I absolutely hear and agree with this. But there are some assumptions around human rights and equality baked into this I think.
On the other hand, there is a very well documented phenomenon I’m familiar with as I was an volunteer fundraiser for UNICEF for many years. The more you educate girls in a given population, the less children they have. So educating girls in Africa especially became a focus, as this is believed to be downstream from hunger and poverty. Fewer children, fewer mouths to feed. More educated girls tend to have more options, delay pregnancy and have fewer children, in which they invest more in each. Uneducated girls in the Africa often are unaware of birth control options or even how babies are conceived.
There is intense backlash from conservative religious forces in Africa to this assistance and mindset — the terrorist organization Boko Harem is entirely based in opposing this, on keeping women and girls uneducated and subordinate while refusing the influence of western education and aid. They tend to kidnap girls from schools and enslave them.
So when they say feminism is lowering the birth rates, they mean they’d rather girls have no other options but to make babies and take care of the home. They are ideologically aligned with Boko Harem, apparently
Yeah, I am totally onboard with this. First stage of feminism is of course things like educating women and that will reduce birth rates for the reasons you stated. I simply would not consider that part of feminism as controversial. Like having families be able to control the number of kids they have ought to be a no brainer.
So my starting point was more of once men and women are both educated and know about contraception what are the factors that would affect birth rates. It seems to me that at this point it is more feminism not less that positively affects birth rates (as in going up).
I guess the complication in this debate is that we are not seeking max number of children but allowing families to have the desired number of children which they can raise as they want. That means something much lower than 6 kids for most.
But what we want is families to actually be able to have the number of children then want and often that isn't possible for economic reasons, such as insecure income, not having a large enough house, or because the work situation makes it hard to put away time for it.
I think if people had secure jobs, enough space, paid leave when children are very young, cheap affordable quality child care etc then birth rates would be above 2.
You appear to assert rather than explicate why a lowering population is a problem. I agree that a really sudden drop would be a challenge but I am skeptical it would be that difficult for those around to handle. Previous extremes where 10% to 30% of a population dies in a short period often lead to something better for those at the bottom who survive - and whose services are now more needed. You dont appear to mention education - is there not a high correlation of education with fewer children. Contraception is both a question of the technology and the self will and capacity to use it, for which high levels of education (or at least education through to secondary) seems a stimulus. Girls’ education may not show up in your measures of societal feminism (I am a bit puzzled why NZ would be as high as you suggest - but that may just be a disgruntled Australian comment) but it surely is a key feminist outcome?
I don’t think I said lowering population onto itself is bad. But when it happens due to lower birthrate it means an aging of the population and that is bad.
A slow decline will stabilize the proportion of young to old and will thus be more manageable. A rapid decline will be disastrous as suddenly the young have to support a very large old population.
I do think education is a factor, but I mentioned it just in passing here without elaboration. If you look at my linked article I cover it in more detail.
I don’t really know New Zealand well enough to comment on feminism there but it was the first country to give women the vote.
And from what I hear Australia is quite macho. But I never visited so I cannot really verify that.
For clarity there was no Australian state in 1894. South Australia was a self governing colony of the same standing as New Zealand. Woman got the vote across all Australia from its foundation election in March 1901.
1. A country being less "feminist" doesnt mean is not affected by feminism. South Korea is not a feminist country, but women are.
2. You have deleted Spain. A strong feminist country... With 1.2 fertility rate
Curious.
3. "The economic burden of a need for a bigger apartment to have more children is a more prevalent factor limiting the birth rate than women not wanting children." --- this ignores the fact that men wages has stangled or even droped as result of women entering the workforce. men want less kids because they not longer can afflord the House their parent could. The "doble income trap".
Also in a more feminist country people live alone often (40% in Sweden) and there are more mass mkgration (as result of less fertility).
Finally, feminist countries are lead by services and public spenditure, which have concentrated people in big cities.
All this lead to rsising in houses and therefore less kids.
Hence, feminist causes:
1. Doble trap income.
2. Services society lead by public exoenditure.
3. Less mothers to take care of kids..
4. More people living alone.
5. Deleying marriages.
All this leasing to annincrease in the House market and low fertility.
You know I started writing point by point answer to your claims and then I realized it was pointless because most of what you write is totally made up nonsense which you have absolutely no data to backup.
Ans some of your claims are so absurd that you don’t even need data to back them up. Mens wages before the rise of feminism was much lower. I mean seriously how old are you? You cannot not have much grasp of what life was like before. You sound like someone from the early 20s who watched a bunch of redpill garbage YouTube videos from other 20 somethings who have no clue about how societies worked before and what life was like for men or women. Including what they typically earned.
Nothing you have written has any citations, backed up by any statistics, reports or anything. Now, I do not think we normally need that when people make reasonable claims. But you are making almost exclusively absurd claims.
It is not merely that there are is not backup for your claims, they don’t even make logical sense.
And you don’t seem to know anything about history. Like have you actually ever been to Spain? Or ever met Spanish people? Do you know anything about their history? Machismo has been a long problem in Spain. Franco pushed extreme oppression of women and hence the strong rise of feminism in Spain is a REACTION to the prevalence of Machismo in Spain. Like you got everything backwards and taken out of context. This is a recent phenomenon and it will naturally take some time before this surge in feminism can transform Spanish society.
But this is just one example I pick which illustrates what is the problem with pretty much everything you write. Wild unsubstantiated claim. No real knowledge or grasp of history. No ability to put anything in context.
Try to just give me sources for half your claims. You couldn’t even do that.
I am probably older than you. I am 44 (turning 45 later this year). How old are you?
I am Spanish...
I have cited statitiscts of the the Pew Research Centre... which is the most authorised source of sociological data in the US (I can cite some Norwegiand data, but the English available data is limited).
