From a cold, practical perspective isn't women's emancipation bad for society if it leads to low birth rates

KayRay1994 · 2023-12-16T16:24:47+00:00

It’s…. a complicated question to answer, birth rates do fluctuate with time depending on external circumstances and they’re never actually constant.

Women’s emancipation being associated with low birth rates makes sense when you look at it from a surface level analysis with no historic, cultural, societal or psychological knowledge, but you’re also not considering the deeper implications here - there are multiple factors at play, and one or two of them very loosely tie into women’s emancipation, which also doesn’t mean women’s emancipation is to blame - to be clear

women have more rights now than ever before - meaning for the first time in a long time, non noble women especially have the space to figure things out and question things. I think most women will go back to wanting to be mothers, as it is a natural drive, but it will be driven by choice rather than enforced rules.
western society as a whole is going through a moral/spiritual/mental crisis, this is due to many reasons - but this kind of existential exploration will result in constant and active questioning, but at the same time its necessary as the conditions that led to this (is. the post WW2 american empire), doesn’t invite collective/communal thought
we value individualism far more than ever before, maybe to a toxic extent at this point. This post points the blame on women, but men aren’t innocent in this too - most men would rather seek material success and status while expecting their wives to raise the kids for them, ie. it isn’t about raising the next generation, it’s about fulfilling an individual life goal. Even then, the idea of the homemaker vs working husband is a bit of myth born of post WW2 america, things like modern schooling, increased automation, the rise of white collar work being the norm have all fundamentally changed how families (and individuals) interact at a base level
social and economic circumstances are absolute shit now. It isn’t a good idea to bare children and raise them when you don’t know if you can even support them in the next few decades or so
Life is fundamentally very different from the past - ie. all work was physical, and most people pretty much maintained their property for a living (whether it be a village, farm, etc), add to this child mortality was extremely high, and your workforce was generally your family/friends/tribe/etc - so you had to have 8-9 children so half could survive and the property you’re running kept going. It was a fundamentally different world

So I mean, you can say it’s because of “the emancipation of women” (and do this weird “if morality doesn’t exist” game to justify being against women’s rights if you really want to) but that just isn’t accurate as it ignores all the nuance involved and all the elements that play a role here.

TermAggravating8043 · 2023-12-16T16:13:14+00:00

Even if we have too many old people right now to take care of, we are overly populated as a species. We have overrun our resources and we are vastly growing too fast. We need our numbers to reduce, snd although that sucks for a lot of old people who are going to suffer , that’s karma for ruining the planet

We should have been educating woman from the beginning so our numbers would have always been steady

Edit, maybe if we actually invested in jobs like carers,domestic work and social care, people would be more encouraged to go into these roles to help our growing society, but right now they are paid arguably the least for some of the most important roles

Barneysparky · 2023-12-16T16:17:32+00:00

Parts of the earth are about to be inhospitable to human lives.

We have more than enough people.

SmallSituation6432 · 2023-12-16T16:08:53+00:00

I honestly can't tell if you meant this post for your main or alt.

MxMaster9907 · 2023-12-16T16:55:01+00:00

It’s more of an economic problem, people aren’t having kids because women have equal rights, people aren’t having kids because they can’t afford to.

Blue_Robin_04 · 2023-12-16T16:17:23+00:00

Nah, personal freedom is one of the most valuable things in society. It should come first.

katecard · 2023-12-16T16:24:25+00:00

Yes going from 1 billion people in 1804 to 8.1 billion in 2023 saved the earth from horror and destruction. Better enslave women to make sure the world never goes back down to the terror and pain of having 7 billion people like in 2011.

Salt_Mathematician24 · 2023-12-16T16:14:15+00:00

It isn't just women's emancipation. It's healthcare, birth control, industrialization, better quality of life that leads to lower birth rates/"quality over quantity". To blame it just on women is dumb lol.

operation-spot · 2023-12-16T16:11:33+00:00

I think we’ll adapt to having less people and things will be fine. My freedom as a human being and woman is worth more than any potential future.

Clarkthelark · 2023-12-16T16:09:26+00:00

Low birth rates are indeed horrible for society. They may not affect the individuals living now, but the generations after will face very serious problems indeed.

And you are right, if the current scenario stays the same, the most populous and influential groups in the future will be the patriarchal groups with high fertility (such as Muslims and conservative Christians). A lot of pronatalists have become vocal recently because they are aware of what low birth rates indicate: a future when liberals will be only a fraction of society, which will lead to a rollback of freedoms and liberties that exist now.

