Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?

Egalité de genre et fécondité : de quelle égalité s’agit-il?

Abstract

Does gender equality matter for fertility? Demographic findings on this issue are rather inconclusive. We argue that one reason for this is that the complexity of the concept of gender equality has received insufficient attention. Gender equality needs to be conceptualized in a manner that goes beyond perceiving it as mere “sameness of distribution”. It needs to include notions of gender equity and thus to allow for distinguishing between gender difference and gender inequality. We sketch three dimensions of gender equality related to employment, financial resources, and family work, which incorporate this understanding: (1) the ability to maintain a household; (2) agency and the capability to choose; and (3) gender equity in household and care work. We explore their impact on childbearing intentions of women and men using the European Generations and Gender Surveys. Our results confirm the need for a more nuanced notion of gender equality in studies on the relationship between gender equality on fertility. They show that there is no uniform effect of gender equality on childbearing intentions, but that the impact varies by gender and by parity.

Résumé

L’égalité de genre a-t-elle un impact sur la fécondité ? Les résultats des études démographiques sont peu concluants. Nous soutenons qu’une des raisons de cette incertitude est l’insuffisance de prise en compte de la complexité du concept d’égalité de genre. L’égalité de genre doit être conceptualisée de manière à dépasser la perception d’une simple distribution égalitaire. Cette conceptualisation doit permettre de distinguer entre les différences selon le genre et les inégalités de genre et donc inclure la notion d’équité de genre. Dans le but d’illustrer cette approche, nous esquissons trois dimensions de l’égalité de genre en relation avec l’emploi, les ressources financières et les tâches domestiques qui intègrent cette approche : (1) la capacité à soutenir le ménage (2) la possibilité d’agir et la capacité de choisir (3) l’équité de genre dans les tâches domestiques et de soins. Nous étudions leur impact sur les intentions des hommes et des femmes d’avoir des enfants à partir des données des enquêtes européennes Genre et Génération. Nos résultats confirment la nécessité d’une approche plus nuancée de la notion d’égalité de genre. Ils montrent qu’il n’y a pas un effet uniforme de l’égalité de genre sur les intentions de procréation mais que l’impact varie, selon le sexe et la parité, en fonction de la dimension d’égalité de genre évaluée.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fertility intentions are less predictive at the aggregate level than at the individual level. Moreover, there are many factors that influence the realization of intended fertility, such as religiosity, country of residence, certainty of the intention, so that the magnitude or strength of the link between intentions and realization may vary by the factors included (Westoff and Ryder 1977; Toulemon and Testa 2005; Spéder and Kapitány 2009; Régnier-Loilier and Vignoli 2011).

  2. 2.

    For more information on the Generations and Gender Programme see Vikat et al. (2007), UNECE/PAU (2008a, b), as well as the homepage of UNECE/PAU at http://www.unece.org/pau/ggp/Welcome (last accessed May 4, 2013) and the homepage of the EU-project “GGP Design Studies for Research Infrastructure” at http://www.ggp-i.org (last accessed May 4, 2013).

  3. 3.

    We chose upper age limits that lie about “half-way” within the socially accepted age ranges found by Billari et al. (2011). Using the European Social Survey for 25 countries Billari et al. (2011) found that there is considerable variation in socially accepted age limits for childbearing in Europe. For men, the accepted upper age limit varies between 45.3 and 51.2 years, for women between 39.3 and 43.8 years. We also chose these age ranges to recognize the tendency towards childbearing at higher ages, in higher-order partnerships or the possibilities offered by assisted reproductive technology to realize childbearing intentions at higher ages.

  4. 4.

    Including non-partnered women and men would have distorted the interpretation of the results because the answer to the question on childbearing intentions could have been influenced by the fact that these women/men had no partner at the time of the interview. Moreover, we would have had to exclude them from the analysis of the relationship between gender division of household work/care and fertility intentions, since they do not have a partner with whom they could share household work/care. Finally, we would have had to treat these women/men as a separate group because their (economic and financial) situation has to be judged differently than the one of couples due to the lack of mutual reliance or mutual dependence. This would have overloaded the paper and distracted from its core, gender equality.

  5. 5.

    The standard GGS-questionnaire offers the respondent four answering options to the question whether she intends to have a child in the next 3 years: definitely yes, probably yes, probably no, definitely no. Norway only offered respondents the choice between yes and no. We therefore recoded all answers to yes or no, respectively.

