It Takes Two to Tango: Gender Inequality, Social Infertility and the Birthrate Crisis
[n.b. This article discusses the impacts of the birthrate crisis on cis-gender, heterosexual individuals and partnerships. The writer acknowledges that this is only a fragment of a much wider conversation on the matter which also significantly impacts the LGBTQ+ community.]
In 2025 France recorded more deaths than births for the first time since the end of the Second World War. As fertility rates continue to drop globally, having more than halved between 1950 and 2021 from an average of 4.84 children per woman to 2.23 with a projected 1.83 by 2100 (significantly lower than the 2.1 ‘replacement-level’ minimum needed), some 80 countries most affected by low fertility rates are increasingly turning towards pro-natalist policies.
This has most recently been the case in France, where on the 5th of February 2026 the government presented a detailed plan of action ‘against infertility’ to improve sexual and reproductive health research, treatment and services and better inform the general population on the matter. This decision doesn’t come as a surprise since France’s birthrate currently stands at a low 1.6 and recent government spending related to the country’s ageing population (pensions, healthcare services etc.) accounted for more than 40% of total public spending, an increase of more than 11 percentage points since 1998. Out of the proposal’s 16 measures – that range from the creation of a national reference portal on reproductive health and fertility to improving maternity care, access to IVF and the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis and PCOS – one controversial point has generated significant debate: the delivery of an official government letter to all 29-year-olds, regardless of gender, providing ‘targeted, balanced and scientific information on sexual and reproductive health’ with the primary aim of avoiding what is described as ‘if I had known’ and reminding young adults that fertility is ‘both a men’s and women’s issue’.
On the surface, widening access to reliable, scientifically backed information and raising nationwide awareness on the subject of infertility isn’t a bad idea, however the reasons why this letter is already facing criticism are twofold: firstly, although the plan recognises the biological limitations surrounding infertility and the state’s responsibility in supporting these cases, many feel like this is just added pressure and a way of blaming young people for not being sufficiently informed or taking initiative in the matter when in reality most simply cannot afford to even think about having children due to the current financial climate, an aspect noticeably absent from the proposal. For example, studies show that although 1 in 3 French mothers believe they have fewer children than they would like, less than 50% of French women under 30 think that their current professional, living and financial situations are favourable to them having children. Secondly, although the new 16-point plan claims to recognise infertility as ‘both a men’s and women’s issue’, it is evident that women continue to unjustly and unwillingly bear the weight of the fertility crisis on their shoulders, both in France and around the world.
In the UK, this was made blatantly evident last February when, in the run-up to the Gorton and Denton by-election, Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin’s suggestion to tax those who are yet to have children (aptly described in the Guardian as deeply discriminatory and offensive to those struggling with infertility and miscarriage, the LGBTQ+ community and those who cannot afford to have children) sparked nationwide outrage and led to the resurgence of a clip from his personal YouTube channel from November 2024 in which he directly singles out women as the main culprits for the fertility crisis: ‘We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life, and they would prefer to have children much earlier on’. Here, Goodwin sets an incredibly dangerous, quasi-dystopian precedent in pro-natalist discourse that implies that girls – rather than adult women – must be made aware of their alleged primary societal role as child-bearers from the youngest age. This narrative is perpetuated in his podcast appearance alongside right-wing philosopher Jordan Peterson where he states: ‘universities have become hotbeds of “politically correct authoritarianism” because […] “universities became dominated by not only women – this is even worse, I might as well go in all the way – childless women’. Not only is this statement incredibly dehumanising and insulting, implying that a woman is only credible and worthy of respect if she has a child, but it also implies that she must prioritise having children over her education, an archaic claim undoing decades of crucial advocacy for women’s literacy, education and employment, a battle that is still ongoing to this day in many countries around the world. Ironically, Goodwin ultimately lost the by-election to Hannah Spencer, a 34-year-old unmarried, childless, working woman who made history as the Green Party’s first and youngest northern MP.
Claims such as Matt Goodwin’s prove the undeniable masculinity crisis present within the conversation surrounding fertility. As highlighted by Stephanie Hegarty in an article for the BBC, by portraying global infertility as solely a women’s issue, we are missing the opportunity to support male infertility, change the way we view paternity and reduce the gender gap in parenthood. As a society, we know very little about the potential benefits of paternity and caregiving to fathers as there is next to no scholarship on the matter. For instance, a 2021 Norwegian study revealed that low-income men are the group most likely to be childless involuntarily; 72% of childless men are found among the lowest 5% of earners, whereas only 11% are among the highest earners. This can be explained by a variety of reasons, the most obvious being the cost-of-living crisis. However, Hegarty also underlines the impact of the current masculinity crisis on male ‘social infertility’, which refers to infertility that is due not to biological reasons but rather to a combination of external factors. The same shift in gender roles that is empowering women to pursue and prioritise their professional careers over starting a family is also leading to confusion in young men as ‘expectations of manhood and masculinity change’. According to sociologists, ‘women tend to look for someone of the same social class or above when choosing a partner’: as women outperform men in education in 70% of countries worldwide, this trend has led to what is called the ‘mating gap’, whereby those most likely to be childless in Europe are men without a university degree.
From gaps in medical research and services to environmental concerns and shifting priorities, the birthrate crisis exists due to a variety of factors. In the UK, 15% of 18–25-year-olds don’t want children, double that of 15 years ago, and more than 50% are unsure on the matter. However, it goes without saying that the most critical factors preventing young adults from having children remain the current financial climate and, for young women in particular, the certainty that they will likely take on most of the childcare and domestic work, at the detriment of their professional life. In the EU, only 1 in 100 men pause their career to look after a child. For women? It’s 1 in 3. Although some pro-natalist policies such as France’s 16-point plan cover vital health-related aspects regarding infertility, most of these measures will be in vain if our governments fail to recognise that men’s fertility and childcare involvement are just as important as women’s if we want to reduce the gender inequality gap in parenthood.
Image courtesy of Léa Girardot via Le Monde, ©2026. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