You think you are older then me? Yeah, I guess because you are from a deeply conservative country and think my opinions can only be held by young people.
I am older than you man. 47 years old, married for 20 years with kids in high school. I lived through an early feminist country and seen the impact on family life. So I speak from experience. All you do is speculate.
Pew Research didn't support your claims. It was too lacking in detail.
Of course when you go from a Taliban style society where women have no rights, to getting some education, ability to work, choose who to marry themselves etc then birth rates will drop. But I do not think a poor fascist patriarchy with 6 kids is desirable.
Fact is feminist countries such as the Iceland have managed fine to have birth rates above replacement rate while women could divorce, work, hold office and all the things you would want to support in a democratic and free society.
The claim I am making is that in a free society, more feminism means higher fertility not less. That is what you see if you compare Iceland with South Korea.
But you are basically comparing Taliban Afghanistan with South Korea and saying "LOL look how bad feminism is! Afghanistan is doing so much better with 6 kids per woman!"
Yes, I am exaggurating, but why? Because comedy is a good way to illustrate the riduculousness of your claims. You conflate reduction of fertility experienced in poorly developed countries when women gain more rights with the the situation in developed countries.
I don't think we should aspire to emulate poor underdeveloped African countries. In affect that is what you are suggesting. You can protest loudly and go "Spain bla bla bla" but reality is that Spain under fascist patriarchical Franco was one of the least developed countries in Europe. That was nothing to aspire to either.
Iceland in 2010 was a modern, rich, highly developed and feminist country with birth rates above 2.1. But you keep ignoring that reality and cherry pick whatever suits your agenda.
You may indeed be in your 40s as me, but your arguments sound too much like you have been on a steady diet of redpill American content from young guys. But if you are from a conservative patriarchical society which is experiencing a surge in rights for women, of course it is natural that you fight back. It is human nature to resist change. You are afraid of loosing privilege.
But ulimately you do the classic fascist thing of idolizing the past instead of looking forward. I had wished that as a Spaniard you would have known how bad that ends.
My argument is low fertility would be improved in the US if we shifted back to stakeholder business culture (SC) from our current shareholder primacy (SP) culture. The effect would be concentrated on those who do not go to college. Under SC, young people not college bound would be in an economic position to marry and have families earlier. This could have the secondary effect on the college educated according to this model:
In my personal observations. it seems people marry when to things become true: (1) it is "time" to marry and (2) the person they are with is suitable.
I believe that achieving 2 is easier when one is young, as most people are still single, people are most physically attractive, and men are most horny (it is clear; young married/living together couples have more sex than single people). When "1" happens is a function of economic conditions as long-term age of first marriage data shows. Under SC culture "1" moves to younger ages when 2 is more common and the result is people pair off earlier and end up having more kids. It's not rocket science.
The problem with 2 is that you need to destroy "financial" economy and come back to "real" economy. That's the rationale behinds Trumps position: uplift socioeconomic status of men by getting rid off DEI programmes, promoting DEI Programmes for "married couples" and bringin back industrial work.
This will not only benefit America against China and make America more independent from China, but it will add substantial GDP to America.
PR you don't get how the economy or technology works. There is no "bringing back industrial work." We can certainly do more manufacturing in many Western countries but the kind of massive employment figures industry had in the past is never coming back because factories are too automated today.
Again this is the whole fascist spiel dreaming of a mythological past that will never come back instead of looking to the future. The future is a service economy whether you like it or not. Mining, farming, manufacturing etc is very automated today.
In the places where it is not, it is only because salaries are very low and can thus outcompete machines. The only way you can have lots of jobs in mining, farming and manufacturing is by being a poor low productivity country.
I mean if that is your dream society go ahead and vote for it PR, but I think I prefer the modern world. My grandfather worked in a paper mill. My great grandfather built railroad track in the Wild West and sailed the seven seas. It was a rough and hard life. I think I much prefer my job as a software developer. More intellectually stimulating and it gives money and vacation that lets me travel to the places he did on vacation and enjoy life rather than break my back.
In the end your ideal will loose out because people in the end prefer the affluence and convenience of the modern world. Now, that world has brought us new challenges and problems. I am all for finding ways to fix those, but I am not going to say "lets us go back in time." We move forward with new ideas.
Trump has no plans to get rid of the financial economy. Just look at the Big Beautiful Bill. Getting rid of DEI is symbolic, it amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A party who wants to shift from the financial to real economy would raise taxes a lot and ban stock buybacks.
Neither side wants to do that. So, there is no prospect for going from a financial to a real economy until that changes. :(
Check out figure 7, the one showing the correlation between fertility and men's participation in housework. Spain is there with its 1.2 fertility. Spain rates as a non-feminist country based on the amount men pitch in at home.
Your perceptions notwithstanding, the data show women do most of the work at home in Spain. It is perfectly natural that women would have fewer children if they are expected to do most of the work. Why is this hard to understand?
So Spain was more feminist 20, 40 or 60 years ago, when they fertility rate was at 2 or 3?
Is the Nordics less feminist now than in the past?
Is México then more feminist than Spain?
Is Iceland more machista than Marrocco?
The feminists solution HAS FAILED. No feminist country in the world is above 2, while all countries inbthe world above 2 have low rate participaron of women in the workforce.
And most of the fertility in the Nordics is due to inmigrant women living in "Patriarchal" clusters, or high level women paying for daily care to... Inmigrants women...
So, the feminist solution is White high worth women relying on inmigrants low wages women.
You have lost, sorry guys
The only way to have kids is devoting time to them.
Unless you but time from low wages inmigrant women [which is a solution I find unacceptable from a lefty ideoloty point of view], you need women at home to have kids. Particularly if you have more than 1.
Enjoy your Matriarchy. Until the ethnic nordic population is replaced and fall below 50% [which will occur in 30 years more or less]...
