More feminism, more breeding?

[lpetrich]

Opinion: Want More Babies? You Need Less Patriarchy - "People worried about birthrates should help working mothers"

Last week, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that America’s birthrate reached a historic low in 2017, falling to 60.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. For a population in the developed world to replace itself, the average woman needs to have around 2.1 children. In the United States, where fertility has been below replacement for about a decade, the average woman now has 1.77.

...
I have another theory. Perhaps the United States is becoming more like the rest of the industrialized world, where declining birthrates are correlated with a lack of support for working mothers.

Outside the United States, the pattern is pretty clear. Developed countries that prioritize gender equality — including Sweden, Norway and France — have higher fertility rates than those that don’t. The world’s lowest fertility rates are in countries that are economically developed but socially conservative, where women have professional opportunities but must shoulder most of the burdens of domestic life. (With its progressive reputation and low birthrate, Germany might seem, on the surface, like an exception, but the country has a tradition of stigmatizing mothers who work outside the home.)

Adding to this is increasing economic inequality, something that has made millennials seemingly kill numerous industries because of lack of money to spend. Lowering birthrate is likely a consequence of that, a result of being reluctant to have children that one cannot afford. Certain people have made a big issue out of people having children that they cannot afford, but they ought to accept the consequences of getting what they want.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Opinion: Want More Babies? You Need Less Patriarchy - "People worried about birthrates should help working mothers"

Last week, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that America’s birthrate reached a historic low in 2017, falling to 60.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. For a population in the developed world to replace itself, the average woman needs to have around 2.1 children. In the United States, where fertility has been below replacement for about a decade, the average woman now has 1.77.

...
I have another theory. Perhaps the United States is becoming more like the rest of the industrialized world, where declining birthrates are correlated with a lack of support for working mothers.

Outside the United States, the pattern is pretty clear. Developed countries that prioritize gender equality — including Sweden, Norway and France — have higher fertility rates than those that don’t. The world’s lowest fertility rates are in countries that are economically developed but socially conservative, where women have professional opportunities but must shoulder most of the burdens of domestic life. (With its progressive reputation and low birthrate, Germany might seem, on the surface, like an exception, but the country has a tradition of stigmatizing mothers who work outside the home.)

Adding to this is increasing economic inequality, something that has made millennials seemingly kill numerous industries because of lack of money to spend. Lowering birthrate is likely a consequence of that, a result of being reluctant to have children that one cannot afford. Certain people have made a big issue out of people having children that they cannot afford, but they ought to accept the consequences of getting what they want.

I favor more feminism, less babies. We have enough population.

 

[Metaphor]

Patriarchy is a phantasm so it isn't responsible for anything, much less birth rates.

What's the logic anyway? When the birth rate was much higher, say the 1960s, was there somehow MORE support for working mothers?

 

[Derec]

Opinion: Want More Babies? You Need Less Patriarchy - "People worried about birthrates should help working mothers"

That's just a stupid thesis. Places with least feminism and actual patriarchy, places like Gaza, or Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Rohingya communities in Burma or Bangladesh, have people routinely having 5, 6, 7 babies or even more. Über-feminist places like Iceland or Sweden are well below replacement fertility, especially for native population - the mass migrants from patriarchal societies have a lot of children though so that brings up the average somewhat.

I suspect the differences would be even greater if most mass migrants were not single men. I think that explains the relatively low Muslim birth rates in some European countries. Where Muslim mass migrants can have their wives follow them easily, like Sweden, Muslim birth rates are high.


Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)

Outside the United States, the pattern is pretty clear. Developed countries that prioritize gender equality — including Sweden, Norway and France — have higher fertility rates than those that don’t.

It's all the Syrians, Afghans and Somalis they have been letting in.

 

[Derec]

I favor more feminism, less babies. We have enough population.

There is a high birth-rate in 3rd world countries, and too low birth rates in the developed countries (US, Europe, East Asia).

The solution is not to tell people in the developed world to have even fewer children and then telling them, "there aren't enough young people, we must replace the native populations with 3rd world mass migrants no matter what that does to society and culture". I.e. what is happening in Europe as we speak and to a lesser extent in US as well.

 

[prideandfall]

The solution is not to tell people in the developed world to have even fewer children and then telling them, "there aren't enough young people, we must replace the native populations with 3rd world mass migrants no matter what that does to society and culture". I.e. what is happening in Europe as we speak and to a lesser extent in US as well.

how exactly is that not a solution? especially to the problem as you see it?

your issue is that there aren't enough white people being hostile and casually racist against whatever shade of vaguely brownish is pissing you off that day.
well, in my experience, nothing makes people aggressively racist against *insert whatever nationality here* than having to actually be around those people.
so really, this mass migration is the solution to your problem - let arabs sweet across europe, hell let them trundle all over the US as well, and in very short order being exposed to actual brown people will make teeming hordes of whites fucking hate those people and shift cultural perceptions into more overtly shunning behavior.

you get to be vindicated, and the darkies get shut out of the rest of the world. i'd figure that's a win/win for you.