CHOK SUAT LING
Having fewer kids may not be all bad
“THE birth rate is declining and men are to blame.”
That was the conclusion of a study by Universiti Putra Malaysia recently. Several experts concurred with the findings, which they say is a matter of serious concern for two reasons — that fewer babies are being born, and that men are the culprits contributing to this unfortunate state of affairs.
Men are naturally not entirely pleased to be generalised as chest-thumping Neanderthals who do not help around the house.
They say many, if not most, men are quite capable of changing diapers and ironing their own clothes.
One irate man wrote to this newspaper to say: “Men are able to prepare full-course gourmet dinners, and the kitchen is clean by the time the last dish is prepared, as opposed to women who leave the kitchen in a mess.”
Another equally enraged man says he does everything for his children.
He bathes and feeds them and even reads them bedtime stories.
“I would even breastfeed them if I could,” he insists.
Many fathers would agree.
But in real life, many men would rather ask for directions than be found popping fenugreek seeds into a pot of bubbling fish masala.
It is as difficult to extricate a man from in front of a television during a live football telecast as it would be to push an unconscious elephant across the floor.
But yes — as there are men who are lackadaisical towards childcare and household chores, there are also women who are the same.
After all, what men can do, women can always do better.
There are the women who leave the child-rearing entirely to their husbands while they chase their careers or golf instructors.
And there are also those who bar ex-husbands from seeing the products of their union.
We can go on debating this issue until the next general election and beyond, but there would be no conclusion or consensus.
Gender wars will continue to rage and no peace plan or treaty will be able to bring an end to this eternal battle of wills.
These are modern times, and there is a certain degree of confusion about how men and women are supposed to act.
Their roles are no longer as clearly demarcated as they were in the days when all men did was hunt sabre-toothed tigers while women raised children, cooked and skinned the woolly mammoths their menfolk dragged home.
The best we can do is tolerate or, better still, accept the other for what they are.
Give-and-take.
Compromise.
Do all that is espoused by sociologists and agony-aunt columns, and create an environment of love and compassion within the home.
Birth rates will soar.
If they do not, it would not be men who are to blame but tight underwear, hot baths and excessive cycling.
The more crucial question is not whether men are to blame, however, but whether a declining birth rate is necessarily a bad thing.
Is having an average 2.2 kids — a third as many as a generation ago, when 6.2 children was the average per couple — a calamitous development?
Experts say it is: low birth rates will cause a myriad problems in the years to come.
The population will be aging, and the elderly cannot contribute economically to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Some contend that senior citizens are a burden to the government in terms of healthcare, and cost taxpayers money in the long run.
If they are that unproductive and expendable, why not just send them all away? Then they will no longer continue to “increasingly tax existing health and pension systems”.
Just put them all in boats with sufficient rations for a week or two and send them off when they reach a certain age, and the nation will no longer need to concern itself with an “aging population problem”.
Instead of griping, we should take better care of our older citizens.
Give them more flexibility to stay or re-enter the workforce.
There needs to be a fundamental change in perception of what it means to be old.
The issue of senior citizens aside, it is irresponsible to tell people, especially those in advanced industrialised nations where the per capita consumption of natural resources is high, to have more babies.
Before the single-child policy, China, for example, was fighting a huge overpopulation problem.
It is also more economically sensible to have smaller families, especially in times of financial uncertainty.
Children with only one or two siblings are more likely to enjoy a standard of living comparable to or higher than their parents’.
It just does not make sense to bring another child into the world if the family is already stretched thin financially.
Why have more children if one cannot afford proper childcare or put them all through school; if there is already insufficient space in a one-room flat, or enough money to ensure they get at least three proper meals a day?
It is curious that we have been conditioned to think of a gradual decline in population as a bad thing.
With proper social support systems, a declining birth rate, even if it is below replacement levels, may not be as bothersome as some people think. [rc]
Chok Suat Ling
sling@nst.com.my
Copyright © 2009 NST Online
July 30, 2009
MALAYSIA: Low birth rates will cause a myriad problems in the years to come
.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia / The New Straits Times / Columnists / July 30, 2009
CHOK SUAT LING
Having fewer kids may not be all bad
“THE birth rate is declining and men are to blame.”