The fundamental flaw in your question is that I never said feminism is the primary determinant for fertility rates. You assume my view is a mirror of yours but opposite. It isn’t.
Read my article and try to understand the points made. Specifically read my explanation of why fertility has dropped.
Here is what you don’t grasp: You are like a guy saying “only white sheep exist”. Then I show you a black sheep proving your claim wrong.
Your response? You show me a white sheep. Only problem is I never claimed all sheep are white. Only that they exist.
Likewise, you have claimed that feminism is what causes fertility to drop below replacement level. This is your white sheep. Then I show you several black sheep: feminist Iceland and New Zealand in 2010. Both above replacement rate.
You claim non-feminist countries have above replacement rate birth rates. Your white sheep. I show you several black sheep: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
In other words I repeatedly show that your white sheep claim doesn’t hold water. And all you got to respond with is: Not all sheep are black… which translates to “not all feminist countries have above replacement rate”.
Well I never made that claim. I never said all sheep are black.
So why is the birth rate below replacement rate in many feminist countries today? Well I answered that question in my bloody article now didn’t I?
You just conveniently “forgot” because is embarrasses your argument.
From my very first post I said that feminism was not the only cause. Moving the factories outside the Westend word and moving into a services work also plays a major role: services tend to be concentrated in big cities, where having kids is harder.
This, curiously, is also link to feminism: the more a workplace relies on services, the more women works (women avoid hard works in factories). The more women works, the less fertility.
If you go to places in Spain where there is still factories you will notice something wire: there are kids from the local population. Not in Madrid, but yes in some cities 50km from Madrid with industrial hubs.
Why? Becasue, you have smaller cities with more housing, and higher societal position for males than for women.
When men lead the society, we create famiiles. When women lead the society, men are excluded from that society and women have less kids. This is not my analysis: it is the difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy, and the main reason why matriarchy have not existed in history save for some exceptions: they have alsways been replaced by patriarchal societies.
This is not my words: nowadays, 25% of men in Norway will never have a kid (This number going up):
Patriarchal societies are the one ensuring the higher participation of both parents in raising kids. Mothers caring and fathers providing.
The fertility rate of the Nordics by 2010 is a misleading data. Circa 25% of the newborn were born from inmigrant mothers, not from Nordic mothers (the source of this date is posted in my other post). SO, by 2010 the real fertility rate of the Nordics was around 1,5, far below replacement. The same happened in Spain: we had a riase in fertiliy due to inmigration around 2005 to 2010. Of course, this has dissapear, because now inmigration is linked to services, big cities and hence even inmigrant women fail to have babies...
Who has babies now in Spain and in the Nordics? Only high educated women with high wages married with high educated men with even higher wages. Why? Because they can pay for an inmigrant women to take care of their kids.
So, basically, the fertility in the West has been built in a sense that is completely contrary to the left values. We are living in an eugenesic society where only hihg wages women and men can afford kids.
What happen with poor women? Well, they are either in "patriarchal" families (like the people from Marrocco in Spain), and they have 5 or 7 kids, or... they are in low wages jobs taking care of the kids of the high white native Nordic or Spanish society...
The "liberation" of the Western women has come to the expense of 1. men (to uplift women socio economic status, we have lowered men's one - this includes discriminatory gender quotas of DEI programmes against males even at the University, where females are the majority), 2.- inmigrant women (who are the one taking care of the babies of white local women, so they can work) or 3.- Inmigrant women living in "patriarchal" gettos and having 1000s of kids.
The result? Less men can afford babies and more poor women willing babies cannot have them.
To an extent that, for the first time in 100 years, rich people is the only one having babies (sic!!)
We are not living in the Handmaid's Tale: we are living in the reversal, where more and more women (and men) want but cannot have babies...
The globalist left has created the most discriminatory (against males), neo colonialist (against inmigrants), eugenesic (agianst poor peole) and antifeminist (against poor women) society ever.
"The growth in the number of immigrants as well as the fact that most immigrant women are of child-bearing ages, explain why an increasing number of babies born in Norway has an immigrant mother. In 2012, 23 percent of the newborns – nearly one in four babies – had a mother who was an immigrant"
Upss... Women having kids in Sweden are migrant women living in "Patriarchal" families and not the liberated Swedish women? How rare...
But this is not longer a solution anymore, because feminist has resched even the origial countries, and the pattern is now replicated in the Nordics when they emigrate.
1. the UN says in a 2023 report that feminist has been used ss a tool to reduce fertility.
2. After the #MeeToo, the #KillAllMen, the #ToxicMasculinity narrative, fertility has droped every were in the World...
3. Now we say the solution is... More feminism?
4. No country in the Western world has a 2.1 fertility rate...
5. Inmigran women have more fertility than locales (but this is not longer a solution, bacuse feminism has even impacted inmigrant women)...
6. Local populations in the Western countries will fall below 50% of the total country population between 2050 and 2100... But the globalist and feminist Lefties polítices are NOT trying to replace us...
7. 40% of Swedish are living alone. 25% of Swedish die without anybody noticing It. Suicide rates are higer than ever...
BUT you are extremely happy with the current trend. Enjoy your society! I will vote for the completely opposite society
Why are you showering me with hugs and kisses? It is not like I view you as an enemy or anything but we are not close friends. Although I am not opposed to be friends with people I disagree with. But still it remains that we have not developed a relationship yet, so it comes across as either extreme superficial or just very sarcastic to offer so many hugs and kisses.
I mean I wish you the best in your endeavors but I would to that to anyone.
As to your arguments here. What is the point? Norway has low fertility at the moment so why does pointing to immigrants matter? Far more damning to your case is that Norway in 2010 and earlier with much fewer immigrants and no less feminist had much higher fertility rate. Iceland and New Zealand was above fertility rate. Iceland didn't have much of any immigrants at the time.
