. In consequence, we direct all of our attention and resources away from enhancing the conditions of motherhood. It seems like an inconvenience to governments when women have historically suffered for free, to alleviate their burden. 

Under present living conditions, women will never choose to bear many children willingly. Instead of forcing them via our culture and political demands, we should guarantee a dignified maternity where women can still reinvent themselves as human beings and share the burden of parenthood equally with their partners. Redefining the idea of maternity as a trap with actual changes in society, such as reconsidering gender roles, building income security, and establishing family conciliation policies is key so women can choose to be mothers freely.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Will

Licence.

Changes made: Colette & Mayakovsky clipped from left and right of image collage respectively.