Did female economic liberation cause the birth rate to decline?

flamingoinghome · 2021-04-14T14:30:40+00:00

Oh it's a factor, absolutely. As has advancing science around birth control, trends in childrearing, and (and this one is never, ever discussed) lower infant and child mortality. People forget--when a Victorian family had 13 children, they knew it was not a given that this would result in 13 adults.

SaBahRub · 2021-04-14T14:11:37+00:00

Duh. That’s been scientifically proven and all. Wealth and education, mostly of women but also men, causes people to have fewer kids. It happens in every population

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

GunnzzNRoses · 2021-04-14T17:27:41+00:00

Maybe a contributor. But the biggest factor has no doubt been the fact that wage isn't matched to inflation, so it's way fucking harder to have a kid now versus in the 60s-80s

StarchRunner · 2021-04-14T16:09:58+00:00

Birth rates declined because the cost of living including homes are so high. It takes longer to get financially stable and ready even for one kid.

John_Oakman · 2021-04-14T14:41:39+00:00

Children's rights and rising costs of raising a child (both in a sense a product of an economy becoming more advanced) leads to a decline in population growth. Back in the "good old days" child were seen/used as ancillary labor as early as the age of 5 (this applies to both rural and urban populations, from jobs as wide ranging as coal mining, hearding, to sweatshops). These days those kinds of employment are no longer legal/available options for most children and nowadays the middle class is expected to raise their children at great costs in order to give them the best chance at becoming the next generation of productive/competitive workers.

Also of note was that back then children are seen as retirement plans, and thus even beyond their ancillary economic value they are seen as good long term investments. These days it is no long acceptable to see your children as retirement plans.

So what was an ancillary source of income and long term investment has been changed into straight up liability/luxury product, is it really surprising that less people could afford them?

vanilla_love_sauce · 2021-04-14T18:29:58+00:00

Yes because they have a choice and control now. Before I’d say they were having children against their will. If every woman out there was biologically hypnotized to want many children, then women’s economic developments would’ve never stopped women from having many children. But behold, the truth is that not every woman is craving a ton of children, and we can see that now that women have the right to chose without being beaten, killed, or sold.

nemporisso · 2021-04-14T14:35:19+00:00

Yeah. Children are also the only viable retirement plan for low income parents to this day.

Demasii · 2021-04-14T14:01:58+00:00

Birth control, the disappearing middle class and the increase in the standard of living for children.

AidsVictim · 2021-04-14T18:07:28+00:00

No, it's only a factor in it. If women (and men) valued having children and families they would even if it compromised their economic potential to a degree. They have been enculturated with modern materialist values - the ideal is a bourgeoise liberal lifestyle. No communal obligations, no familial obligations, no societal obligations, only an obligation to ones self and a sort of masturbatory endorphin drip from modern tech socialization (social media). All the ill effects of this sort of lifestyle (infertile, atomized) can be externalized via immigration and services substituting for traditional communal social support (see how often women recommend something like therapy).

The midwit view is that this infertility is the inherit nature of "prosperity" or "education" without considering that these things are synonymous with capitalism and enculturating above described values. Women spend half their early life being educated to prioritize functioning as capitalist units and the other half being sold some mythologized history about how their drunk husband would beat them and rape them while they're chained in the kitchen pumping out babies, only to be liberated by the modern (capitalist, anti family) mode of living.

GrandmaManson · 2021-04-14T19:27:54+00:00

I believe it has many women including myself don’t have much time due to a busy lifestyle that includes (for myself) a full time job part time school as well as other freelance work that I do. I do not have any time for children at the ripe young age of 22 and many women my age would agree. In fact I’m so focused on chasing my career right now I don’t know if I’ll have any time ever.

friendlyfun147 · 2021-04-14T17:42:21+00:00

Lots of reasons here, i think alot of women just don't want kids these days, it's not even so much some complex reasoning

Pilling_it · 2021-04-14T15:52:46+00:00

Twice the workers in the workplace, half the paycheck. Ever rising cost of education that keep the number of children down, and from what I get, in the US, student loans that make sure you somewhat live paycheck by paycheck. Add that to technology developing and religion getting less and less influence on people, and we get all that.

