weathering

Professor Arline Geronimus developed her theory of “weathering” in 1990. It described the deleterious effects of a racist environment on the health of marginalized peoples, specifically, the effect on infant mortality of blacks versus whites. Previous to her research, it was thought that teen pregnancy was the cause, i.e., giving birth as a teen led to low weight or underdeveloped babies that did not survive. Her research showed the opposite: babies born to Black teens were surviving better than those born to Black women in their 20s. Teen pregnancy was a solution to a racist environment. Opponents of teen pregnancy were aghast.

I wrote about weathering in my book, Beyond Choice, in 2004. 

A few excerpts:

“As Professor Arline T. Geronimus of the University of Michigan has stated: “Fertility-timing varies among populations because of the contingencies members of different populations face in their efforts to provide for the survival and well-being of families.”

“…because of unhealthy living conditions, a sub-standard health system and violence, poor men and women, both minority and white, suffer from higher morbidity and mortality than those with higher incomes who are disproportionately white. Professor Geronimus calls this the “weathering hypothesis”. The weathering hypothesis says that certain groups statistically will “weather”, growing sicker as they age and dying faster than other groups.

“One study by Professor Geronimus in 1999 revealed that poor blacks, who had reached the age of 15, had a relatively low probability of survival until age 65. In Harlem only 37% of black men and 65% of black women who reach age 15 survive until age 65. For black men this represents half the probability of survival to age 65 for whites nationwide. Black girls in Harlem who reach age 15 have the same chance of surviving until age 45 as the average white girl of 15 has of surviving until age 65. Poor blacks get sicker faster and die younger.

“The leading causes of early death in poor communities include diseases of the circulatory system, AIDS, accidents, homicide and cancer. Poverty and race alone do not explain the entire difference in mortality rates. Other factors include crowded living conditions, poor health care, being a victim of crime, living amidst environmental hazards and, as a result of all these factors, experiencing enormous stress. The evidence is clear that many black people in America cannot reasonably expect to live through middle age. Living with this prospect may affect their behavior in a variety of ways, including in risk taking behavior and in reproductive patterns. 

“Studies aiming to confirm the weathering hypothesis have found evidence of a correlation between the average life expectancy in a community and the age at first birth in that community. Generally the lower the life expectancy, the lower the average age of first birth. In one study done in Chicago in 1997 Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University found that the median age of women giving birth was 22.6 years in neighborhoods with low life expectancy compared to 27.3 years old in neighborhoods with a longer life expectancy. This finding is in line with of young people, faced with the prospect of a compressed life span, trying to achieve their reproductive goals by accelerating their childbearing. The timing of a young poor woman’s childbearing is, I believe, a decision actively motivated in part by knowledge that her life and the lives of her parents will be shorter and less robust than those of other people. With parenting by not only parents but also grandparents being necessary in poor communities, it is natural for a young woman to have children while her extended family is alive and healthy enough to help care for them and help them grow. 

“Professor Geronimus found that the risk of neonatal death for a black infant increases as a poor, black woman gives birth at older ages, while the risk of neonatal death for a white infant decreases as the white mother gives birth at older ages. The weathering hypothesis says that the effects of social inequality, poverty, poor health and nutrition, stress and other negative environmental circumstances compound with age and have increasingly deleterious effects on fetal and newborn health as a poor, black woman ages and gives birth. 

“Professor Geronimus found that black mothers between the ages of 15-19 were found to have the lowestincidence of low birth weight babies as compared to older black women. For example, the infant mortality rate in Harlem for teens giving birth is 11 deaths per 1000 births. The rate for black women in their 20’s is twice that—22 per 1000. Among whites, mothers in their teens and 30’s experience slightly higher rates of poor birth outcomes than white women in their 20’s. In other words, whites in their 20’s have the best birth outcomes, while the best birth outcomes for blacks is while they are in their late teens. Black women as they age were found to smoke more during pregnancy and have higher rates of hypertension than whites. Black women as they age continue to live more in poverty than white women. Through their young adult years, black women’s health deteriorates more rapidly than white women’s health does, thereby leading to a greater risk of low birth weight babies as black women age. Poor women also generally get less prenatal care than wealthier women. The Geronimus study concluded: “the populations in which early births are most common are those where early births are the lowest risk, raising questions about the social construction of teen childbearing as a universally deleterious behavior.”

