boycotts
by rantywoman
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0106.mencimer.html
But the idea that mass childlessness is the product of a “lifestyle choice” or a political movement defies common sense. We are, after all, highly evolved primates. Reproductive instincts are hard wired in our brains, and historically, only events of serious magnitude—wars, depressions, famine, and seismic shifts in the economic system, such as the industrial revolution—have caused large numbers of women to forgo having children. When resources are scarce, and when they don’t have much help, women will postpone motherhood. And despite the romantic myth of the self-sacrificing mother, if given the option, most women will choose to advance their own position before bearing more children. That’s because in the long run, a woman’s improved status benefits her children. It’s a pattern replicated all over the natural world, and has been for thousands of years.
Our failure to recognize this pattern—and the systemic changes manifested as individual decisions—has serious implications for the future. Many people will argue that a lower birth rate is a good thing for an overpopulated planet—and they will be right, up to a point. It’s the forces driving widespread childlessness that should concern us. America’s disappearing children are the canaries in our coal mines, a warning that our social and economic system is seriously out of whack.
thebitterbabe 
I’m pleasantly surprised that you posted this.
Ms. Mencimer’s article is one of those that recognizes that low fertility rates are a social and economic problem and she proposes solutions.
You have not been receptive to literature of this kind in the past because you seemed to take it personally, as if anyone expressing concern about low fertility rates is somehow invalidating you as a childless woman.
The fact that you have posted this article indicates to me that you now recognize that one can be concerned with the social and economic implications of low fertility rates without invalidating childless women.
I have very complicated feelings about the population issue, as I think anybody today would if they read articles such as this one:
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/05/the_window_of_opportunity_to_prevent_catastrophic_warming_is_closing/
Yes, this is true.
On one side, you have those who argue that low fertility rates lead to financial depression and an inability to adequately care for increasing numbers of childless seniors.
On the other side, you have those who argue that the world cannot sustain much more than seven billion people without environmental and agricultural collapse, leading eventually to famine on an unimaginable scale.
I don’t know whether the environmentalists are right. What I do know is that while depopulation may be good for the environment, it’s not good for the economy or for communities. Look at Detroit – the motor city may be the future for all of us.