By a sick sense of humor, it also seems that on average, the women's natural interest are in fields that don't really make money, so that way it doesn't matter what she does, low income anyways. And on the very top fields are men that are insanely agressive and career focused, which would, assuming the skill is what is rewarded, be a brutal opponent as it's not in women's habits to compete openly for most of the credit (as in you don't find that typically in their social circles).

I would rather say, to answer your question, that the consequences of women's economic liberation are one of the reasons that caused the birth rate to decline.

Gilmoregirlin · 2021-04-15T00:47:19+00:00

Education plus access to reliable birth control plus equality allowed women to have choices and many realized they did not want to have kids, while others realized they did but all of the above allowed them to decide with whom, and when.

Extremely__Moderate · 2021-04-14T17:03:06+00:00

Probably some of it.

But honestly, I think it’s multi-vari.

As a dude from divorced parents and no siblings, I don’t see any value in having children. They are a drain on resources and may or may not like you. There is no expectation for them to take care of you when you are older.. so I’m like “whats the point?”. I‘ll just save my money and get some good assisted living.

GridReXX · 2021-04-14T13:39:45+00:00

Poorer people reproduce most for several reasons IMO:

general lack of knowledge around birth control methods (so many women aren’t even aware of their cycle and what the full cycle means) — when elder women in my family are asked about kids they tend to slyly remark that if they knew better they would have done better (aka not pop out 10 kids)
general lack of access and exposure to birth control methods/ general lack of access and exposure to goals outside of a child
perhaps their life is so rough that the only purpose and joys they do have are in literally creating people around them.

But to answer your question, being a walking incubator takes a toll on a woman’s body and quality of life. It’s definitely one of those things that needs to just happen and not be overly thought about because if women noodle too long on it all, they’ll opt out as the cons tend to outweigh the pros wrt her personal goals.

An MC+ woman in 2021 as opposed to 1921, is more knowledgeable across the board and can sustain her own life. She’s not going to shack up with a man for provision and have 5+ oopsie babies.

Men tend to be more “we must reproduce and populate the land with our legacy as our duty and for my pride!”

It’s a luxury to just say that and let the other person do all of the work from pregnancy to child rearing and childcare.

reluctantly_red · 2021-04-14T14:42:30+00:00

No. Female education did. This a good thing BTW.

GGMcThroway · 2021-04-14T15:18:33+00:00

It's part of it. But I'd say the lack of subsidized childcare is what's particularly keeping women from wanting to have more kids nowadays.

Women can have careers if they want (good). However, wages have been stagnant since the the gold standard was removed in the 70s (not good). And unless there are willing grandparents nearby, the kids will need to go to daycare until they're old enough to stay home by themselves. However, since daycare is FUCKING EXPENSIVE, it's easier to wait until your 30s or opt out entirely.

LeJacquelope · 2021-04-14T19:46:51+00:00

Yes, and thank goodness, 2 kids is enough. The planet can't afford the old ways of 5-6 kids per family with child mortalities as low as it is now.

SmeggingRight · 2021-04-15T01:52:58+00:00

Yes.

I think everyone knows that.

_lemazaki · 2021-04-14T13:31:20+00:00

(HEY, WOMEN ... I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WRONG)

Sexual + Economic Freedom

This caused their average quality of life to rise, demanding equal or better performance from their partners. + Total freedom to choose and leave the same without any kind of social pressure = less marriages / less children (actual drop since 1960-70)

lady_ven0m · 2021-04-14T17:19:33+00:00

It’s one of the factors along with birth control. It’s a good thing though.

_HEDONISM_BOT · 2021-04-14T19:07:43+00:00

Women today don't financially depend on men as much as they used to, because they are no longer economically disenfranchised.

Did the reality of women being able to support themselves without a husband cause the birth rate to decline?

I think yes & no.

Hear me out.