  6. 6.

    We also ran models for each country separately in order to get some insight into country-specific patterns. However, in these models we could not distinguish between fertility intentions at higher parities due to the small number of cases in some countries.

  7. 7.

    In some of the GGS countries one did not ask whether the partner is full-time or part-time employed.

  8. 8.

    According to Badurashvili et al. (2008), in Georgia, partnership formation and childbearing are so closely connected that childless women’s (and men’s) intention to have a child within the next 3 years in fact reflects their wish to form a partnership (and family) in the near future.

  9. 9.

    We coded those answering “very easy”, “easy”, and “fairly easy” as “yes—easy to make ends meet” and those answering “with great difficulty”, “with difficulty” and “with some difficulty” as “no—difficult to make ends meet”.

  10. 10.

    The results are available from the authors upon request. It should be noted that in our single-country studies we could not differentiate between mothers and fathers of different parities.

  11. 11.

    These items all loaded on one factor, as did the items related to men’s involvement in childcare tasks. For each task we distinguished between her doing all the work (value 1), her doing most of the work (value 2) and sharing equally or him doing most/all of the tasks (value 3). He doing most or all of the household chores is very rare and therefore we pooled these cases together with equal sharing. The index is constructed by summarizing the scores for each task and then standardizing the result into a scale between 0 and 1.

References

  1. Aassve, A., Billari, F. C., & Spéder, S. (2006). Societal transition, policy changes and family formation: Evidence from Hungary. European Journal of Population, 22(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badurashvili, I. et al. (2008). Gender relations in modern Georgia. Tiblis. http://www.gcpr.ge. Accessed 4 May 2013.

  4. Balbo, N., & Mills, M. (2011). The effect of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05. Population Studies, 65(3), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Begall, K. H., & Mills, M. (2011). The impact of perceived work control, job strain and work-family conflict on fertility intentions: A European comparison. European Journal of Population, 27(4), 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berninger, I., Weiß, B., & Wagner, M. (2011). On the links between employment, partnership quality, and the intention to have a first child: The case of Germany. Demographic Research, 24(24), 579–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Billari, F. C., Goisis, A., Liefbroer, A. C., Settersten, R. A., Aassve, A., Hagestad, G., et al. (2011). Social age deadlines for the childbearing of women and men. Human Reproduction, 26(3), 616–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Billari, F. C., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control: Explaining fertility intentions in Bulgaria. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. The American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 186–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bridges, W. P. (2003). Rethinking gender segregation and gender inequality: Measures and meanings. Demography, 40(3), 543–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brodmann, St., Esping-Andersen, G., & Güell, M. (2007). When fertility is bargained: Second births in Denmark and Spain. European Sociological Review, 23(5), 599–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooke, L. P. (2004). The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1246–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Craig, L., & Siminski, P. (2010). Men’s housework, women’s housework and second births in Australia. Social Politics, 17(2), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Craig, L., & Siminski, P. (2011). If men do more housework, do their wives have more babies? Social Indicators Research, 101(2), 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duvander, A.-Z., & Andersson, G. (2006). Gender equality and fertility in Sweden: A study on the impact of the father’s uptake of parental leave on continued childbearing. Marriage and Family Review, 39(1–2), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Duvander, A.-Z., Lappegård, T., & Andersson, G. (2010). Family policy and fertility: Fathers’ and mothers’ use of parental leave and continued childbearing in Norway and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Esping-Andersen, G., Güell, M., & Brodmann, S. (2007). When mothers work and fathers care. Household fertility decisions in Denmark and Spain. In G. Esping-Andersen (Ed.), Family formation and family dilemmas in contemporary Europe (pp. 129–154). Bilbao: Fundación BBVA.

  19. Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 420–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fiori, F. (2011). Do childcare arrangements make the difference? A multilevel approach to the intention of having a second child in Italy. Population, Place and Space, 17(5), 579–596.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fiori, F., Rinesi, F., Pinelli, A., & Prati, S. (2013). Economic insecurity and the fertility intentions of Italian women with one child. Population Research and Policy Review, 32(3), 373–413.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fraser, N. (1994). After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare State. Political Theory, 22(4), 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice. Reimagining political sphere in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Frejka, T., Sobotka, T., Hoem, J. M., & Toulemon, L. (Eds.) (2008). Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research, 19(1–29) (Special Collection 7).

