It’s been a talking point for a while now. Then clips of two Steven Bartlett Diary of a CEO episodes blew up, in which three men (none of whom have children) lament ‘dying’ male lineages and blamed a loneliness epidemic for men on women not choosing them. Then last week, a Reform candidate’s blogpost from 2024 was unearthed in which he’d reportedly argued that “young girls” need a “biological reality” check when it comes to reproducing (and that those who don’t churn out children ought to be taxed more) – as the party, widely touted to be the next government in power, leans into a more pro-natalist rhetoric overall.
Nigel Farage has onboarded James Orr, an academic known for his hardline anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ views, while influential X owner Elon Musk has repeatedly warned that “if people don’t have more children, civilisation is going to crumble” – frequently amplifying concerns about declining birthrates in Europe and the US in particular.
Elsewhere, we’ve seen France launch a 16-point plan to counteract its declining birthrate, which includes sending all 29-year-old women a letter reminding them not to leave conceiving “too late” and flagging that many can qualify for free egg-freezing via social security. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is also attempting to cling on to power ahead of an upcoming election by announcing major tax cuts for mothers.
We do need to talk about declining birthrates – globally, fertility rates have halved since 1950, according to the UN, and more than two-thirds of countries are now below the so-called “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman – but the way we seem to be going about it is... all wrong. And more to the point, why is this conversation seemingly being led by men?
Here in the UK, the fertility rate has been sliding for years. In England and Wales, it hovers around 1.4 (a record low) children per woman and in Scotland it is even lower at 1.25 – below the level required to maintain a stable population without an over reliance on migration.
Fewer babies today means an unbalanced society tomorrow, where too many skew older and the likes of the NHS and social care collapses in on itself. That pressure is already visible, yet immigration (which currently keeps many key sectors staffed) is routinely framed by those on the right as a crisis in itself. And, apparently, so are the women who failed at their One Job in Life: reproducing.
Everyone's clicking on...
For those who are, the average age of a first-time mother now over 30, something that’s routinely framed as “leaving it too late” – rather than what it often is: women trying to establish some form of financial stability and career progression before bringing a child into a world where stability feels increasingly out of reach.
And much like a wonky population, this whole conversation is all topsy-turvy and missing crucial elements. Let’s start with the obvious: it takes two people to make a baby. Yet, somehow, when birthrates fall, it’s women who get the stern talking-to. Not men. Not employers. Not policymakers who’ve presided over a decade-plus of squeezed wages and shredded public services. Women (so labelled by the US Vice President, JD Vance, as “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their lives and the choices they've made and want to make the rest of the country miserable, too").
Crucially, not everyone wants children. Choosing to be childfree is not a political statement, nor is it a betrayal of civilization. It’s a personal decision that harms precisely no one (whereas having a baby you don’t really want is certainly ripe for screwing a child up in the long run – which in turn, isn’t great for society).
Others are desperately wanting children, but are held back by infertility or other health issues. And where are they in this conversation?
Additionally, for others who do have hopes of a family, or expanding theirs, the maths simply isn’t mathsing. The cost-of-living crisis hasn’t magically evaporated. Nursery fees in Britain are among the highest in the world; for a child under two they can easily run into the tens of thousands per year, and while the government has expanded ‘free hours’, they rarely cover the actual fees providers charge. Households increasingly need two incomes to stay afloat too – gone are the days of one salary comfortably covering a mortgage, bills and a family – which means parents are forced into an exhausting juggle of work, nursery pick-ups and patchwork care.
And guess who still does the bulk of that juggle? Women. The gender domestic load and pay gap persists. Mothers are more likely to reduce their hours or leave the workforce altogether. Studies consistently show that women carry out the majority of unpaid childcare and domestic labour, even in progressive households. So, when politicians talk breezily about encouraging “British people” to have more babies, what they are often (consciously or not) asking is for women to absorb even more economic and emotional risk.
There’s also a sharp hypocrisy at play. The same political voices lamenting an “existential crisis” in birthrates are often those resistant to affordable childcare expansion, flexible working, stronger parental leave, secure housing policy or meaningful action on stagnant wages. You cannot simultaneously make it structurally harder to raise a child and then scold women for not rushing to do so. That’s before we even touch on the worrying state of maternity care in the country right now, deemed to be in “crisis” and “worse than anticipated” following an overdue government review.
If governments were serious about supporting family life, they would start with material conditions: genuinely affordable childcare, properly paid parental leave for both parents, stable housing, adaptable work schedules that don’t punish mothers’ careers, reducing the number of traumatic births and leading a cultural shift that expects men to shoulder equal responsibility at home. Instead, we get wagging fingers and viral podcast monologues about poor lonely men being unable to sire an heir. My heart bleeds for them, truly.
Yes, falling birthrates raise real economic questions. Yes, ageing populations put pressure on public services. But framing this as women selfishly opting out of their ‘natural biological function’ is deeply unhelpful.
The truth is far less dramatic and far more inconvenient: women are not malfunctioning. They are making rational decisions in response to the world as it currently stands. If politicians want more babies, they need to build up a country where having one doesn’t feel like an enormous financial and personal gamble. Until then, the blame game looks less like concern for the future – and more like an attempt to control it.
Follow Jennifer, Cosmopolitan's Features Editor, on Instagram
Jennifer Savin is Cosmopolitan UK's multiple award-winning Features Editor, who was crowned Digital Journalist of the Year for her work tackling the issues most important to young women. She regularly covers breaking news, cultural trends, health, the royals and more, using her esteemed connections to access the best experts along the way. She's grilled everyone from high-profile politicians to A-list celebrities, and has sensitively interviewed hundreds of people about their real life stories. In addition to this, Jennifer is widely known for her own undercover investigations and campaign work, which includes successfully petitioning the government for change around topics like abortion rights and image-based sexual abuse. Jennifer is also a published author, documentary consultant (helping to create BBC’s Deepfake Porn: Could You Be Next?) and a patron for Y.E.S. (a youth services charity). Alongside Cosmopolitan, Jennifer has written for The Times, Women’s Health, ELLE and numerous other publications, appeared on podcasts, and spoken on (and hosted) panels for the Women of the World Festival, the University of Manchester and more. In her spare time, Jennifer is a big fan of lipstick, leopard print and over-ordering at dinner. Follow Jennifer on Instagram, X or LinkedIn.