I think in the past, women selected for men who could provide, because women had limited options for being able to survive due to the economic oppression of the past. Birth control was also sub-par, and abortion was virtually unheard of and/or illegal.... This doesn't leave a lot of room for genuine sexual selection - where women chose men on the basis of sexual attraction to father their children. Women had to sacrifice this, or "settle" for men who they weren't really sexually attracted to, so they don't end up homeless. This was bad because this meant that tons of ugly guys got a chance to father children that they wouldn't have had, if women had access to birth control/economic options. This means that there's a lot of people here today, who wouldn't have been born, if women of the past chose men on the basis of sexual attraction. AKA - we're all uglier than we could've been, because of this.

Having said this, I think a lot of women, under this oppressive environment chose men that they wouldn't have chosen, if they had the economic freedoms they have today.

Here's why that matters.

Today, women have a lot more options for being able to live & prosper without having to rely on a man out of necessity. This allows them to select for partners based on other factors, such as sexual attraction. Women's economic liberation also came with more birth control options, greater access to healthcare & abortion, and more effective forms of birth control. The rise of the Online Dating App era, also allowed women to select the hottest men with a few taps on a screen. In essence - in the past 50 years, women went from choosing men out of economic necessity, to choosing men based on desire/attraction.

I believe the reason women don't find "the bottom 80% of men" attractive today, is because they're the descendants of "undesirable men" who were selected for, on the basis of economic need, and not sexual attraction by previous generations of women, due to economic oppression. So these descendants were born uglier and less appealing than the minority of their counterparts that were selected for, on the basis of attraction.

because there's a lot of men who were born out of prior generations of women's lack of economic options, and not because of physical attraction and/or sex appeal.

Today, increased access to healthcare, birth control, and sex ed also allows women to choose different men to father their children (if they have any). In the past, under the oppressive environment... the men who could provide, typically fathered children with women who wouldn't have chosen them if economic options were better...

but now... I think that men who could provide, but aren't sexually appealing to women, are fathering less children than in the past. I think this is translating to a lower birth rate among women because there's a lot more of these people. Women are more careful about who knocks them up, and who gets to father the children they're going to give birth to. A lot more women are choosing to stay single and childless until an attractive enough guy, with great economic potential comes along and tons of women hold out for that.

This is a GOOD THING, despite what incels tell us, BECAUSE this means that future generations of children are more likely to be wanted, vs "unplanned accidents". Since a lot of women don't have to shack up or "settle" for men they don't find attractive, I think future generations will be born more attractive because there's now greater room for sexual selection that wasn't there before. This is a GOOD THING. It means more "beautiful people" will be born in future generations, & probably less bald/short/ugly/incels.

Gravel_Roads · 2021-04-14T13:35:29+00:00

[deleted]

A7XfoREVer15 · 2021-04-14T17:10:16+00:00

I think it has more to do with cost of living, low wages, and overall exhaustion than the fact that women can be financially independent now. I mean why have a kid when money is tight as it is. Most Americans would be ruined by missing one paycheck.

And plus times are different from when women weren't allowed to work. Back then, women had to find a guy and hope to god that he doesn't beat the shit out of her. If you were a guy who wasn't a violent alcoholic, the bare minimum, you were a "good guy." Now we can't skate by with the bare minimum, so of course a woman is gonna pick a guy who is fun to be around, relatively attractive, and financially responsible. Why wouldn't they? A decent girl isn't looking for a guy to provide them financial support. They're looking for actual companionship.

Kemence97 · 2021-04-14T16:49:19+00:00

Female economic liberation happened when birth rate was already declining. Obviously the fact that women today having children later is a factor, but men also tend to become fathers later. The declining birth rate is something that has many many factors, and the fact that more and more women want a serious career is just one of them.
It's not like men want to become fathers in their twenties or even thirties (men who want to wait until they are in their forties in icreasing).
If you look at middle Africa (where women aren't really pursue any serious career) you can see that birth rate also decreasing sins decades. Better life circumstances means you don't have to have more children.

Philip8000 · 2021-04-14T16:59:43+00:00

The birth rate's been declining for over two hundred years, before women's liberation. What happened is that more kids lived than was previously the case. In past generations, you needed many children because some of them were going to die. Plus, you needed someone to take care of you in your old age.