“This and other studies suggest that women may consciously or unconsciously time childbirth strategically by taking into account factors that include the status of their own health and their infant’s potential health, as well as the health of those in their kin network who will be helping raise the child. It is arguably a better reproductive strategy for a woman to give birth earlier rather than later in these circumstances. Women know that their premature death will have serious negative consequences for their children. In an environment where life is short it makes evolutionary sense for women to have their children as early as possible.

“Rather than viewing early childbearing as a pathology to be cured, I would argue that it is an adaptive reproductive strategy that is succeeding. In fact, the child of the teen parents is doing reproductively what she should: having children at a time where by her own experience there is a good chance they will survive to have children of their own. The child of teen parents will be a reproductive success if she repeats the pattern and if her children do too. As Geronimus said, “to postpone such goals as childbearing is to risk foregoing them.” 

“There is no one fixed path to reproductive success. Reproductive strategies depend on one’s environment. The environment can encourage a woman to give birth at a certain time and under certain conditions or it may discourage her. Teenagers in poor communities may see a variety of reasons not to postpone childbirth until they are older. They may have fewer choices of men, their health may worsen, and the health of their kin may also. It is also likely that they will give birth to healthier infants if they do so sooner rather than later. The role of her kin network cannot be underestimated. Parents want to be grandparents. They know their time is running short and they want to be around to help raise the child. While there are risks for the teen mother and her child, the families often think these are worth running.”        

I am glad that the scientific and health communities have finally caught up to Dr. Geronimus. See The New York Times, April 18, 2023, p. D7. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/well/live/weathering-health-racism-discrimination.html

I most definitely remember that certain of my colleagues were aghast at the sections of my book quoted above. It was as if I were a traitor to the Cause. I rather think I was taking a fresh look at sexual and reproductive behavior in the context of human health, the environment, biology, genes and evolution. We like to use the word “intersectionality” now. There are many elements to intersectionality (i.e. life) that contribute to and affect human behavior, reproductive decisions and strategies, and sexual behavior and health. Putting aside preconceptions and taking a clear look at the facts can help devise strategies to promote human wellbeing.

mating, Family and kinship

Two recent studies amplify my article below on Men.

The Pew Research Center reported that 60% of young men are single, twice the rate for young women. There is in general a decline in marriage, sexuality and relationships for both genders, but men fare worse than women. For under 30s, 63% of men and 34% of women are single. Women are dating and marrying older men and each other. Men are watching social media, video games and porn. Women continue to be choosy and many men don’t make the cut, emotionally, education-wise and financially. The good news is that 30-49 years olds are the least likely group to be single.

Nic Eberstadt and Ashton Verdure of the American Enterprise Institute issued a report on China’s changing family stricture. The long-range effects of the One-Child Policy and reduced family size and son preference are leading to massive changes in the kinship system. Fewer relatives means increased pressure for state support of the elderly. As the society ages, a huge social welfare state is likely, with a depressing effect on economic growth exacerbated by fewer people of working age. The unknown is the effect of only-child, single males in the military on foreign and military policy.

MEN!

Men!

The news media has been aflutter recently with stories (nightmare scenarios in some cases) of population decline in various countries, mostly Asian, with Europe an afterthought – the Italian  birthrate is at 1.3.  When I was younger, Asia was thought of in demographic terms as “teeming”. The worm has turned. China reported the first drop in population in over 60 years since the Not-So-Great Leap Forward (the drop probably occurred a few years ago but was unreported). South Korea and Japan have been losing population, and aging, for several years. Other developed countries around the world have less than a replacement birth rate (about 2.0).  Many have tried government incentives to increase it, without much lasting success.

All this has coincided with the improvement in the status of women in terms of education, jobs, and social status. The improvements for women yet to be achieved are well known, but no longer seem intractable. In Saudi Arabia, women can finally drive. Abortion is increasingly decriminalized (though not in the USA). Women are more independent than ever, making more money than ever, and as such, have more choice in mating than ever, don’t they?

Don’t they?

What of men and their choices? If economy and society are a zero-sum game (they aren’t), men must be relatively worse off than women if women are better off – one gender rises as one falls. Can’t both rise? Men still rule in corporations and government (the Nordics with their female political leadership didn’t get the memo on this). Aren’t both genders rising together in increased prosperity? Can’t we all just get along? One way to start a fierce argument is to try to explain the persistent gender imbalance in wages between men and women. 

A digression — I’m thinking about Russia, or what’s left of it. Who is getting slaughtered in Ukraine? Russian men, the ones who haven’t fled their country anyway. Smart guys. Run and survive to reproduce another day. Estimates say that 200,000 Russians have been killed or wounded so far and perhaps an additional 700,000 have fled the country. Out of about 7.5 million 20–29-year-old males.  Women and children left behind to cope. The Russia birthrate is now about 1.5. It is clearly going further south. I shudder to think how Putin will try to mandate childbearing to refill his army.