So in other words feminist societies have demonstrated in the past that they are perfectly capable of having above replacement rate fertility rate. But no modern patriarchal society has actually demonstrated that. Find me two cases. You can't as there is none. What you point to are dirty poor regions like Africa. Mexico torn apart by drug gangs. Dictatorships like Saudi Arabia propped up on oil.
As for immigrants making up a lot of the birth. Well yeah in part because we have a LOT of immigrants. So that is not surprising. But you want to paint the picture that this is all criminal brown people. Reality is that most of them are other Europeans or Philippines or Thai women married to Norwegians. Not exactly a threat to Norwegian culture and identity.
And the bulk of these people are from countries with no higher fertility rate than Norway. You try to paint this idea that patriarchical societies are somehow keeping feminist countries alive by having a birth surplus. But reality is that these countries are double fucked as patriarchcal societies sending people to Norway are not only loosing citizens from migration but also from plummeting birth rates.
So your whole narrative is broken.
And the rest of your random statistics I will not address as it is stupid. You are cherry picking to make Nordics look bad when I could keep dropping statistics all week about things that are better here than elsewhere or better than in the past.
What you demand is perfection. No country is perfect. Everyone has their issues but the Nordic have one of the most successful combinations.
So, we have chanted topic... now is not longer feminism and birth rates. It's machismo in Spain...
You mean like my mother, that raised 4 kids and was a stay at home mom? Was that machismo, or a different social agreement that produced: 1. The fastes growing economy in the world history (only behind Japan and now China), 2.- A birth rate above 2 till 1980 (when the left come into power).
Did you asked my mother if that was machismo, or if she was happy with that? Is she happier now? Because I did: and yes, she confirmed that she would have changed nothing.
She is still married to my dad, 80 years old. My dad, who was capable to buy 2 houses, 2 cars and rise 4 kids on a single income...
In a society with 4x times less suicide for men, 2x times less sucide for women, less ansiety and people reaching one of the longest longevities in the world (btw, men having less longevity, as supporting more burdesome).
Was that machismo? May be, but it was extremely efficient for creating prospery and a happy society.
The matriarchal society in the Northen Countries in the meantime are heading to mass migration that is destroying the country, one of the bigest gender gap in education between males and females, one of the most sexual segregated work markets, one of the higer gaps in sucides between male and females and, less longevity than the "Patriarchal Spain". And, of course, dont forget taht, when Russia attacks, Norvegian men will be the one going to war...
Most people in the West (men and women) are tired of your feminist but disfunctional society.
But ultimately, this discussion is nonesense: the West society is bieng replaced by feminist policies and, of course, we reject that. More and more people in the West will vote for the "far right" not because feminist failed... but because it succeded.
Enjoy your multicultural country while you can! Your kids (if you have any), will not be capable to...
Machismo is of course part of the discussion as it the kind of thing feminism fights against and which stands in the way of gender equality. This is about as stupid as saying water has nothing to do with whether you are thirsty or not.
The birthrate was above 2 in Iceland in 2010 you moron. That was after decades of feminism, so you don't get to make that excuse about Spain.
Nobody cares about what a single mother things but about what women in general want. They would not have fought for equal right at great expense all over the world if that is not what they wanted. You are trying to say as a man that you know better what a woman wants than what she says herself.
Machismo was efficient at creating prosperity? Give me a break. Spain under patriarchical Franco fell far behind the rest of the world. I have visisted Spain many times over the years and it has been much poorer than Nordic countries. But modern more feminist Spain seems to have started catching up more.
When a country is very poor you get what is called a catchup effect which give a stronger growth. Hence after Macismo kept you poor, there was going to be stronger growth after patriarchical fascism was removed.
Northern feminist countries have much higher fertility rate than southern macho countries so what are you even smoking?
Tired of "your dysfunctional society"? Eh the Nordic countries top all statistics on happiness, child welfare, health, literachy, low crime, low poverty. On almost anything you can measure it points to Nordic being the least dystunctional. You got it all in complete reverse.
And I see you are not only anti feminist but you are also a racist. Yeah figures. It is the usual fascist package: Anti women, racist, totalitarian, always looking to the past instead of the future.
And when your (male) kids fail to go to college in STEM because of a gendered quota or affirmative action you can explanin them how good is the Matriarchy...
I absolutely hear and agree with this. But there are some assumptions around human rights and equality baked into this I think.
On the other hand, there is a very well documented phenomenon I’m familiar with as I was an volunteer fundraiser for UNICEF for many years. The more you educate girls in a given population, the less children they have. So educating girls in Africa especially became a focus, as this is believed to be downstream from hunger and poverty. Fewer children, fewer mouths to feed. More educated girls tend to have more options, delay pregnancy and have fewer children, in which they invest more in each. Uneducated girls in the Africa often are unaware of birth control options or even how babies are conceived.
There is intense backlash from conservative religious forces in Africa to this assistance and mindset — the terrorist organization Boko Harem is entirely based in opposing this, on keeping women and girls uneducated and subordinate while refusing the influence of western education and aid. They tend to kidnap girls from schools and enslave them.
So when they say feminism is lowering the birth rates, they mean they’d rather girls have no other options but to make babies and take care of the home. They are ideologically aligned with Boko Harem, apparently
Yeah, I am totally onboard with this. First stage of feminism is of course things like educating women and that will reduce birth rates for the reasons you stated. I simply would not consider that part of feminism as controversial. Like having families be able to control the number of kids they have ought to be a no brainer.
So my starting point was more of once men and women are both educated and know about contraception what are the factors that would affect birth rates. It seems to me that at this point it is more feminism not less that positively affects birth rates (as in going up).
I guess the complication in this debate is that we are not seeking max number of children but allowing families to have the desired number of children which they can raise as they want. That means something much lower than 6 kids for most.