QimchiSauce · 2021-04-14T18:05:50+00:00

I can’t say it was the cause but a factor. This is just something that happens overall when a nation develops and becomes more educated. The population overall gets more options. Once women become more equally footed they have more options. Which lowers the birth rate as they have more options than just having kids at a young age. Also as technology, education and birth control becomes more advance and available birth rate decline.

Fuck it I wanna spiel. Warning: ALL THE SHIT BELOW IS JUST MY RANDOM OWN THOUGHTS.

Now when looking at the birth rates everyone goes that’s fine cause we’re saving the planet. Which is true however it’s not saving the economic system we have in place. This is because sadly we’re based on a consumption lead system. What the fuck does that mean? Essentially it’s households (people) using goods and services.

See we need people there to be taxed and use goods. Which means you need people to be born or import to keep this turning. This is why a lot of nations are now realizing the declining birth rates are a death sentence. This is because they can’t support the weight of the older generation.

Let’s look at retirement funds like 401k and ROTH IRA a like. A lot of these are held in company’s like black rock or fidelity. Which loan capital that’s is in saving accounts from the older generations (I.e boomers). However this becomes a issue as the generations below them (x, Millennials and zoomers) are less in population. This is because at some point this elderly population will pull out their cash from these corporations. Which will cause mass capital shrinkage. This would usually be offset if the younger generation was bigger and more of the older generation would be dead. However the decline of birth rates had made the newest generations smaller and the advancement in medicine technology has increased the overall life expectancy. This cause a capital shrinkage which will absolutely tear the investment and business market in the world.

Now another element of this would be social security and government pensions. Which is mostly paid by the next generation being taxed and going through and signing up for these systems themselves. Which means that this only works if the top generation is not too heavy to bear on the lower ones. If it’s too much your gonna reach points of real crisis where you can simply not pay your elderly as there’s no money to be taxed or found as there’s not enough young people to be even taxed for it.

There’s also another element of declining birth rates. That is declining birth rates destroys consumption lead systems for a nation and forced them into a export ones. For example, Japan is a major export economy that has a declining birth rate. They can’t even consume the amount of products they produce domestically and so they are forced to export. This creates a dependency on a another nation to consume goods. Which creates a liability that can be completely utilized for terrible purposes. This affectively holds a bunch of nations in a noose to their exporting nation.

Also it’s just overall sucks as the nation begins to just be smaller and weaker. This means less people which means less jobs and less items and products bought. This also just means the projected power of military becomes less effective. Of course there is military technology of advance systems; however, if the other nation waits it out you won’t even have enough young people to wage or even defend yourself from a war.

Moving on from mostly the economic issues. There is a whole other problem that begins. Which is social ones. See many nations try to solve the issues from the birth rate by a lot of means. However, they don’t solve the birth rate it self. For example, japans has advanced in automation and technology to make up for the lack of manpower. While other countries have imported labor or population in order to have enough manpower.

Imported population is a effective method to a degree. This is because a certain x conditions must be met. First have them be integrated in some means. This is through a melting pot method , them adopting the home culture or the idea of diversity type shit. Also have the majority population in your nation to be comfortable and fine with it. Why is this important? For social and political cohesion. You can tear your own damn political and social system if you import population. While many try to portray themselves as accepting. In the end run and scenario most nations don’t like foreigners that integrate and follow the status quo. This is how the right is growing. However this also is the norm for many places.This is seen in areas outside of the perceived “west”.

miskiooo · 2021-04-14T19:10:33+00:00

Early feminists walked so I could run away from children, men I don’t want, and housewife duties. So yes.

shuttercurtain · 2021-04-14T19:15:49+00:00

Probably already said but that’s probably only a minor aiding factor. The big hitters are probably rising costs of living, housing, education, and raising a child combined with the real estate market and general downturn of attitude about having children (especially many and/or earlier in life.) Everything is more expensive and everyone gets paid less.

LunarRabbit77 · 2021-04-14T19:19:28+00:00

I’d say the birth rate is declining because the planet and society are going to shit and people are starting go see that it’s no longer responsible to make more people suffer on this planet. You shouldn’t blame this on women, you should blame this on our fucked up society

boomcheese44 · 2021-04-15T00:46:20+00:00

Economic liberation, sure it helped. But people realize that having children is a bit of a scam. When I ask parents if they would go back in time and have their kids again, they try to stop themselves from giving a "no' answer.

