Individualisation is one of the most prominent theoretical frameworks for explaining contemporary shifts in reproductive intentions (Yopo and Abufhele, 2024; Yopo, 2023). According to this framework, the pursuit of personal fulfilment is increasingly superseding traditional mandates centred on the institutional value of the family (Van de Kaa, 2001). This perspective posits that there has been a broader shift towards postmodern values, which have weakened longstanding social mandates surrounding gender and family (Yopo, 2025). Consequently, raising children is no longer perceived as an inescapable social obligation, but rather as an individual choice.

This transition is deeply rooted in the de-standardisation of the life course, a process wherein socially established transitions and their traditional sequencing have become increasingly fluid (Yopo, 2023). As the rigid boundaries of the life course dissolve, individuals find themselves needing to construct choice biographies, in which their reproductive decisions are increasingly asynchronous with their personal projects and professional milestones (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001).

However, this shift highlights a fundamental paradox of agency. While women may perceive postponing motherhood as an exercise in autonomy, they often fall into the trap of reflexive modernity, that is, they experience a conflict between the pursuit of self-fulfilment and the internalised demands of the labour market, which Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2001) refer to as the self-obligation to standardise one’s existence. In contemporary society, personal advancement is contingent upon meeting stringent professional and educational standards (Yopo, 2025). Consequently, prioritising achieving institutional success and a consumption-based lifestyle over having a large family encourages not only the postponement of motherhood or the intention to remain childless, but also, more significantly, the complex and shifting interplay of the two orientations across the life course.

While these ideational shifts are fundamental to the theoretical models explaining below-replacement fertility, most notably the second demographic transition (SDT) theory (Lesthaeghe, 2010), their expression in Latin America remains inseparable from the region’s profound structural inequalities (CEPAL, 2025). Research on highly educated women in this context has consistently identified narratives that prioritise individualism and professional aspirations to avoid compromising future goals (Yopo, 2022; Mandujano-Salazar, 2021; Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, 2021; Escobar and Sanhueza, 2018; Chacón Onetto and Tapia Ladino, 2017). However, the tension between the desire for autonomy and the external pressure to standardise one’s life manifests as profound ambivalence regarding reproductive intentions. We argue that narratives of self-fulfilment are insufficient to capture the complexity of intentions in the Latin American context. Instead, both postponement and limitation may function as biographical tactics or responses to systemic contradictions and structural instability (Yopo, 2023).

Economic uncertainty is tightly linked with the paradoxes of individualisation and the pursuit of self-fulfilment. While individuals strive to construct choice biographies, the feasibility of these personal projects remains fundamentally constrained by the prevailing labour market conditions (Fiori et al., 2013; Adsera, 2011; Begall and Mills, 2011). Recent studies have argued that the pronounced fertility decline observed in post-transitional societies is increasingly driven by a permanent state of uncertainty, rather than by transitory crises (Alderotti et al., 2021). In this context, the self-obligation to standardise (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001) becomes a burdensome requirement, as individuals feel compelled to achieve a degree of economic security that the current volatile market rarely guarantees.

Studies conducted in European contexts have found that structural volatility influences reproductive intentions through a gendered risk management lens. As demonstrated by Sobotka et al. (2011) and Fiori et al. (2013), women with higher education often postpone motherhood to safeguard their career progression against potential economic shocks. In Latin America, these dynamics are further exacerbated by persistent socioeconomic inequalities, which explain the profound heterogeneity in reproductive timing across social strata. Within the region, the interplay of labour informality and weak social protection systems results in a fragmented reproductive landscape and heterogeneity in the timing of childbearing, given that economic crises do not affect all groups equally (Yopo, 2023; Castro et al., 2022).

Despite these regional specificities, contemporary Latin American scholarship has mainly focused on the reproductive intentions of professional women, overemphasising ideational explanations at the expense of structural ones. This narrow focus has largely overlooked how precarious social conditions operate across diverse socioeconomic groups, directly conditioning the decision to have children or to remain childless.

Education constitutes a fundamental mechanism through which women gain the autonomy necessary to negotiate partnership agreements on more equitable terms (Sobotka, 2017). According to the gender revolution theory (Goldscheider et al., 2015), changes in reproductive intentions respond to increased opportunity costs of motherhood. While this model predicts that greater equality in the home and shared responsibility for childcare lead to higher birth rates, the revolution is considered incomplete due to men’s limited participation in domestic and caregiving tasks (Esping-Andersen, 2009). Even in contexts where a more equitable division of household labour has been achieved, parenthood does not necessarily emerge as a central life objective. Begall and Hiekel (2025) illustrate this point in their study of three Nordic countries, finding that egalitarian couples who reported having a satisfactory domestic arrangement did not prioritise parenthood above other life goals.