But what we want is families to actually be able to have the number of children then want and often that isn't possible for economic reasons, such as insecure income, not having a large enough house, or because the work situation makes it hard to put away time for it.
I think if people had secure jobs, enough space, paid leave when children are very young, cheap affordable quality child care etc then birth rates would be above 2.
I think problem defending Feminism, is that Patriarchy (or anti-Feminism) didn't idolize all man in past, but subset of it.
Wannabe Patriarch see themselves as idolized landowner, with wives, multiple children, and farmhands.
You appear to assert rather than explicate why a lowering population is a problem. I agree that a really sudden drop would be a challenge but I am skeptical it would be that difficult for those around to handle. Previous extremes where 10% to 30% of a population dies in a short period often lead to something better for those at the bottom who survive - and whose services are now more needed. You dont appear to mention education - is there not a high correlation of education with fewer children. Contraception is both a question of the technology and the self will and capacity to use it, for which high levels of education (or at least education through to secondary) seems a stimulus. Girls’ education may not show up in your measures of societal feminism (I am a bit puzzled why NZ would be as high as you suggest - but that may just be a disgruntled Australian comment) but it surely is a key feminist outcome?
I don’t think I said lowering population onto itself is bad. But when it happens due to lower birthrate it means an aging of the population and that is bad.
A slow decline will stabilize the proportion of young to old and will thus be more manageable. A rapid decline will be disastrous as suddenly the young have to support a very large old population.
I do think education is a factor, but I mentioned it just in passing here without elaboration. If you look at my linked article I cover it in more detail.
I don’t really know New Zealand well enough to comment on feminism there but it was the first country to give women the vote.
And from what I hear Australia is quite macho. But I never visited so I cannot really verify that.
“On 18 December 1894, South Australia became the second place in the world, after New Zealand [19 September 1893], to legislate women’s right to vote, and the first place in the world to give women the right to stand for parliament. “ https://www.cityofadelaide.com.au/blog/125-anniversary-of-womens-suffrage-in-south-australia/
For clarity there was no Australian state in 1894. South Australia was a self governing colony of the same standing as New Zealand. Woman got the vote across all Australia from its foundation election in March 1901.
Totally false narrative.
1. A country being less "feminist" doesnt mean is not affected by feminism. South Korea is not a feminist country, but women are.
2. You have deleted Spain. A strong feminist country... With 1.2 fertility rate
Curious.
3. "The economic burden of a need for a bigger apartment to have more children is a more prevalent factor limiting the birth rate than women not wanting children." --- this ignores the fact that men wages has stangled or even droped as result of women entering the workforce. men want less kids because they not longer can afflord the House their parent could. The "doble income trap".
Also in a more feminist country people live alone often (40% in Sweden) and there are more mass mkgration (as result of less fertility).
Finally, feminist countries are lead by services and public spenditure, which have concentrated people in big cities.
All this lead to rsising in houses and therefore less kids.
Hence, feminist causes:
1. Doble trap income.
2. Services society lead by public exoenditure.
3. Less mothers to take care of kids..
4. More people living alone.
5. Deleying marriages.
All this leasing to annincrease in the House market and low fertility.
You know I started writing point by point answer to your claims and then I realized it was pointless because most of what you write is totally made up nonsense which you have absolutely no data to backup.
Ans some of your claims are so absurd that you don’t even need data to back them up. Mens wages before the rise of feminism was much lower. I mean seriously how old are you? You cannot not have much grasp of what life was like before. You sound like someone from the early 20s who watched a bunch of redpill garbage YouTube videos from other 20 somethings who have no clue about how societies worked before and what life was like for men or women. Including what they typically earned.
Nothing you have written has any citations, backed up by any statistics, reports or anything. Now, I do not think we normally need that when people make reasonable claims. But you are making almost exclusively absurd claims.
It is not merely that there are is not backup for your claims, they don’t even make logical sense.
And you don’t seem to know anything about history. Like have you actually ever been to Spain? Or ever met Spanish people? Do you know anything about their history? Machismo has been a long problem in Spain. Franco pushed extreme oppression of women and hence the strong rise of feminism in Spain is a REACTION to the prevalence of Machismo in Spain. Like you got everything backwards and taken out of context. This is a recent phenomenon and it will naturally take some time before this surge in feminism can transform Spanish society.
But this is just one example I pick which illustrates what is the problem with pretty much everything you write. Wild unsubstantiated claim. No real knowledge or grasp of history. No ability to put anything in context.
Try to just give me sources for half your claims. You couldn’t even do that.
Hi my friend,
I am probably older than you. I am 44 (turning 45 later this year). How old are you?
I am Spanish...
I have cited statitiscts of the the Pew Research Centre... which is the most authorised source of sociological data in the US (I can cite some Norwegiand data, but the English available data is limited).
Of course, I can cite you the "Men’s Equality Commission" in Norway (https://www.norway.no/contentassets/af7c3cd53b7542b59571406c15a26c0b/mens-equality-commission-report---executive-summary.pdf) to show you how well informed I am about gender topics.
Also, I can cite the recent Report on Fertility from the United Nations:
"Public rhetoric at times expressly blames gender
equality for declining fertility rates. Indeed, a
correlation between women’s empowerment
and declining fertility rates has been observed
for decades (Schmelz, 1976), and though
the nature of this correlation is now being
questioned (see box on gender inequality and
low fertility, on page 31), it has nonetheless
resulted in the promotion of feminism as a tool
by which to reduce birth rates: “Promoting
gender equality and feminism may be the
best way of increasing demand for birth control in high fertility countries,” said a 2019
newsletter of the now-defunct organization
Negative Population Growth, Inc (Rubenstein,
2019)."
(https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/EN_State%20of%20World%20Population%20report%202025.pdf)
Dont humillilate yourself. You can do better tbh... just an attack on the my "authiroty" by saying an am a young redpill guy will not work...