Your life isnt really yours anymore when you have kids...and women have caught onto that.

Naus1987 · 2021-04-15T01:38:00+00:00

There’s a silly conspiracy theory out there saying that feminism was created to curb population growth. It’s bullshit, obviously, but funny to think of the crazy stuff people think of!

slavicslothe · 2021-04-15T02:36:04+00:00

As a countries wealth and standard of living rise, the average birth rate falls. It’s almost like half decent education makes people realize your value as a human is not in being an incubator 🤔

Not to mention access to birth control and sex ed. It’s not like most men want a fucking kid the first few times they get laid...

Willow-girl · 2021-04-15T02:39:40+00:00

People having a choice caused the birth rate to decline.

I feel like men don't want kids as much if not more as women..

Sea_of_Pastel · 2021-04-15T04:00:21+00:00

The earth is overpopulated, I hope the birth-rate is declining

Willow-girl · 2021-04-15T10:41:23+00:00

Birth control is the linchpin. The ability to control one's fecundity is key because it's hard to accomplish much with a kid hanging off each tit for the better part of 20 years.

leseilfl · 2021-04-15T17:09:59+00:00

It's fab not just amazing!

TheBookOfSeil · 2021-04-14T14:40:45+00:00

I think it contributed to it but wasn't necessarily the cause of it. It has definitely strained relations between men and women because women value money/resources in a partner and jobs being finite things that only one person can be hired to do means that some people won't be able to get a particular job, or any job, and if they're a man, that lessens their desirability to women, leading to less chance of a relationship and less chance of starting a family.

Also, abortion is a separate topic but that is probably the most likely cause of the birth rate decline.

RisingFenix69 · 2021-04-14T17:22:55+00:00

Why do we always have to keep asking the same questions that science and data has already answered? It's like a propaganda piece to somehow claim that the science is misogynistic and men are responsible for everything wrong with women.

Women can do what they want, and they're free to have the consequences of their choices. If women want to be single and live that life all the way to the end, please stop blaming man for the drop in birth rates. It's very obvious that men don't want these women who are independent, it's very obvious that men want wives and its very obvious that women haven't gained any economic liberation, they've enslaved men through the government, women are married to government and 'liberation' is a joke. It's like breaking apart the yin and yang, telling them they don't need each other to balance out, that yang is a strong independent object that don't need no yin, so yang goes and becomes a totally unbalanced degenerate mess that yin has no want or need to balance out any more because it would take way more yin to negate that spoiled yang. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

Exvareon · 2021-04-14T13:58:49+00:00

Women are having children later because now they can fuck around as much as they want and still get someone to finance them later in life, regardless if the woman has a job or not.

Women are not staying single only because they aren't "coerced", they are staying single because in their nature for the man they are with to be better than them, especially when it comes to finance. They date up, even though they idea of "up" sometimes isn't the right one (which is why some women end up with deadbeats).

You also need to realize that while a woman herself got economically liberated, it is now harder for her to be economically succesful while in a marriage.

Before the "liberation", a working husband could support the household. That is no longer the case now, with both parents having to work now, a big portion of the extra paycheck going to daycare and more expensive stuff. I dom't want this to be seen as me being against economical liberation of women, but it could definitely have been handled better than this, and we could have avoided being fooled so hard by corporations.

This means parents really need to get their finances together if they actually plan on getting children, because children are hella expensive, especially in the 21 century with the scam of college degrees.

If you want to send your child to a good private college in the USA, its pretty much the price of a house.

Even if its a public college, it is a lot of money to think about, and that is PER CHILD.

CrackerUMustBTripinn · 2021-04-14T13:45:59+00:00

Yes, it also helped to further destroy the family unit. It's why mental illness is on the rise.

Edit: of course women dont want to take responsibility for their actions.

mimblezimble · 2021-04-14T14:07:50+00:00

Btw I'm not against female economic liberation, I for it.

Modern women have also mostly lost the right to be supported by a husband.

In that sense, the modern woman has been liberated from a right she used to have, and no longer has.

