Is there an underpopulation problem in this country or in the world that I've not heard about? Or a shortage of orphaned children? Why should more, and not less, childbearing be encouraged? If you must have kids, do the moral thing: adopt.

I agree that there is likely a positive correlation between the amount of housework and childcare that men do, and the number of children their female partners bear. However, I think this correlation would be weak, because there are so many other factors people consider when deciding whether to have (more) children. One of these factors is loss (or perceived loss) of personal freedom. Parents too often resent the demands of parenting. Another is expense - if both parents are working, daycare may be needed which is a huge expense. Yet another is delaying childbirth so long that the couple may only be able to have one child.

There is concern about the declining fertility rates in many European countries. The topic was covered in depth by Russell Shorto recently in "No Babies? - Declining Population in Europe (New York Times: 6/29/08): Birthrates across the Continent are falling at drastic and, to many, alarming rates."

This article also responds to some points Barbara raised to my first post: “it'd be interesting to see a worldwide perspective on family size and how it's changed over the last century with the advent of birth control, reduction of major diseases in many areas, labor practices, and environmental/ecological issues.”

Of course, there are well taken counter arguments to and controversy about “No Babies?” in a series of letters to the editor (7/13/08) that appears online. Two brief excerpts from the letters:

“Fear of a work force too small to support pensioners is economically real. Fear of immigration and increasing ethnic and cultural diversity is politically and socially real. But the realities of a widening gap between sustainable world-population levels and growing demands for food, energy, clean air, clean water and arable land overwhelm them.”

“To truly compare America’s birthrate with that of Northern Europe, you will need to take into account a number of socioeconomic factors. What is the birthrate for middle-class Americans who need two incomes and consider higher education a necessity for their children? How many Americans are having more children than they can afford and are living neck-deep in debt and sending their children off to expensive universities so that they can begin their lives in debt as well?”

“If Dad helped…” has more to do with how male participation and female overload affect childbearing decisions than the much broader conversations on overpopulation, global warming, even adoption (which will be addressed in a future blog).

...tell which replies are written by males!!

In my household my husband does at least half of the housework and almost all of the cooking--and many of my friends husbands do so similarly. I wonder if the demographic you're describing is affected by particular factors such as geography, income, education, etc? My husband and I live in the East, and are both college educated. We have a three year old, and are expecting our second. In planning the second, the idea of my husband helping more never crossed my mind (maybe because he already does.) What did--and what I don't think you've considered adequately here, is my career, and how it would be impacted by a second round of maternity leave, and more sleep deprivation...

"no different from 90 years ago when women stayed home"

I think you'll find that 90 years ago many, many women did not stay home. They worked in shops, factories, coal faces, schools, weaving sheds, hospitals, and - importantly - in the houses of the few women who could afford to stay home. In this area in my grandmother's generation, girls went into the mills and weaving sheds or laundries at 13, or, if they were lucky, into domestic service or shop work. Every child from 10 up had time off from school to help with the harvest. Even poor people usually had a girl living with them in exchange for domestic help (looking after the baby while the parents were working at the mill, taking the laundry to the local washerwoman because it was impossible to do laundry in the average millworker's cottage) so that they could go out and work. Before mass industrialisation, most families participated fully in home-based industries and farming.

It really, really aggravates me to see the myth that men provided and women stayed home perpetuated all the time - until recently, it just wasn't possible for the vast majority of families to support this.

When word gets around that any men seen at Wal-Mart with arm-loads of cleaning supplies are a hot item and are being actively picked up by all the sexy babes, with the same being true for single men seen at the laundromat... Oh, nevermind.

Until then, women should put up or shut up about the inadequacies of the men they choose to marry. Studies have shown women strongly preferentially select for men with more traditional sex role views -- everything from initiating and asking for dates, to paying for them, to getting down on one knee with the diamond ring, etc. And then they magically expect marriage to transform these same men into behaving like obedient SNAGs. Right. Good luck with that. Especially in a world where men are still expected to be responsible for getting the oil changed, doing the lawn work, cleaning out the gutters, etc.

Jeffery Leving and Glenn Sacks (and others) have debunked the whole feminist "second shift" mythology; when time worked both inside *and outside* the home are counted up, things come out equal: http://www.glennsacks.com/are_american_husbands.htm

Besides, you never hear a man complaining that his wife doesn't do her fair share of polishing the chrome on the Camaro. :>