You think you are older then me? Yeah, I guess because you are from a deeply conservative country and think my opinions can only be held by young people.
I am older than you man. 47 years old, married for 20 years with kids in high school. I lived through an early feminist country and seen the impact on family life. So I speak from experience. All you do is speculate.
Pew Research didn't support your claims. It was too lacking in detail.
Of course when you go from a Taliban style society where women have no rights, to getting some education, ability to work, choose who to marry themselves etc then birth rates will drop. But I do not think a poor fascist patriarchy with 6 kids is desirable.
Fact is feminist countries such as the Iceland have managed fine to have birth rates above replacement rate while women could divorce, work, hold office and all the things you would want to support in a democratic and free society.
The claim I am making is that in a free society, more feminism means higher fertility not less. That is what you see if you compare Iceland with South Korea.
But you are basically comparing Taliban Afghanistan with South Korea and saying "LOL look how bad feminism is! Afghanistan is doing so much better with 6 kids per woman!"
Yes, I am exaggurating, but why? Because comedy is a good way to illustrate the riduculousness of your claims. You conflate reduction of fertility experienced in poorly developed countries when women gain more rights with the the situation in developed countries.
I don't think we should aspire to emulate poor underdeveloped African countries. In affect that is what you are suggesting. You can protest loudly and go "Spain bla bla bla" but reality is that Spain under fascist patriarchical Franco was one of the least developed countries in Europe. That was nothing to aspire to either.
Iceland in 2010 was a modern, rich, highly developed and feminist country with birth rates above 2.1. But you keep ignoring that reality and cherry pick whatever suits your agenda.
You may indeed be in your 40s as me, but your arguments sound too much like you have been on a steady diet of redpill American content from young guys. But if you are from a conservative patriarchical society which is experiencing a surge in rights for women, of course it is natural that you fight back. It is human nature to resist change. You are afraid of loosing privilege.
But ulimately you do the classic fascist thing of idolizing the past instead of looking forward. I had wished that as a Spaniard you would have known how bad that ends.
My argument is low fertility would be improved in the US if we shifted back to stakeholder business culture (SC) from our current shareholder primacy (SP) culture. The effect would be concentrated on those who do not go to college. Under SC, young people not college bound would be in an economic position to marry and have families earlier. This could have the secondary effect on the college educated according to this model:
In my personal observations. it seems people marry when to things become true: (1) it is "time" to marry and (2) the person they are with is suitable.
I believe that achieving 2 is easier when one is young, as most people are still single, people are most physically attractive, and men are most horny (it is clear; young married/living together couples have more sex than single people). When "1" happens is a function of economic conditions as long-term age of first marriage data shows. Under SC culture "1" moves to younger ages when 2 is more common and the result is people pair off earlier and end up having more kids. It's not rocket science.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/two-visions-of-america-bedford-falls
Very interesting.
The problem with 2 is that you need to destroy "financial" economy and come back to "real" economy. That's the rationale behinds Trumps position: uplift socioeconomic status of men by getting rid off DEI programmes, promoting DEI Programmes for "married couples" and bringin back industrial work.
This will not only benefit America against China and make America more independent from China, but it will add substantial GDP to America.
I hope he succeds.
PR you don't get how the economy or technology works. There is no "bringing back industrial work." We can certainly do more manufacturing in many Western countries but the kind of massive employment figures industry had in the past is never coming back because factories are too automated today.
Again this is the whole fascist spiel dreaming of a mythological past that will never come back instead of looking to the future. The future is a service economy whether you like it or not. Mining, farming, manufacturing etc is very automated today.
In the places where it is not, it is only because salaries are very low and can thus outcompete machines. The only way you can have lots of jobs in mining, farming and manufacturing is by being a poor low productivity country.
I mean if that is your dream society go ahead and vote for it PR, but I think I prefer the modern world. My grandfather worked in a paper mill. My great grandfather built railroad track in the Wild West and sailed the seven seas. It was a rough and hard life. I think I much prefer my job as a software developer. More intellectually stimulating and it gives money and vacation that lets me travel to the places he did on vacation and enjoy life rather than break my back.
In the end your ideal will loose out because people in the end prefer the affluence and convenience of the modern world. Now, that world has brought us new challenges and problems. I am all for finding ways to fix those, but I am not going to say "lets us go back in time." We move forward with new ideas.
Trump has no plans to get rid of the financial economy. Just look at the Big Beautiful Bill. Getting rid of DEI is symbolic, it amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A party who wants to shift from the financial to real economy would raise taxes a lot and ban stock buybacks.
Neither side wants to do that. So, there is no prospect for going from a financial to a real economy until that changes. :(
Check out figure 7, the one showing the correlation between fertility and men's participation in housework. Spain is there with its 1.2 fertility. Spain rates as a non-feminist country based on the amount men pitch in at home.
Your perceptions notwithstanding, the data show women do most of the work at home in Spain. It is perfectly natural that women would have fewer children if they are expected to do most of the work. Why is this hard to understand?
So Spain was more feminist 20, 40 or 60 years ago, when they fertility rate was at 2 or 3?
Is the Nordics less feminist now than in the past?
Is México then more feminist than Spain?
Is Iceland more machista than Marrocco?
The feminists solution HAS FAILED. No feminist country in the world is above 2, while all countries inbthe world above 2 have low rate participaron of women in the workforce.
And most of the fertility in the Nordics is due to inmigrant women living in "Patriarchal" clusters, or high level women paying for daily care to... Inmigrants women...
So, the feminist solution is White high worth women relying on inmigrants low wages women.
You have lost, sorry guys
The only way to have kids is devoting time to them.
Unless you but time from low wages inmigrant women [which is a solution I find unacceptable from a lefty ideoloty point of view], you need women at home to have kids. Particularly if you have more than 1.