The applicability of this framework to the Latin American context has been widely debated. Unlike in Europe, the labour force participation of Latin American women remains low, and is often driven not by the individual pursuit of autonomy, but rather by the need to contribute to the household income (CEPAL, 2025). Moreover, the intersection of socioeconomic inequalities and the persistence of traditional gender roles complicate the relationship between gender equality and reproductive behaviour (Cherlin, 2016), as in Latin American case.

Recent evidence suggests that while gender equality may incentivise motherhood from a theoretical perspective, the actual burden of care work and the lack of shared responsibility for childcare between partners encourage the postponement of motherhood and even ambivalence towards it. As women ascend professional hierarchies, they are forced to evaluate their individual capacity to manage simultaneous roles within the context of fragile care programs and policies (Real and Aguilera, 2026; Escobar and Sanhueza, 2018; Chacon Onetto and Tapia Ladino, 2017; Zicavo, 2013).

The centrality of the partner in women’s reproductive intentions is further highlighted by the increasing gender equality in social roles. In the Latin American context, the significance attributed to conjugal partnerships frequently appears paradoxical, given the persistent financial and symbolic absence of men in childcare, not only in economic terms, but also in emotional and material conditions (Yopo-Díaz and Fuentes-Landeta, 2024; Yopo, 2023). Qualitative evidence from the region indicates that this failure of men to accept joint responsibility for childcare, in conjunction with a lack of economic stability, constitutes a significant barrier that leads to the systematic postponement of motherhood (Yopo and Abufhele, 2024).

Additionally, the quality of a partnership may be undermined by coercive dynamics. Although this line of enquiry is still in its early stages, specific research indicates that various forms of gender-based violence, including reproductive coercion by a male partner, can severely hinder a woman’s ability to engage in effective family planning, with profound repercussions for her reproductive agency and long-term intentions (Pardo, 2019). While a woman’s family network may function as a stabilising factor in the face of economic uncertainty, her partnership may follow an oscillating pattern in which the relationship veers between being a desired source of stability and a site of structural inequality and conflict (Yopo and Abufhele, 2024).

Another key driver women’s reproductive intentions mentioned in the literature is the rise of intensive parenting and the increased cost of raising children. This phenomenon highlights the tensions between the pursuit of self-fulfilment, structural uncertainty and gender equality gaps. It has been hypothesised that the transition to an intensive parenting model has not only contributed to the postponement of the optimal timing for motherhood, but has also significantly redefined the standards for being considered a good mother (Yopo, 2025, 2023). In low fertility contexts, children acquire immense symbolic and emotional value. In a model of childcare reinforced by expert knowledge, educational institutions and the media, parents are expected to make disproportionate investments of resources and time in their children (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001).

Under this paradigm, motherhood is constructed based on the capacity to respond to elevated parenting standards, with the perception of being unprepared or the fear of failing to provide the required quality of care outweighing the mere desire to have a child (Yopo, 2025). In Latin America, this model has generated acute tensions as it collides with fragile public support systems and pervasive gender inequalities in childcare responsibilities. Despite its cultural centrality, the practice of motherhood has become exceedingly costly in precarious environments (Zicavo, 2013). The demands of new approaches to childcare, such as respectful or positive parenting, require a level of dedication that clashes with long working hours, the accelerated pace of everyday life and the institutional instability in the region (Yopo, 2025; Sanhueza, 2005). Consequently, contemporary parenting is characterised by structural ambivalence rooted in the contradiction between having nominal reproductive freedom and dealing with overwhelming care demands (Real and Aguilera, 2026). This suggests that reproductive intentions are not merely autonomous choices, but are instead defensive responses to a society that imposes high childcare standards within a framework of profound institutional weakness (Yopo, 2025).

Despite their relevance, the factors identified in the literature often overlook the nuances of intentions to postpone or limit childbearing, as well as the potential links between the two. This theoretical gap underscores the need for an analytical framework that examines how these mechanisms are interconnected, and how their meanings vary depending on women’s reproductive trajectories. Consequently, a qualitative and situated approach can contribute substantially to the discussion on the underlying drivers of these intentions.