Still, when modern women want to settle down and have children, they seem to want that right back. That is undoubtedly why they prefer a future husband who makes substantially more than them.

The "Where are all the good men?" complaint seems to be mostly about that problem. In their late twenties or early thirties, modern women do want a dependable provider after all. However, for various reasons, they cannot find one.

limited to the low paying jobs and kept out of higher education

With 90% of female students graduating with a so-called worthless degree, they are destined for low-paying jobs anyway. Furthermore, even the other ones, who have a degree that is not worthless non-knowledge, graduate without any real skills. They expect their first employer to invest in imparting those into them.

Most employees, men and women alike, will not rise on the corporate ladder. They do not have so-called "careers". They merely have relatively low-paying jobs that pay the bills. Many are even destined to live from paycheck to paycheck, while burdened with student-loan and other consumer debt.

Higher education does not keep people out of low-paying jobs. That is just a fantasy.

no longer being economically coerced to pair up with a man that is a good provider

It works exactly the other way around. Many modern women want children but they cannot find a man that is a good provider: Where are all the good men? They are not coerced to pair up. No, they desperately strive to pair up but for various, otherwise very predictable reasons, they dramatically fail to do so.

Just one such reason why it dramatically fails: The older the woman is, the lower she should set her requirements, if she wants to find a provider to settle down with. Men prefer younger women. However, modern women are delusional and do things exactly the other way around.

This just one reason. The list of reasons why it goes wrong, is endless.

Timmy721123 · 2021-04-14T14:51:21+00:00

The expectation to have children is gone

grand_tiremaster · 2021-04-14T18:32:18+00:00

It costs too damn much to get married and have a family. The American dollar lost its value.

Also, is this an issue for America mostly? Seems to be a boom of Asians all over the world, Canada especially lol they're multiplying rapidly (saying this as a half Asian).

sec_C_nerd · 2021-04-14T17:48:19+00:00

Men are the net tax payers. Women receive more money from the government then they pay. Women still depend on men to pay taxes so the government can transfer the wealth.

AutoModerator · 2021-04-14T13:20:09+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

velvetunderground111 · 2021-04-14T16:41:22+00:00

I grew up dating very liberated, liberal women in the 2000's who all did the college/big city/career thing. I have like one ex who has a kid, and it was an accident. 80's kids didn't want to be stay at home moms like their mother was. They wanted to get out into the world. Having a kid used to just be a byproduct of wanting to have sex back in the day. Fifty percent of kids EVEN TODAY are unplanned. Either unwedded couple or "happy accident" (maybe?) by married couple. Or unmarried couple. Human beings are animals, but we are now in control of breeding. That's it, I think.

Flightlessbirbz · 2021-04-14T17:16:00+00:00

That along with other factors like access to much better birth control and increased cost of raising children. Nowadays children are more of a liability than an asset, economically speaking. Plus the world is overpopulated, and I think people can feel that. It used to be that more kids = more help on the farm, now more kids = more costs.

snacksneaker · 2021-04-14T19:10:32+00:00

Yes, it's called the microeconomic household theory of fertility.

Jakes1967 · 2021-04-14T19:49:39+00:00

Did female economic liberation cause the birth rate to decline?

Oddly coincidental that the western world has a declining birth rate, whilst the rest of the world doesn't.

Vandenbroucke, Guillaume (December 13, 2016). "The Link between Fertility and Income". Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis (USA).

geo_gan · 2021-04-14T19:55:29+00:00

All part of a large scale population control plan I reckon. The Illuminati know that the world can’t sustain many more billions of us virus on this planet without killing the host along with us.

Good-Strong · 2021-04-14T21:47:18+00:00

Definitely to some extent, along with access to contraception, and the legalisation of abortion.

AtlasBShruggin_esq · 2021-04-14T22:15:27+00:00

theyre just having more OOW children

Barky11 · 2021-04-14T22:53:54+00:00

No red pill men did.

croatoan34 · 2021-04-14T22:56:03+00:00

Uh maybe. But also, who cares? Less people is good thing.