That was the conclusion of a study by Universiti Putra Malaysia recently. Several experts concurred with the findings, which they say is a matter of serious concern for two reasons — that fewer babies are being born, and that men are the culprits contributing to this unfortunate state of affairs.
Men are naturally not entirely pleased to be generalised as chest-thumping Neanderthals who do not help around the house.
They say many, if not most, men are quite capable of changing diapers and ironing their own clothes.
One irate man wrote to this newspaper to say: “Men are able to prepare full-course gourmet dinners, and the kitchen is clean by the time the last dish is prepared, as opposed to women who leave the kitchen in a mess.”
Another equally enraged man says he does everything for his children.
He bathes and feeds them and even reads them bedtime stories.
“I would even breastfeed them if I could,” he insists.
Many fathers would agree.
But in real life, many men would rather ask for directions than be found popping fenugreek seeds into a pot of bubbling fish masala.
It is as difficult to extricate a man from in front of a television during a live football telecast as it would be to push an unconscious elephant across the floor.
But yes — as there are men who are lackadaisical towards childcare and household chores, there are also women who are the same.
After all, what men can do, women can always do better.
There are the women who leave the child-rearing entirely to their husbands while they chase their careers or golf instructors.
And there are also those who bar ex-husbands from seeing the products of their union.
We can go on debating this issue until the next general election and beyond, but there would be no conclusion or consensus.
Gender wars will continue to rage and no peace plan or treaty will be able to bring an end to this eternal battle of wills.
These are modern times, and there is a certain degree of confusion about how men and women are supposed to act.
Their roles are no longer as clearly demarcated as they were in the days when all men did was hunt sabre-toothed tigers while women raised children, cooked and skinned the woolly mammoths their menfolk dragged home.
The best we can do is tolerate or, better still, accept the other for what they are.
Give-and-take.
Compromise.
Do all that is espoused by sociologists and agony-aunt columns, and create an environment of love and compassion within the home.
Birth rates will soar.
If they do not, it would not be men who are to blame but tight underwear, hot baths and excessive cycling.
The more crucial question is not whether men are to blame, however, but whether a declining birth rate is necessarily a bad thing.
Is having an average 2.2 kids — a third as many as a generation ago, when 6.2 children was the average per couple — a calamitous development?
Experts say it is: low birth rates will cause a myriad problems in the years to come.
The population will be aging, and the elderly cannot contribute economically to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Some contend that senior citizens are a burden to the government in terms of healthcare, and cost taxpayers money in the long run.
If they are that unproductive and expendable, why not just send them all away? Then they will no longer continue to “increasingly tax existing health and pension systems”.
Just put them all in boats with sufficient rations for a week or two and send them off when they reach a certain age, and the nation will no longer need to concern itself with an “aging population problem”.
Instead of griping, we should take better care of our older citizens.
Give them more flexibility to stay or re-enter the workforce.
There needs to be a fundamental change in perception of what it means to be old.
The issue of senior citizens aside, it is irresponsible to tell people, especially those in advanced industrialised nations where the per capita consumption of natural resources is high, to have more babies.
Before the single-child policy, China, for example, was fighting a huge overpopulation problem.
It is also more economically sensible to have smaller families, especially in times of financial uncertainty.
Children with only one or two siblings are more likely to enjoy a standard of living comparable to or higher than their parents’.
It just does not make sense to bring another child into the world if the family is already stretched thin financially.
Why have more children if one cannot afford proper childcare or put them all through school; if there is already insufficient space in a one-room flat, or enough money to ensure they get at least three proper meals a day?
It is curious that we have been conditioned to think of a gradual decline in population as a bad thing.