However, women's emancipation is not the sole reason for this crisis. It is a complex issue. Men also want children much less than they did even a few decades ago, we aren't seeing a situation wherein men are desperate to have children and women are the ones denying this desire.

In my view, the core problem is this: humans need higher causes to be motivated to continue their bloodline and species. Unlike other organisms, humans don't just surrender to the biological impulses to reproduce. We think about life and death, about the value of life and whether it is actually important to pass on our genes. Further, with the increased availability and effectiveness of contraception, unless someone actively wants kids and tries to have kids, they won't have kids. The problem is, fewer and fewer people believe in any higher cause with every passing day, so there's really nothing driving people to sacrificing years of free time and leisure to raise children.

Bruh_zil · 2023-12-16T17:30:30+00:00

It's only one way of achieving a sufficient birthrate. I'd rather see an option which also allows individual freedom for everyone.

youreloser · 2023-12-16T16:10:30+00:00

Yes and I'm not sure how we will change this. With the rise of automation perhaps we can reduce our working hours dramatically and people will be more inclined to have children.

Technology has advanced a thousand fold over the last thousand years, yet in many countries especially Asia, people work 50, 60, even 70 hour weeks and the cost of living is nuts so there is little choice. Keep in mind that child labor laws are another preventative factor - we can't just have children help us in the family farm or send them to the factory like the olden days. Back in those days they had plenty of children. Now they are a huge investment.

Obviously we can't and shouldn't repeal women's and children's rights. So I'm genuinely stumped how our societies will survive if we don't let the benefits of technology trickle down to the masses. We are given mere crumbs, toasters, movies, games, cars, to placate us. But if our productivity has risen so much since ancient times, where is our time going??

SeveralLiterature980 · 2023-12-16T16:39:21+00:00

You would have to show that "emancipation" led to or contributed meaningfully to the decline in birth rates. Several other factors could be to blame. For example, the correlation between wealth and lower fertility has been well known for decades.

RinoaRita · 2023-12-16T18:38:43+00:00

If they want to solve it they have to make having kids easier. If you get a year of maternity and paternity leave and there universal pre school etc.

In this capitalism driven economy where your worth is assigned a dollar value, being a parent is devalued. We have to either make it economically attractive or social attractive and not economically unattractive for women to have many kids.

Expensive-Tea455 · 2023-12-16T17:24:29+00:00

Women are not meant to be baby making machines for anyone, so no… if the birth rates drop as a result of that, then oh well 🤷🏽‍♀️

Suspicious_Glove7365 · 2023-12-16T17:14:24+00:00

Maybe the world doesn’t need so many people? And maybe we never needed to repopulate at the rate that we did because now we’re all fucked?

bob112358_13 · 2023-12-16T18:32:29+00:00

birth rates aren't low because of feminism. they're low because people can't afford theri desired birthrate of 2.7.

Jessica_Rabbit69 · 2023-12-16T21:04:24+00:00

What is “women’s emancipation”? I’m assuming it just means women’s rights. But those have changed throughout history and depending on the country/culture. From my understanding of history, in the US marriage has always been a choice. Of course women needed a husband to survive as far as money but marriage itself was still a choice. You would need to force women to get pregnant, to bring up the birth rate. That has never been a thing in most countries.

EulenWatcher · 2023-12-16T16:38:04+00:00

It depends on what you value. Is overpopulation a good thing? What about constant growth of population with limited resources and worsening quality of life? Is an economic system built on unrealistic expectation of constant population grown a good thin in the long-term?

We'll face either population crisis or environmental one, most likely both and we'll have to live through and adapt to it. We'll have to change our economy and production system, as well as the medical system and care system for elderly.

Diminishing birth rates are everywhere - even in more patriarchal countries. It's not just women who don't want to have a bunch of babies to take care of, men don't want to be responsible or provide for multiples children either. It isn't solely on women - men support these birth rates too.

Konoha_Shinobee · 2023-12-16T17:46:32+00:00

Depends on who's perspective. When women have the ability to choose, more of them choose not to have children. Sounds like women's emancipation is good for them, and they are part of society.

That there are some downsides to women's liberation seems to be true, but there are downsides to everything. Everything has a cost, and I don't think it's morally permissible to make decisions for others.

relish5k · 2023-12-16T16:38:23+00:00

Women’s emancipation is only part of the problem (though yes, it is absolutely part of the problem).