Enjoy your Matriarchy. Until the ethnic nordic population is replaced and fall below 50% [which will occur in 30 years more or less]...
Hugs and kisses 😍🥰😘
The fundamental flaw in your question is that I never said feminism is the primary determinant for fertility rates. You assume my view is a mirror of yours but opposite. It isn’t.
Read my article and try to understand the points made. Specifically read my explanation of why fertility has dropped.
Here is what you don’t grasp: You are like a guy saying “only white sheep exist”. Then I show you a black sheep proving your claim wrong.
Your response? You show me a white sheep. Only problem is I never claimed all sheep are white. Only that they exist.
Likewise, you have claimed that feminism is what causes fertility to drop below replacement level. This is your white sheep. Then I show you several black sheep: feminist Iceland and New Zealand in 2010. Both above replacement rate.
You claim non-feminist countries have above replacement rate birth rates. Your white sheep. I show you several black sheep: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan.
In other words I repeatedly show that your white sheep claim doesn’t hold water. And all you got to respond with is: Not all sheep are black… which translates to “not all feminist countries have above replacement rate”.
Well I never made that claim. I never said all sheep are black.
So why is the birth rate below replacement rate in many feminist countries today? Well I answered that question in my bloody article now didn’t I?
You just conveniently “forgot” because is embarrasses your argument.
Hello, my fried.
From my very first post I said that feminism was not the only cause. Moving the factories outside the Westend word and moving into a services work also plays a major role: services tend to be concentrated in big cities, where having kids is harder.
This, curiously, is also link to feminism: the more a workplace relies on services, the more women works (women avoid hard works in factories). The more women works, the less fertility.
If you go to places in Spain where there is still factories you will notice something wire: there are kids from the local population. Not in Madrid, but yes in some cities 50km from Madrid with industrial hubs.
Why? Becasue, you have smaller cities with more housing, and higher societal position for males than for women.
When men lead the society, we create famiiles. When women lead the society, men are excluded from that society and women have less kids. This is not my analysis: it is the difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy, and the main reason why matriarchy have not existed in history save for some exceptions: they have alsways been replaced by patriarchal societies.
This is not my words: nowadays, 25% of men in Norway will never have a kid (This number going up):
https://www.sciencenorway.no/childlessness-fathers-forskningno/a-quarter-of-norwegian-men-never-father-children/1401047
https://www.elfac.org/never-before-have-norwegian-women-given-birth-to-so-few-children/
Patriarchal societies are the one ensuring the higher participation of both parents in raising kids. Mothers caring and fathers providing.
The fertility rate of the Nordics by 2010 is a misleading data. Circa 25% of the newborn were born from inmigrant mothers, not from Nordic mothers (the source of this date is posted in my other post). SO, by 2010 the real fertility rate of the Nordics was around 1,5, far below replacement. The same happened in Spain: we had a riase in fertiliy due to inmigration around 2005 to 2010. Of course, this has dissapear, because now inmigration is linked to services, big cities and hence even inmigrant women fail to have babies...
Who has babies now in Spain and in the Nordics? Only high educated women with high wages married with high educated men with even higher wages. Why? Because they can pay for an inmigrant women to take care of their kids.
So, basically, the fertility in the West has been built in a sense that is completely contrary to the left values. We are living in an eugenesic society where only hihg wages women and men can afford kids.
What happen with poor women? Well, they are either in "patriarchal" families (like the people from Marrocco in Spain), and they have 5 or 7 kids, or... they are in low wages jobs taking care of the kids of the high white native Nordic or Spanish society...
The "liberation" of the Western women has come to the expense of 1. men (to uplift women socio economic status, we have lowered men's one - this includes discriminatory gender quotas of DEI programmes against males even at the University, where females are the majority), 2.- inmigrant women (who are the one taking care of the babies of white local women, so they can work) or 3.- Inmigrant women living in "patriarchal" gettos and having 1000s of kids.
The result? Less men can afford babies and more poor women willing babies cannot have them.
To an extent that, for the first time in 100 years, rich people is the only one having babies (sic!!)
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-rich-are-starting-to-have-more-babies-than-the-poor-again
We are not living in the Handmaid's Tale: we are living in the reversal, where more and more women (and men) want but cannot have babies...
The globalist left has created the most discriminatory (against males), neo colonialist (against inmigrants), eugenesic (agianst poor peole) and antifeminist (against poor women) society ever.
And you are blaming men... A joke...
Congrats.
Huh, what does this response have to do with what I wrote?
Sorry, I may have lost the truck...
UPS... Sorry...
https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/fruktbarhet-og-annen-demografi-hos-innvandrere-og-deres-barn-fodt-i-norge
"The growth in the number of immigrants as well as the fact that most immigrant women are of child-bearing ages, explain why an increasing number of babies born in Norway has an immigrant mother. In 2012, 23 percent of the newborns – nearly one in four babies – had a mother who was an immigrant"
Upss... Women having kids in Sweden are migrant women living in "Patriarchal" families and not the liberated Swedish women? How rare...
But this is not longer a solution anymore, because feminist has resched even the origial countries, and the pattern is now replicated in the Nordics when they emigrate.
https://ssb.brage.unit.no/ssb-xmlui/handle/11250/2641830
So, lets see...
1. the UN says in a 2023 report that feminist has been used ss a tool to reduce fertility.
2. After the #MeeToo, the #KillAllMen, the #ToxicMasculinity narrative, fertility has droped every were in the World...
3. Now we say the solution is... More feminism?
4. No country in the Western world has a 2.1 fertility rate...
5. Inmigran women have more fertility than locales (but this is not longer a solution, bacuse feminism has even impacted inmigrant women)...
6. Local populations in the Western countries will fall below 50% of the total country population between 2050 and 2100... But the globalist and feminist Lefties polítices are NOT trying to replace us...