A qualitative, non-representative sampling design was employed based on the principle of maximum variation. Rather than adhering to a priori numerical criteria, the sample size was adjusted inductively to encompass a broad spectrum of women’s experiences (Rapley, 2014; Patton, 2002). This approach allowed us to capture the complexity of reproductive intentions (Maxwell and Chmiel, 2014; Patton, 2002).

While the initial recruitment was based on parity – i.e. the recruitment of nulliparous women or women with one child only with no current reproductive intentions – the sampling was refined during fieldwork using a three-stage iterative approach. This process enabled the progressive incorporation of three axes of heterogeneity that were crucial for capturing the fluidity and dynamism of reproductive intentions. Moreover, it enabled robust comparisons to account for the complexity of reproductive decision-making in the specific context of Mexico City.

As shown in Figure 2, age was prioritised to capture the potential transformation of reproductive trajectories at different stages of the life course (Liefbroer, 2005). Marital status was emphasised after initial interviews revealed that partnership arrangements are often fundamental to reproductive negotiations (Real and Aguilera, 2026; Yopo, 2023). Finally, educational attainment was included not only as a factor influencing women’s financial circumstances (Sobotka, 2017), but also as a core dimension of their autonomy and individualisation processes (Yopo and Abufhele, 2024).

The snowball technique was implemented to select participants at each sampling stage. This approach relies on chain-referral sampling to identify initial participants (seeds), through whom new respondents meeting the research-relevant characteristics are accessed (Moser and Korstjens, 2018; Rapley, 2014). This technique was particularly effective for recruiting women from hard-to-reach populations, and, given the sensitive topics, for tapping into networks of trust. Consequently, the strategy utilised three distinct nodes to ensure diversity and mitigate recruitment bias, as shown in Figure 3. Recruitment continued until meaning saturation was achieved (Hennink et al., 2019).

Seed 1 (Iztapalapa district) ⁵ : The first seed was established in a working-class commercial setting, starting in a local market and extending to neighbourhood residents. Selected for its feasibility and pre-existing networks, this node captured a diverse range of ages and marital statuses. However, educational attainment was predominantly concentrated at undergraduate level.

Seed 2 (Magdalena Contreras district) ⁶ : To address the educational bias of the first seed, a second node was initiated in a peripheral neighbourhood. This cluster proved the most heterogeneous in terms of educational attainment, which ranged from secondary to undergraduate levels. It also introduced distinct demographic patterns, such as younger ages at first birth.

Seed 3 (Academic network): The final stage focused on specifically recruiting women with higher educational qualifications (postgraduate level). ⁷

The group oriented towards postponing reproduction has a remarkably homogeneous profile, consisting entirely of highly educated, nulliparous women. Within the narratives of these women, the mechanism of individualism and self-fulfilment emerges as the dominant discourse, exhibiting a significantly higher narrative density than the other factors. As illustrated in the Sankey diagram (Figure 5), the intention to delay childbearing is underpinned by a threefold anchor of motivations that collectively shape the participants’ reproductive outlook.

The first dimension of this anchor relates to professional and educational aspirations, which constitute the dominant discourse for delaying motherhood. This is exemplified by N5, who emphasises the necessity of reaching a specific career milestone before considering family formation: “[…] I want to focus on my studies, on finishing my degree, and well… I’m the kind of person who feels that before moving in with someone or even thinking about having children, I need to feel like I’m at a different professional level. […] My plan is to grow professionally first, to finish my degree” (N5, 25 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Second, the preservation of identity emerges as a critical factor, with motherhood being perceived as a potential threat to the self. Participants express a profound fear of identity erosion, as seen in the account of B21: “Yes, that’s what I want – I mean, not to lose myself, not to lose who I am, not to just be someone’s mum” (B21, 32 years old, living apart together, undergraduate/graduate). This concern is often coupled with a perceived lack of readiness, a feeling intimately linked to the potential loss of personal autonomy and living space.

Finally, the intention to postpone is driven by a desire for leisure, consumption and self-care. These narratives prioritise a period of having freedom and pursuing personal interests, such as travel and self-exploration, which are viewed as incompatible with the demands of parenting:

“No, no, no, no. What I don’t like is that, while I understand that biologically we are the givers of life, that doesn’t make us exclusively incubators. I think we also have specific projects: you are a researcher, and I am training to do the same. I want to travel; I want to do things. No, I really don’t like being pigeonholed into that role…” (T14, 36 years old, cohabiting undergraduate/graduate).