Stevefr0mYellowstone · 2021-04-14T23:13:50+00:00

The #1 factor in declining birth rates is women choosing their education and careers over being mothers. Even those that end up becoming mothers have far fewer children than they used to. The mainstream media by and large ignores this; those countries that try to economically incentivize it through tax credits or just straight out handing people money to have kids just don't get it either. Its not an economic issue. Poorer people tend to have more children than richer people do. When we push so heavily to women that education and careers are so much more important than being mothers and also lie excessively to women about their fertility window, this is the result.

Now what I'll also say is, a lowering population, if our civilization was approaching things in an inteiligent manner, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is better for the environment for their to be fewer humans. Also people used to have more kids because the risk of children dying younger was much higher. We also used to put kids to work a lot earlier. When you were a farmer hundreds of years ago, each extra kid you had meant an extra set of hands who could help on the farm once they became old enough. That isn't as necessary anymore.

Unfortunately civilization is not treating things in an intelligent way. First, the complete population collapses are happening in the first world countries, but poorer countries are still having a ton of kids. Any blue pilled man or woman who proudly proclaims that they are doing their part to save the environment by not having kids, or are not having kids because of their fear of the environmental impact of another mouth to feed are idiots. The kid you didn't have is just offset by a kid born in a poor developing country, a country where they don't have the luxury to care about the environment and will use as much resources and pollute as much as they can in order to survive. If anything you not having that kid is worse for the world and your lineage will die with you. Eventually what happens when a civilization doesn't have enough of a population is another civilizatoin will overthrow it. Either through war, or in a more peaceful manner such as through immigration which gradually results in the original civilization fading away and being overtaken by those who immigrated to it.

And of course we are in an economy where both the government and the large corporations are dependent on an ever increasing population. Government entitlement programs, which are already completely out of control, won't be able to handle a reduced population. Everything collapses if the population decreases greatly. So we're in a situation where we can't really simply let the population collapse, as that will result in economic collapse.

throwviaaway · 2021-04-14T23:30:49+00:00

Maybe, but the main reason is education. Back in day kids went to work and every extra kid meant even more money for the family. Nowadays, kids are a cash negative for at least 16 years.

TheConsumateCracker · 2021-04-14T23:50:27+00:00

The fastest way to lower a nation's fertility is to economically incentivize women to become independent. The fastest way to increase a nation's fertility is to economically incentivize men's ability to solely provide for and protect his own family.

CJs_goldfish · 2021-04-15T02:58:53+00:00

I mean, anecdotally when I was 18 I read a journal article showing that women in my country plateau in their career at the age of 31 because that was the average age at which they took time off from the career to start a family. On that day I resolved to not have children until I was financially stable and in a situation where it wouldn’t have to compromise my growth —and have stuck to that. Certainly some women will choose to be homemakers and prioritize family, but not all of them will and it’s got to be a choice.

Accomplished_Pin_121 · 2021-04-15T03:33:08+00:00

Female economic liberation is part of it. Also, its part to afford expenses with just one income, and women are now working as well, which results in fewer kids because they have no time.

Also, kids have gotten really expensive. Just look at the cost of education. Millennials have gotten screwed over economically and many can't afford to start families.

The biggest factor is birth control. Since they can choose not to have kids, many don't. More and more people are single and jumping between relationships because of birth control. This reduces birth rates as well.

WeAreTheAggies · 2021-04-15T04:14:42+00:00

There's no one cause for it. Higher labor force participation from women, birth control, urbanization (much harder to raise kids in an apartment than in a suburb or on a farm), cultural influence (lots of people think it's immoral to have kids because they believe the world is overpopulated), declining religious beliefs, etc.

KingMysoFutureHdrx · 2021-04-15T04:17:48+00:00

Feminism and birth rates have an inverse relationship

SteveSan82 · 2021-04-15T04:30:25+00:00

It's caused wages to drop, higher rent, fewer raises, benefits.

Women are hypergamous. They wont waste their time with men making less than them except to get a little excitement.

It's unnatural and has caused more harm than good for women

IcarusKiki · 2021-04-15T04:32:16+00:00

Cost/benefit ratio of having a child is what tanked the birth rate. Back 100 years ago children were extra help and as long as you fed clothed them you were a good parent. Even housewives kind of left children to themselves after they became a toddler and you just had the older kids help out while you tended to the house.