  25. Goldscheider, F., Oláh, L. Sz., & Puur, A. (2010). Reconciling studies of men’s gender attitudes and fertility. Demographic Research, 22(8), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenhalgh, S. (1990). Toward a political economy of fertility: Anthropological contributions. Population and Development Review, 16(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hobson, B. (1990). No exit, no voice: Women’s economic dependency and the welfare state. Acta Sociologica, 33(3), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hobson, B. (2011). The agency gap in work-life balance: Applying Sen’s capabilities framework within European contexts. Social Politics, 18(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hobson, B., & Fahlén, S. (2009). Competing scenarios for European fathers: Applying Sen’s capabilities and agency framework to work-family balance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 214–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hobson, B., & Oláh, L. Sz. (2006). Birthstrikes? Agency and capabilities in the reconciliation of employment and family. Marriage and Family Review, 39(3–4), 197–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoem, J. M., Prskawetz, A., & Neyer, G. (2001). Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria, 1975–96. Population Studies, 55(3), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Iacovou, M., & Tavares, L. P. (2011). Yearning, learning and conceding: Reasons men and women change their childbearing intentions. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 89–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kesseli, K. (2007). First birth in Russia: Everyone does it—Young. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 2007–2008 (pp. 41–62). Helsinki: The Population Research Institute.

  36. Kohler, H.-P., & Kohler, I. (2002). Fertility decline in Russia in the early and mid 1990s: The role of economic uncertainty and labor market crises. European Journal of Population, 18(3), 233–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7(2), 127–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T., & Englund, St. (2013). Women’s opportunities under different family policies constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in Western countries re-examined. Social Politics, 20(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kreyenfeld, M. (2010). Uncertainties in female employment careers and the postponement of parenthood in Germany. European Sociological Review, 26(3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lappegård, T. (2010). Family policies and fertility in Norway. European Journal of Population, 26(1), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Matysiak, A., & Vignoli, D. (2008). Fertility and women’s employment. A meta-analysis. European Journal of Population, 24(4), 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McDonald, P. (2000a). Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research, 17(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McDonald, P. (2000b). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mencarini, L., & Tanturri, M. L. (2004). Time use, family role-set and childbearing among Italian working women. Genus, 60(1), 111–137.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Miettinen, A., Basten, S., & Rotkirch, A. (2011). Gender equality and fertility intentions revisited: Evidence from Finland. Demographic Research, 24(20), 469–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mills, M. (2010). Gender roles, gender (in)equality and fertility: An empirical test of five gender equity indices. Canadian Studies in Population, 37(3–4), 445–474.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mills, M., Menacarini, L., Tanturri, M. L., & Begall, K. (2008). Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 18(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Misra, J., Budig, M. J., & Moller, S. (2007). Reconciliation policies and the effects of motherhood on employment, earnings and poverty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 9(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Modena, R., & Sabatini, F. (2012). I would if I could: Precarious employment and childbearing intentions in Italy. Review of Economics of the Household, 10(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Neyer, G. (2011). Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The second ‘No’. Demographic Research, 24(10), 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Neyer, G. & Rieck, D. (2009). Moving towards gender equality. In United Nations (Ed.), How generations and gender shape demographic change: Towards policies based on better knowledge (pp. 139–154). Geneva: United Nations.

  52. Oláh, L. Sz. (2003). Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(2), 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Oláh, L. Sz. (2011). Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The second ‘Yes’. Demographic Research, 24(9), 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Olds, S. & Westoff, C. (2004). Abortion and contraception in Georgia and Kazakhstan. The Open Society Institute.

  55. Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pailhé, A. (2009). Work-family balance and childbearing intentions in France, Germany and the Russian Federation. In United Nations (Ed.), How generations and gender shape demographic change: Towards policies based on better knowledge (pp. 57–82). Geneva: United Nations.

  57. Philipov, D. (2008). Family-related gender attitudes. In C. Höhn, D. Avramov, & I. Kotowska (Eds.), People, population change and policies, Demographic knowledge–gender–ageing (Vol. 2, pp. 153–174). Dordrecht: Springer.