Furthermore, the high cost of raising children emerges as a prevalent narrative element; this perception is grounded in the observation of the experiences of women within their social circles and rigorous assessments of their own economic capabilities. As C22 states: “I feel like no… It’s fine; people should have them [children] when they really want to – when they can actually afford them” (C22, 25 years, single, undergraduate/graduate).

In a subset of narratives, broader social issues further influence the participants’ reproductive intentions. Factors such as insecurity, the perception of structural violence, demographic growth and natural resource scarcity are identified as elements that exacerbate indecision, reinforcing the inclination to postpone childbearing, as I15 explains: “Well, what I’m saying… is about the conditions the world is in. You know, there’s less and less water, we’re practically destroying the planet and all those things, right? I wouldn’t want a child of mine to lack these resources in the future, so[…]” (I15, 34 years old, cohabiting, undergraduate/graduate).

Regarding the mechanism of the partner’s affective engagement, narratives oriented towards postponement reveal that finding a suitable partner is a fundamental project that must be consolidated before childbearing. These accounts offer a series of checklists detailing the requirements a relationship must fulfil before the participant is willing to become a mother. Expressions such as “to be on the same page” and “we’re solid” highlight that alignment in life goals and the perceived solidity of the bond are essential conditions for transitioning to motherhood. Rather than merely partnering, these women seek to explicitly verify the depth and the stability of the connection (Figure 7).

Furthermore, the expressions “partner readiness” and “care involvement” reflect an active assessment of the potential for equitable care distribution. Moreover, the expression “check out your partner” reinforces the need to establish the relationship’s viability in the face of future domestic tensions. These dynamics are exemplified in K4’s account:

“I would really like both of us to take responsibility for the house and the baby. I’d like someone who fulfils his role as a father and within the home. I don’t want him to stop working, but I need him to take responsibility for the tasks that women usually do, because they aren’t just our obligations – they are theirs too; I would like it to be very shared between the two of us, very egalitarian” (K4, 25 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

While the mechanism of parenting and care is less prevalent in the postponement narratives, many participants note that observing the experiences of sisters, colleagues and friends has significantly shaped their decisions. Witnessing the substantial personal investments and sacrifices demanded by motherhood reinforces their intention to delay childbearing (Figure 8), as suggested by E3’s account:

“Yeah, a lot of things I see at the call centre [where she works] with colleagues who are almost 30 – many of them don’t have children because they know, and we realise, just how huge the responsibility of raising a child is, and everything you lose. Because the truth is, you shouldn’t romanticise it [motherhood]; you really do lose a lot, and you give everything to a human being you have to protect until they’re about 20” (E3, 25 years old, cohabiting, undergraduate/graduate).

In contrast to the homogeneity of the postponement group, the limitation group is characterised by marked diversity in terms of age, marital status and educational attainment. This category encompasses two distinct trajectories: parity-one women with no intention of having further births and childless women who express the intention not to pursue motherhood. Despite these differing backgrounds, the women following both orientations converge in their explicit determination not to have (further) children at the time of the interviews. This intrinsic heterogeneity yields a wide range of narratives across the four underlying mechanisms, revealing the complex nuances and differentiated perspectives that define this group of women.

The mechanism of parenting and care emerges as the most frequent in the narratives of this group. For parity-one women, family support has been pivotal for childrearing, particularly for those navigating motherhood as a single parent without financial or logistical contributions from the father. Consequently, having a second child is often viewed as a potential risk that may overburden existing support networks. These women also express significant concern that the task of raising children could become untenable if such assistance is withdrawn (Figure 8).

“Uh-huh, she is very close to my mum. And when I had to start working and all, well, she was the one who took care of her the most. Well, in fact, since she was little, she [mother] was the one who took care of her, in terms of being with her and so on. But up until now, she [daughter] sleeps with my mum. Not with me. Now it really is like the girl [daughter] is more my mum’s than mine [laughs]” (L19, 34 years old, cohabiting, high school).

For childless women, the absence of family networks – whether due to having elderly parents, currently fragmented relationships or experiences of childhood parental abandonment – often leads to a profound fear of becoming a mother without a support system. Under such conditions, these participants explicitly prefer to remain childless.

