<p>Among the widely accepted reasons for the drop in fertility rates are empowerment of women, better bodily autonomy, increased literacy rates, increased access to contraception, and emigration. However, tracing low fertility rates exclusively to empowered women and their bodily autonomy is problematic. While most educated women today may not face traditional barriers to reproductive autonomy (like family), they grapple with a very modern problem: capitalism and workplace compulsions.</p>.<p>There is an urgent need to raise greater awareness about population-related issues. Over the past few years, fertility rates in many countries have been declining. <br>The alarm bells have been sounded on the rate in India as well. A recent UN report estimates the fertility rate as 1.9 births per woman; 2.1 is considered the population replacement rate.</p>.<p>Traditionally, families control the fertility choices of a woman, from deciding when she gets married and starts bearing children, to when she should stop having children, which, in many cases, is at the birth of a boy child.</p>.<p>This control is today being replaced, or compounded, by workplaces that systematically create situations that make it very difficult for women to have children. Some workplaces do not pay maternity benefits to completion, some others encourage women to quit. Also, some of the workplaces are decidedly misogynistic in their hiring. Women are chosen, not based on merit, but on irrelevant and intrusive questions about marriage and family planning.</p>.<p>As per the law, there is no bar to the number of children a woman can have. However, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 provides 26 weeks of maternity leave to a woman for the first two children. If she has two or more surviving children, then she will only receive twelve weeks of maternity leave. This acts as a disincentive for women to have more than two children. Further, the legislature has not provided for compulsory paternity leave. Companies have started recognising short paternity leaves based on their discretion. This can range from five days to a month. Since a lot of men choose not to avail the leave, the burden of childcare falls again on the woman, which in turn hurts her employability. Without the support of the spouse, 26 weeks of maternity leave become inadequate, forcing couples to delay having children.</p>.<p>The stress of urban life adversely impacts reproductive systems. This has been documented in medical journals. The healthcare industry is allowed to rampantly commercialise this urban tragedy in pursuit of profit. The brunt of this is invariably borne by women. Fertility treatments are available at prohibitive costs, thus making motherhood a choice only for the upper classes. There have been reports of hospitals pushing for C-section deliveries so that they can control how quickly a bed can be vacated and made available to the next pregnant woman. Such forced treatments and procedures can impact a woman’s reproductive health in the future, further affecting fertility rates.</p>.<p><strong>The opportunity bias</strong></p>.<p>Empowerment of women can only play a role in more autonomous decision-making when it is realised across social and economic classes, and across institutions. Recognising maternity benefits without factoring in paternal involvement leads to reinforcing patriarchal norms rather than asserting women’s empowerment. Mothers, while away on maternity leave, are out of sight and thus, out of mind. They end up missing out on opportunities at work, which eventually may have an impact on their career path.</p>.<p>Fathers face no such disadvantage. They are back at their workplaces a few days after the child’s birth, and they move ahead in their careers. Fathers should be brought under the ambit of compulsory leave, so that they may play a more active role in their child’s life, rather than just being a weekend presence. They may also be more empathetic to the involuntary nature of missed opportunities women face during maternity leave. More couples, then, might opt to have children since they cumulatively have more time for child rearing. Making fertility treatment more accessible and equitable is also important to support a stable fertility rate.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Spinning a narrative that decidedly identifies women’s empowerment as a reason for falling fertility rates is dangerous. There is a need to see these numbers also in the context of capitalism and restrictive work structures. It is time we recognised that feminism can foster more equitable societies, and ill-informed analyses on its impact could further erode the idea of equal opportunity.</p>.<p class="bodytext"><span class="italic">(The writer is an <br />assistant professor at the School of Law, Christ [Deemed to be University], Bengaluru)</span></p>
<p>Among the widely accepted reasons for the drop in fertility rates are empowerment of women, better bodily autonomy, increased literacy rates, increased access to contraception, and emigration. However, tracing low fertility rates exclusively to empowered women and their bodily autonomy is problematic. While most educated women today may not face traditional barriers to reproductive autonomy (like family), they grapple with a very modern problem: capitalism and workplace compulsions.</p>.<p>There is an urgent need to raise greater awareness about population-related issues. Over the past few years, fertility rates in many countries have been declining. <br>The alarm bells have been sounded on the rate in India as well. A recent UN report estimates the fertility rate as 1.9 births per woman; 2.1 is considered the population replacement rate.</p>.<p>Traditionally, families control the fertility choices of a woman, from deciding when she gets married and starts bearing children, to when she should stop having children, which, in many cases, is at the birth of a boy child.</p>.<p>This control is today being replaced, or compounded, by workplaces that systematically create situations that make it very difficult for women to have children. Some workplaces do not pay maternity benefits to completion, some others encourage women to quit. Also, some of the workplaces are decidedly misogynistic in their hiring. Women are chosen, not based on merit, but on irrelevant and intrusive questions about marriage and family planning.</p>.<p>As per the law, there is no bar to the number of children a woman can have. However, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 provides 26 weeks of maternity leave to a woman for the first two children. If she has two or more surviving children, then she will only receive twelve weeks of maternity leave. This acts as a disincentive for women to have more than two children. Further, the legislature has not provided for compulsory paternity leave. Companies have started recognising short paternity leaves based on their discretion. This can range from five days to a month. Since a lot of men choose not to avail the leave, the burden of childcare falls again on the woman, which in turn hurts her employability. Without the support of the spouse, 26 weeks of maternity leave become inadequate, forcing couples to delay having children.</p>.<p>The stress of urban life adversely impacts reproductive systems. This has been documented in medical journals. The healthcare industry is allowed to rampantly commercialise this urban tragedy in pursuit of profit. The brunt of this is invariably borne by women. Fertility treatments are available at prohibitive costs, thus making motherhood a choice only for the upper classes. There have been reports of hospitals pushing for C-section deliveries so that they can control how quickly a bed can be vacated and made available to the next pregnant woman. Such forced treatments and procedures can impact a woman’s reproductive health in the future, further affecting fertility rates.</p>.<p><strong>The opportunity bias</strong></p>.<p>Empowerment of women can only play a role in more autonomous decision-making when it is realised across social and economic classes, and across institutions. Recognising maternity benefits without factoring in paternal involvement leads to reinforcing patriarchal norms rather than asserting women’s empowerment. Mothers, while away on maternity leave, are out of sight and thus, out of mind. They end up missing out on opportunities at work, which eventually may have an impact on their career path.</p>.<p>Fathers face no such disadvantage. They are back at their workplaces a few days after the child’s birth, and they move ahead in their careers. Fathers should be brought under the ambit of compulsory leave, so that they may play a more active role in their child’s life, rather than just being a weekend presence. They may also be more empathetic to the involuntary nature of missed opportunities women face during maternity leave. More couples, then, might opt to have children since they cumulatively have more time for child rearing. Making fertility treatment more accessible and equitable is also important to support a stable fertility rate.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Spinning a narrative that decidedly identifies women’s empowerment as a reason for falling fertility rates is dangerous. There is a need to see these numbers also in the context of capitalism and restrictive work structures. It is time we recognised that feminism can foster more equitable societies, and ill-informed analyses on its impact could further erode the idea of equal opportunity.</p>.<p class="bodytext"><span class="italic">(The writer is an <br />assistant professor at the School of Law, Christ [Deemed to be University], Bengaluru)</span></p>