  58. Philipov, D. (2009a). The effect of competing intentions and behavior on short-term childbearing intentions and subsequent childbearing. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 525–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Philipov, D. (2009b). Fertility intentions and outcome: The role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Philipov, D. (2011). Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first ‘No’. Demographic Research, 24(8), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Phillips, A. (1999). Which equalities matter?. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Phillips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Phillips, A. (2006). ‘Really’ equal: Opportunities and autonomy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(1), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Presser, H. B. (1997). Demography, feminism, and the science-policy nexus. Population and Development Review, 23(2), 295–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Puur, A., Oláh, L. Sz., Tazi-Preve, I. M., & Dorbritz, J. (2008). Men’s childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century. Demographic Research, 19(56), 1883–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, P. S. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Régnier-Loilier, A., & Vignoli, D. (2011). Fertility intentions and obstacles to their realization in France and Italy. Population-E, 66(2), 361–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, G. (1988). First births in America: Changes in timing of parenthood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rosina, A., & Testa, M. R. (2009). Couples’ first child intentions and disagreement: An analysis of the Italian Case. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender & Society, 11(6), 747–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schmitt, Ch. (2012). A cross-national perspective on unemployment and first birth. European Journal of Population, 28(3), 303–335.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Scott, J. W. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(1), 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sobotka, T., & Testa, M. R. (2008). Attitudes and intentions toward childlessness in Europe. In C. Höhn, D. Avramov, & I. Kotowska (Eds.), People, population change and policies, Family change (Vol. 1, pp. 177–211). Dordrecht: Springer.

  78. Spéder, Z., & Kapitány, B. (2009). How are time-dependent childbearing intentions realized? Realization, postponement, abandonment, bringing forward. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 506–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Testa, R. (2012). Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour. Demographic Research, 26(3), 63–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34(3), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Torr, B. M., & Short, S. (2004). Second births and the second shift: A research note on gender equity and fertility. Population and Development Review, 30(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Toulemon, L. (2011). Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first ‘Yes’. Demographic Research, 24(7), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Toulemon, L., & Testa, M. R. (2005). Fertility intentions and actual fertility: A complex relationship. Population & Societies, 415, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  84. UNECE/PAU. (2008a). Generations and gender programme: Concepts and guidelines. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  85. UNECE/PAU. (2008b). Generations and gender programme: Survey instruments. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Vignoli, D., Drefahl, S., & De Santis, G. (2012). Whose job instability affects the likelihood of becoming a parent in Italy? A tale of two partners. Demographic Research, 26(2), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vignoli, D., Rinesi, F., & Mussino, E. (2013). A home to plan the first child? Fertility intentions and housing conditions in Italy. Population, Space and Place, 19(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Vikat, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17(14), 389–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Watkins, S. C. (1993). If all we knew about women was what we read in Demography, what would we know? Demography, 30(4), 551–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Westoff, C. F., & Higgins, J. (2009). Relationship between men’s gender attitudes and fertility: Response to Puur et al’.s ‘Men’s childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century’. Demographic Research, 21(3), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Westoff, C. F., & Ryder, N. B. (1977). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 14(4), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dorothea Rieck for assisting in the preparation of the data, Irina Badurashvili for information on the Georgian society and for explaining the Georgian family and fertility behavior to us, and Gunnar Andersson, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of the European Journal of Population for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. Special appreciation goes to Jan Hoem for comments, discussions, and editorial advice. We also thank the participants of the section “Low fertility in comparative perspectives” of the Population Association of America Annual Meeting 2010 (Dallas). This work was supported by the Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe (SPaDE), Grant 349-2007-8701 of the Swedish Research Council and by the Research Council of Norway (202442/S20).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerda Neyer.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6 and 7.

Table 6 Intentions to have a(nother) child in the next 3 years by respondent’s and partner’s employment status, economic situation, division of household work and satisfaction with it
Table 7 Intentions to have a(nother) child in the next 3 years by respondent’s and partner’s employment status, economic situation, division of care work and satisfaction with it

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neyer, G., Lappegård, T. & Vignoli, D. Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?. Eur J Population 29, 245–272 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9292-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender equality
  • Fertility
  • Childbearing
  • Intentions
  • Europe
  • Men

Mots-clés

  • Égalité de genre
  • Fécondité
  • Procréation
  • Intentions
  • Europe
  • Hommes