The quality of the maternal bond and the escalating temporal demands of childrearing are also mentioned in the narratives. Among parity-one women, there is a persistent narrative emphasising the importance of devoting exclusive emotional resources and attention to their existing child. Thus, limiting reproduction serves as a strategy to uphold the standards of intensive and responsive parenting. This is evident in the narratives of P12 and V17:

“I think that nowadays it is not only that they have limits [children], but also that they get a lot of […]emotional and even psychological attention, which our generations perhaps did not, it was not something indispensable, but now I do believe that children get a lot of attention in this sense […]” (P12, 39 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

For the women interviewed who intend to remain nulliparous, parenting is linked to a particular lifestyle characterised by high demands and constant dedication as an imperative to childrearing: “I think that, basically, the whole idea of not having children has more to do with not wanting to be responsible for anyone else. There’s the caregiving part, sure, but I also feel it’s about time – like, right now my life is good, and I like living the way I do. I’ve lived, I’ve enjoyed it” (E24, 45 years, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Among parity-one women, the experience of early motherhood is associated with the perception of having a completed reproductive cycle, which offers the prospect of reclaiming their autonomy as their children grow older (Figure 8). However, this decision also reflects a deliberate desire to avoid repeating the adverse circumstances of their first transition to motherhood, which may include parental abandonment, material deprivation or economic instability, as I18 states:

“Yeah, because, well, deep down I didn’t want to [have a child]. But anyway, I said, ‘Right, I’ve already messed up once by terminating the other pregnancy, [and] well, it’s not a game, is it?’ so I decided to have this child [first child]. I mean, deep down I did know that I didn’t [want to]. I didn’t have the capacity at that age to have or raise someone, or financial stability or the stability with my partner. So I said, ‘Well, that’s it, just with one and no more’” (I18, 28 years old, single, high school).

In contrast, for some childless women, the postponement of motherhood has gradually transitioned into a definitive intention to limit childbearing as they grow older, as G5 explains: “[…] and I used to say, ‘Well, between 35 and 38, I think you’re at a point where you can decide. If I choose to have a baby, because that was my idea too, it’s because I’m going to be with them most of the time’ […]. So, I thought, well, if my body is saying no, I mean, if at some point it said, ‘This isn’t for you’, then so be it. I’m not going to force something that isn’t meant to be” (G5, 47 years old, married, undergraduate/graduate).

The second narrative mechanism identified in this group is the partner’s affective disengagement. Most of women who have experienced unplanned pregnancies also report previous cohabiting relationships characterised by violence, abuse, infidelity and alcohol and substance misuse (Figure 9). These experiences have prompted profoundly affective disengagement from the first child’s father and a subsequent reluctance to form new partner relationships. The intention to limit childbearing is linked to a refusal to relive such relationship conditions, as A11 states:

“We were a couple for over 16 years – and the relationship was already very worn out. […] the relationship had settled into a place where we just didn’t trust each other anymore. We separated. There were infidelities, mistreatment and financial disorder. There was no sense of fairness in the relationship, no equality, the kind that is fair and that I now understand should be essential and important. I’ve no interest in repeating that whole saga with someone else” (A11, 36 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Moreover, several of the women who have a child and have never married or cohabited report that their intention to limit childbearing is due to the impossibility of establishing a relationship with a partner other than the biological father of the first child. As M9 explains: “Because, up to a point, I wouldn’t want V [daughter] to have siblings from another dad. The simple fact is… maybe it’s wrong, because I’m sort of projecting myself onto V [daughter], in that I don’t want her to end up like me. I wouldn’t want her, in the future, to feel pushed out by a baby” (M9, 26 years old, single, high school).

Several of the nulliparous women also suggest that their previous experiences of emotional disconnection and a lack of commitment have reduced their desire to form new partnerships (Figure 9). Perceiving the formation of an ideal bond as practically unattainable, these women often embrace singlehood and, by extension, a definitive intention to limit childbearing. “No, I don’t see myself with a partner to have children, I don’t see with someone who would take on that commitment. So, I made plans with my friends for our life in old age… Because most of my friends are single and don’t have children” (S24, 45 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

The mechanisms of structural factors and uncertainty and individualism and self-fulfilment are less present in the narratives of women whose intentions are oriented towards limitation (Figures 5 and 6). Within this group, financial stability is associated with the intention to limit reproduction in two ways. For parity-one women, the financial responsibility of covering children’s needs, given their low purchasing power, emerges as a central factor motivating their decision not to have a second child, as suggested by P8: “Honestly, I couldn’t have another child because I just don’t have the money” (26 years old, single, high school). Furthermore, raising children entails increasing expenditures on consumer goods, recreation and leisure, which tend to rise as they age, as S1 states: “[…], now you have to fulfil all those demands your children place on you, which means having more money to pay for those little extras [clothes, going to certain places], so they can fit in wherever they are, with their friends from secondary school, high school or university” (S1, 46 years old, cohabiting, high school).