7. 40% of Swedish are living alone. 25% of Swedish die without anybody noticing It. Suicide rates are higer than ever...
BUT you are extremely happy with the current trend. Enjoy your society! I will vote for the completely opposite society
Hugs and kisses 😍 🥰 😘
Why are you showering me with hugs and kisses? It is not like I view you as an enemy or anything but we are not close friends. Although I am not opposed to be friends with people I disagree with. But still it remains that we have not developed a relationship yet, so it comes across as either extreme superficial or just very sarcastic to offer so many hugs and kisses.
I mean I wish you the best in your endeavors but I would to that to anyone.
As to your arguments here. What is the point? Norway has low fertility at the moment so why does pointing to immigrants matter? Far more damning to your case is that Norway in 2010 and earlier with much fewer immigrants and no less feminist had much higher fertility rate. Iceland and New Zealand was above fertility rate. Iceland didn't have much of any immigrants at the time.
So in other words feminist societies have demonstrated in the past that they are perfectly capable of having above replacement rate fertility rate. But no modern patriarchal society has actually demonstrated that. Find me two cases. You can't as there is none. What you point to are dirty poor regions like Africa. Mexico torn apart by drug gangs. Dictatorships like Saudi Arabia propped up on oil.
As for immigrants making up a lot of the birth. Well yeah in part because we have a LOT of immigrants. So that is not surprising. But you want to paint the picture that this is all criminal brown people. Reality is that most of them are other Europeans or Philippines or Thai women married to Norwegians. Not exactly a threat to Norwegian culture and identity.
And the bulk of these people are from countries with no higher fertility rate than Norway. You try to paint this idea that patriarchical societies are somehow keeping feminist countries alive by having a birth surplus. But reality is that these countries are double fucked as patriarchcal societies sending people to Norway are not only loosing citizens from migration but also from plummeting birth rates.
So your whole narrative is broken.
And the rest of your random statistics I will not address as it is stupid. You are cherry picking to make Nordics look bad when I could keep dropping statistics all week about things that are better here than elsewhere or better than in the past.
What you demand is perfection. No country is perfect. Everyone has their issues but the Nordic have one of the most successful combinations.
Spanish are not "feminist" countries. Its similar with other Med countries from Portugal to Greece with much more patriachal than Northern Europe
Should be common knowledge but some people seem to seek to twist reality to whatever caters to their dogmatic beliefs best.
You have not been in Spain for a while... The Northen is a Matriarchy, which is different...
(Well, until Russia strikes. Then, women will hide again)
Feminism rose as response to the extreme machismo in Spain. You have no idea what you are talking about.
So, we have chanted topic... now is not longer feminism and birth rates. It's machismo in Spain...
You mean like my mother, that raised 4 kids and was a stay at home mom? Was that machismo, or a different social agreement that produced: 1. The fastes growing economy in the world history (only behind Japan and now China), 2.- A birth rate above 2 till 1980 (when the left come into power).
Did you asked my mother if that was machismo, or if she was happy with that? Is she happier now? Because I did: and yes, she confirmed that she would have changed nothing.
She is still married to my dad, 80 years old. My dad, who was capable to buy 2 houses, 2 cars and rise 4 kids on a single income...
In a society with 4x times less suicide for men, 2x times less sucide for women, less ansiety and people reaching one of the longest longevities in the world (btw, men having less longevity, as supporting more burdesome).
Was that machismo? May be, but it was extremely efficient for creating prospery and a happy society.
The matriarchal society in the Northen Countries in the meantime are heading to mass migration that is destroying the country, one of the bigest gender gap in education between males and females, one of the most sexual segregated work markets, one of the higer gaps in sucides between male and females and, less longevity than the "Patriarchal Spain". And, of course, dont forget taht, when Russia attacks, Norvegian men will be the one going to war...
Most people in the West (men and women) are tired of your feminist but disfunctional society.
But ultimately, this discussion is nonesense: the West society is bieng replaced by feminist policies and, of course, we reject that. More and more people in the West will vote for the "far right" not because feminist failed... but because it succeded.
Enjoy your multicultural country while you can! Your kids (if you have any), will not be capable to...
Machismo is of course part of the discussion as it the kind of thing feminism fights against and which stands in the way of gender equality. This is about as stupid as saying water has nothing to do with whether you are thirsty or not.
The birthrate was above 2 in Iceland in 2010 you moron. That was after decades of feminism, so you don't get to make that excuse about Spain.
Nobody cares about what a single mother things but about what women in general want. They would not have fought for equal right at great expense all over the world if that is not what they wanted. You are trying to say as a man that you know better what a woman wants than what she says herself.
Machismo was efficient at creating prosperity? Give me a break. Spain under patriarchical Franco fell far behind the rest of the world. I have visisted Spain many times over the years and it has been much poorer than Nordic countries. But modern more feminist Spain seems to have started catching up more.
When a country is very poor you get what is called a catchup effect which give a stronger growth. Hence after Macismo kept you poor, there was going to be stronger growth after patriarchical fascism was removed.
Northern feminist countries have much higher fertility rate than southern macho countries so what are you even smoking?
Tired of "your dysfunctional society"? Eh the Nordic countries top all statistics on happiness, child welfare, health, literachy, low crime, low poverty. On almost anything you can measure it points to Nordic being the least dystunctional. You got it all in complete reverse.
And I see you are not only anti feminist but you are also a racist. Yeah figures. It is the usual fascist package: Anti women, racist, totalitarian, always looking to the past instead of the future.
Again: enjoy your society. But it is wired that you now are concern abut "fertility rates". It was your concern, not mine...
So, now I am racist, etc...
Good, all good arguments. Only insults... A good evidence I am right.
Good luck with your life mate.
And when your (male) kids fail to go to college in STEM because of a gendered quota or affirmative action you can explanin them how good is the Matriarchy...
Bye 👋🏻