I wrote in Beyond Choice about reproductive strategies of women and men. Each gender collectively has one. Each individual has one. Find the right mate, choose strategically (not always consciously), have children that will survive, raise them, and have them in turn reproduce. Basic biology. This isn’t a haphazard process. It may not be conscious. Quality versus quantity in a mate? Short term relationship or long term? There is competition for mates. Who chooses? Who gets chosen? Are there rules to the game?

Women need and do control the mating process in free societies (arranged marriage is still the rule in many not-so free societies).  They have a greater investment in childbearing and need to chose strategically. And contracept strategically, which thanks to our work, they can in most societies. And abort strategically. Potential resources brought by a mate to the partnership may be key – men’s resources. Children are expensive. A mother’s time is expensive in terms of opportunity costs. Are men now less able to provide what is needed – be it time or money – in these expensive times? Do women care? With women’s increased education and earning capacity, need they still “marry up” as the social scientists call it? Can’t they carry on alone? Need they marry at all? Does it still take two to tango? 

Clearly not. 70% of births in Latin America are to single women. The OECD average is over 40%. In Japan, South Korea and China the rates are miniscule. These same countries now are experiencing a population drop. Social systems and culture have not evolved to a new economic reality. China is now permitting births to single women and IVF for them too. 

The New York Times had a recent article on men and fertility decline (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/opinion/fertility-decline.html) reporting on the work of Vegard Skirbekk. He found that women in the most gender-egalitarian countries still “tend to prefer men with relatively high income and education.” They do not prefer men with substance abuse issues or who are prone to violence. Men dropping out of the workforce in the Covid era is an issue in the US. In 1990, 72% of men were employed. In 2022, 65% were. Opioids and prescription med issues among men are more prevalent than among women. 

China has to deal with a severe gender imbalance given the years of son preference and the One Child Policy. Rarer women should have the pickings. But women don’t have the pickings in the job market and, seeing men as unreliable providers, want to keep their precarious jobs and forgo childbearing, or limit it or defer it at least. Incentives like baby bonuses and parental leave won’t solve this problem. 

Some reports quote women complaining that men don’t help with raising a child and keep working hard to provide. Then there are the men without work, or steady work. Or who are unreliable. It seems men can’t win here—do they work too hard or not hard enough? What do they think about all this? How about a restructuring of the economic system to make earning not an all-consuming task yet rewarding enough for a couple with children? That sounds Sovietistic and totally unworkable in most countries. The realities are that the high cost of education is real, the gig economy unstable. 

France recently went into an uproar when, given its low birthrate and increasing seniors, it wanted to increase the pension age to 64. Population and an economy have to be more than a Ponzi scheme to produce children to pay Social Security for their grandparents. A drop in the world population isn’t the end of the world. Didn’t it happen in Europe during the Black Death, which killed perhaps half the population.? Of course, people then thought it was the end of the world.

And what of women’s choices? Are they still constrained because of the status of men? Are women unwillingly forgoing children? If so, that is no better than being forced to have them. Are women’s aspirations victim to the new economic realities? Can’t and won’t new reproductive strategies evolve? Men and women have always reproduced in changing environments. The most adaptable survive. Isn’t that Darwin? Men and women will adapt. It may take a while, but they will. 

Governments and commentators will fret in the meantime – their economies will crash, seniors will starve, single people will live lonely lives. Governments will get into the business – they already are – of purchasing their own descendants through childbearing incentives. The results are meagre and the costs high. Less planning and government intervention and more individual innovation are what is needed. Though mandating a 4-day work week (and 7 hours max a day) might be a good start. And maybe with fewer people polluting and consuming we can save what is left of the environment. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/17/china-birth-rate-population-decline-global/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/17/china-population-shrinking-decline-crisis/

https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/Fertility-rates-in-the-EU-are-plummeting-with-few-exceptions

Reproductive and sexual Rights News

Thailand

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-thailand-statutes-4de6fb7a91e9007be6418561f67be5ae

Abortions allowed up to 20 weeks from 12 weeks.

Cuba

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cubans-approve-gay-marriage-by-large-margin-referendum-2022-09-26/

A referendum approved gay marriage and adoption.

India

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-top-court-gives-all-women-right-abortion-2022-09-29/

Unmarried women in India can have an abortion up to 24 weeks on a par with married women.

It is heartening that the world is ignoring the United States!