With proper social support systems, a declining birth rate, even if it is below replacement levels, may not be as bothersome as some people think. [rc]
Chok Suat Ling
sling@nst.com.my
Copyright © 2009 NST Online
CHOK SUAT LING
Having fewer kids may not be all bad
“THE birth rate is declining and men are to blame.”
That was the conclusion of a study by Universiti Putra Malaysia recently. Several experts concurred with the findings, which they say is a matter of serious concern for two reasons — that fewer babies are being born, and that men are the culprits contributing to this unfortunate state of affairs.
Men are naturally not entirely pleased to be generalised as chest-thumping Neanderthals who do not help around the house.
They say many, if not most, men are quite capable of changing diapers and ironing their own clothes.
One irate man wrote to this newspaper to say: “Men are able to prepare full-course gourmet dinners, and the kitchen is clean by the time the last dish is prepared, as opposed to women who leave the kitchen in a mess.”
Another equally enraged man says he does everything for his children.
He bathes and feeds them and even reads them bedtime stories.
“I would even breastfeed them if I could,” he insists.
Many fathers would agree.
But in real life, many men would rather ask for directions than be found popping fenugreek seeds into a pot of bubbling fish masala.
It is as difficult to extricate a man from in front of a television during a live football telecast as it would be to push an unconscious elephant across the floor.
But yes — as there are men who are lackadaisical towards childcare and household chores, there are also women who are the same.
After all, what men can do, women can always do better.
There are the women who leave the child-rearing entirely to their husbands while they chase their careers or golf instructors.
And there are also those who bar ex-husbands from seeing the products of their union.
We can go on debating this issue until the next general election and beyond, but there would be no conclusion or consensus.
Gender wars will continue to rage and no peace plan or treaty will be able to bring an end to this eternal battle of wills.
These are modern times, and there is a certain degree of confusion about how men and women are supposed to act.
Their roles are no longer as clearly demarcated as they were in the days when all men did was hunt sabre-toothed tigers while women raised children, cooked and skinned the woolly mammoths their menfolk dragged home.
The best we can do is tolerate or, better still, accept the other for what they are.
Give-and-take.
Compromise.
Do all that is espoused by sociologists and agony-aunt columns, and create an environment of love and compassion within the home.
Birth rates will soar.
If they do not, it would not be men who are to blame but tight underwear, hot baths and excessive cycling.
The more crucial question is not whether men are to blame, however, but whether a declining birth rate is necessarily a bad thing.
Is having an average 2.2 kids — a third as many as a generation ago, when 6.2 children was the average per couple — a calamitous development?
Experts say it is: low birth rates will cause a myriad problems in the years to come.
The population will be aging, and the elderly cannot contribute economically to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Some contend that senior citizens are a burden to the government in terms of healthcare, and cost taxpayers money in the long run.
If they are that unproductive and expendable, why not just send them all away? Then they will no longer continue to “increasingly tax existing health and pension systems”.
Just put them all in boats with sufficient rations for a week or two and send them off when they reach a certain age, and the nation will no longer need to concern itself with an “aging population problem”.
Instead of griping, we should take better care of our older citizens.
Give them more flexibility to stay or re-enter the workforce.
There needs to be a fundamental change in perception of what it means to be old.
The issue of senior citizens aside, it is irresponsible to tell people, especially those in advanced industrialised nations where the per capita consumption of natural resources is high, to have more babies.
Before the single-child policy, China, for example, was fighting a huge overpopulation problem.
It is also more economically sensible to have smaller families, especially in times of financial uncertainty.
Children with only one or two siblings are more likely to enjoy a standard of living comparable to or higher than their parents’.
It just does not make sense to bring another child into the world if the family is already stretched thin financially.
Why have more children if one cannot afford proper childcare or put them all through school; if there is already insufficient space in a one-room flat, or enough money to ensure they get at least three proper meals a day?
It is curious that we have been conditioned to think of a gradual decline in population as a bad thing.
With proper social support systems, a declining birth rate, even if it is below replacement levels, may not be as bothersome as some people think. [rc]
Chok Suat Ling
sling@nst.com.my
Copyright © 2009 NST Online