For nulliparous women, the lack of financial stability also permeates the intention to limit childbearing, albeit mediated by the mechanism of postponement (Figure 6). The wait for an “ideal” moment of financial security often extends until the intention gradually transforms into a definitive limitation, a trend that is particularly evident among older women, as S24’s account illustrates:

“So then, with G, who was my second partner, I don’t think so either [become mother] … we were both barely just, like, entering that stage of financial and work stability, so no. I mean, no, neither of us could take on a responsibility like that [kids]. And with A [third partner] I did tell him, ‘I don’t want to have children’. I mean… I said, ‘Well, A can have whatever babies he wants, but not with me” (S24, 45 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Conversely, for younger women, the intention to limit reproduction is associated with a pessimistic outlook on the future (Figure 6). In their narratives, the lack of clarity regarding how to achieve the financial stability required for motherhood leads to shifting positions that alternate between considering future parenthood and explicitly rejecting childbearing. For example, some women report that barriers to accessing housing discourage them from wanting to have a second child. This issue is of particular concern for single mothers, for whom the financial burden and logistical challenges of finding housing near their family support networks can make renting or owning a home difficult. This is further evidenced by the testimony of A2. Housing concerns are absent from the narratives of nulliparous women, who either live with their parents or have already secured their own housing.

“I’m not always going to live in a room, right, because she [daughter] and I also need space for the two of us […]. I have thought about having something of my own. It is expensive, there are no more places nearby, everything is very expensive, they impose many requirements. I don’t know, it’s complicated to think about having another child” (A2, 29 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Finally, the mechanism of individualism and self-fulfilment influences the decision to limit reproduction, with distinct differences based on parity (Figure 5). For parity-one women, whose educational or professional aspirations were often disrupted by their transition to motherhood, having a second child is perceived as a factor that would exacerbate their existing difficulties and further hinder their personal plans, as D17 suggests:

“It was very complicated, to be honest, because I lived near Metro Muzquiz, and my university was in the centre of Tlalpan, so it was a daily commute of over two hours. But on top of that, studying Philosophy is so complicated that I’d get home at about 5:00 or 6:00 in the evening, absolutely shattered, with loads of activities, loads of reading, homework, assignments, you know? So, I had to find the strength from somewhere to be with my daughter for a bit, a proper bit of time, just a while… that was the hard part” (D17, 36 years old, living apart together, undergraduate/graduate).

For nulliparous women, particularly those of older ages, prolonged postponement is the strategy that has enabled them to achieve their professional and academic goals. After years of maintaining this dynamic, the intention to postpone gradually transitions into a definitive intention to limit childbearing, as J16’s account indicates: “I was about 23, and I did my master’s at the time, and like all these plans… they just weren’t going through my head. And then one day I turned 30 and I said, ‘Do I really not want children?’ And I said, ‘No, no, no, I don’t want to, no’, and that passed” (J16, 33 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).

Selfishness is a further element within the individualism and self-fulfilment mechanism (Figure 5). Parity-one women often perceive the intention to limit their number of children as potentially selfish, as it stems from a desire to prioritise professional growth, which may have been constrained by the birth of their first child, but also by a reluctance to compromise their only child’s well-being through the sacrifices that rearing a second would entail. “Either way, at first it seemed selfish, but it could be selfish on both sides. I didn’t want that part of [my] professional growth to be cut short, but on top of that, I didn’t want to be the peripheral mother either. The provider, and the one who leaves him at nursery for 10 hours” (Q23, 43 years old, cohabiting, undergraduate/graduate).

Among nulliparous women, selfishness relates to the intention to remain childless, which is attributable to a perceived lack of affinity with children and the belief that they lack the necessary childrearing skills. However, as illustrated in J16’s account, this intention is not entirely free from the weight of social expectations:

“For example, I’ve never felt that affinity with children… I mean, like… maybe because of my background, but it’s like I just don’t have the patience for them; they really drive me mad. Um, it’s like I don’t understand them, so I say to myself, ‘I don’t know, what I’d do’, you know? So, I say, ‘I’d do my best’, but the truth is I find them maddening. Or that I don’t understand their needs properly, and I’m not that interested either, sadly” (J16, 33 years old, single, undergraduate/graduate).