Nowadays children are a whole extra job and a luxury with no return on your investment. CPS gets called on you the second you let the kid out to play, you’re a terrible mom if you dare punish them for misbehaving or aren’t supermom. Plus with cost of college a lot of people can’t afford to raise kids without a two income family, which then takes time away from raising kids. And then you spend all this time and money raising them only for them to put you into a nursing home. Capitalism does not reward having children.

Thetermibox · 2021-04-15T05:08:43+00:00

All of feminism and birth rate can be summed up by the opening scene of Idiocracy. The greatest movie ever. That movie has what plants crave

Thetermibox · 2021-04-15T05:11:52+00:00

There is more to it. You can also point to rise of the LGBTQ lobby. Gay couples being able to openly date and marry now definitely contributes as well. Especially with gay couples no longer having beards, that's potentially 4 people who are pulled out of the gene pool. 2 in the gay coupling and the potentially 2 people they might have married as a beard.

There's a lot of factors. No one thing is at fault but morality of a society plays a big factor

duniyamadarchodhai · 2021-04-15T05:48:47+00:00

There are a lot of reasons (talking from the context of a patriarchal society as South Asia)

families get more prosperous because more money
more prosperity means less mortality rate - which has been the case for past century - which means you are assured that your only child (or two) will not be sacrificed to famine or war and you won't be having a depressed and lonely late life.
more economic activity means the woman understands the need to step out and a child would only block that financial and personal freedom. So they take a mature decision and have a number as 1 or 2 children instead of just going on creating a baseball team.
since woman has money, she won't have to succumb to the man for financial and basic needs
woman going out gets to interact with more people and have second opinions on having nth child which is sometimes not needed, instead of being coerced by family which things by the heart instead of the brain

Mayhem977 · 2021-04-15T06:15:50+00:00

Pretty much. I still don’t see the problem with it though. The only group I feel bad for are the men who dreamt of being fathers but appears that dream will always be a fantasy and since women are willing to divorce just for change of finances or power dynamics and being a stay at home dad is totally out of the question.

ItWasAlwaysOver · 2021-04-15T13:05:34+00:00

it's because of female hypergamy. if 80% of women go for the 20% of men, the remaining men are gonna have a tough time being fathers.

Infernir · 2021-04-15T18:23:54+00:00

Its called birth control.

0112358f · 2021-04-16T16:07:02+00:00

No, urbanization and birth control do.

Children are an asset in a subsistence farming culture and a liability in an urban one.

People still want a couple but they get a little less then they aimed for on average.

NeonGyllenhaal · 2021-04-19T05:32:38+00:00

Yup. Learned this in environmental science.

abaxeron · 2021-04-14T13:53:38+00:00

Women still depend on men; they just don't have to give sex and children in return, thanks to overblown totalitarian police states.

LowCreddit · 2021-04-14T17:22:13+00:00

It's the movement to cities. Females of all species have an instinct for territory and overpopulation. They will ramp up aggression, infanticide, and quickened weaning if they sense that overpopulation is near. In artificial environments where food is pulled in from outside sources, what is usually a soft reaction to approaching carrying capacity becomes an overreaction in our urban sprawl.

Megabyte7637 · 2021-04-14T17:26:51+00:00

Fragmented79 · 2021-04-14T17:38:56+00:00

No I think the sexual revolution/hookup culture did.

upalse · 2021-04-14T21:24:39+00:00

Counter spin: "Too expensive" is a lame cop out, in similar manner how people often say they have "no free time" and are "busy" wasting their life on netflix and reddit. Just people unwilling to step out of their comfort zone to make the time. Indeed this is the result you get with urban progress as well, but has very little to do with economics. Coddle people like children, you get children. Children can't have children though.

Title	Did female economic liberation cause the birth rate to decline?
Author	knowledgeseeker999
Upvotes	142
Comments	465
Date	April 14, 2021 1:20 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/mqqfbv/did_female_economic_liberation_cause_the_birth/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/did-female-economic-liberation-cause-the-birth.763708 https://theredarchive.com/post/763708

Comments