Other parts of the problem are:

neoliberal economic and social values that encourage young people to leave their communities to pursue their desires / maximize financial opportunities. This destroys the “village” of extended family that is critical to make childbearing bearable.
Safety maximism - we are now much more aware of the dangers of childhood and are keen to keep our children safe. This requires much more parental vigilance and involvement, and hurts childhood independence and autonomy
middle class lifestyle inflation. Even with more resources than ever, the standard for what it takes to raise a child in a middle class setting rises as well. You want a nice house in a safe neighborhood with good schools, a car that’s big enough for everyone, extracurriculars, childcare, savings for college. It’s a lot
children are no longer a financial investment. They are expensive to nurture, take forever to pay off, and even then the filial ROI is seen as increasingly optional

So yes, women’s lib is one of many progress problems leading to a lowering birth rate but can’t be looked at in isolation.

FineDevelopment00 · 2023-12-16T18:55:24+00:00

Oh look that thing men here claim they’re not in favor of but seek to bring up all the fucking time.

AutoModerator · 2023-12-16T15:52:24+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" 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.

wtknight · 2023-12-16T16:13:40+00:00

I’m not sure that there is a definite link between women’s emancipation and low birth rates, so I don’t see the point of debating your argument.

Hoopy223 · 2023-12-16T17:10:38+00:00

Emancipation? Not really. The current political fusion between liberalism and feminism is an embarrassment to humanity though.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2023-12-16T21:03:42+00:00

We are overpopulated anyway. This planet already doesn't have enough resources for all of us considering our modern standards. Low birth rates are a good thing, it's the only way to save this planet and survive. It's better to lower population by low birth rates than something drastical like war for resources. Although if the decline is too fast there might be a problem with old and young people ratio.

Otherwise the solutions is state support if population gets too low. Plenty of women would love to have more children but can't afford it. So once the population gets to sustainable level we should find a way to balance birth rates for population to stay that way. If it get too low increase support, if it gets too high cut support...

RIPGeorgeHarrison · 2023-12-16T21:48:48+00:00

I don’t think female emancipation is the biggest factor in fertility decline. Iran is far from an emancipated place for women and it’s fertility rate is lower than America’s.

AceOfSpadesGymBro3 · 2023-12-16T17:42:26+00:00

From the cold hard perspective of what's best for the survival of the species is that a few alpha males impregnate all women, while a bunch of beta males work hard to support and parent all the resulting babies. This way everyone has their utility, but not everyone gets to procreate.

zaqariah9999 · 2023-12-16T17:45:51+00:00

"Lets ignore the morality of the situation for a moment"

Imma stop you right there. NO, the goverment should not issue mandated girlfriends to all loser men so that society can have more babies. no one cares and they shouldn't.

Financial_Leave4411 · 2023-12-16T16:50:42+00:00

The real question is: Is humanity worth keeping around?

Honestly is humanity going extinct really so bad? If not then a low birth rate isn’t anything to stress over.

Electronic_West_1831 · 2023-12-16T18:03:53+00:00

Just no…women aren’t breeding mares put on this earth for the sole purpose of pumping out crotch droppings, and any “society” that forces them into that role deserves to collapse

Love-Is-Selfish · 2023-12-16T16:22:19+00:00

But securing a woman’s rights doesn’t cause low birth rates.

And the objective practical perspective you should have is what’s practical for you to live, what’s practical for the individual to live, what sort of society is practical for the individual to live.

Mitago1 · 2023-12-16T17:04:28+00:00

I actually doubt that emancipation and women's education how anything to do with lower birthrates overall, it's more so the access to contraception, healthcare, education and people in general are less inclined to have children nowadays since raising a family is extremely time consuming + expensive and majority of women and men want to focus on their careers, plus depending on where you live it's extremely hard to sustain a household on two incomes let alone one.

finch2200 · 2023-12-16T17:51:32+00:00

I’d say there’s a quantity vs quality aspect to it. More kids in an environment where the life expectancy of children is extremely low could be seen as a way to combat extinction through attrition. But in an environment where people regularly live to their 80’s, then having too many people around could be a problem.

Automation could possibly be a way to care for the elderly population with fewer young people to care for them. Though, if where applying cold logic, it could be more practical to euthanize those that become old enough to be truly incapable of providing benefit to society.

CustomerSeparate949 · 2023-12-16T18:13:57+00:00

I have a theory.

When polled, women in European nations where women are known for having the most access to equality actually expressed a wish to have more children then they were having.

We might need to reconcile with the fact that in an ever advancing society where women are more capable than ever when it comes to contributing to society, we might need to make a concentrated effort to make the workplace less hostile to caregivers.

Hear me out here, we know that family and raising children use to be a village effort. We know that we don't see that anymore. With women's integration into a male dominated workforce has come an unfavorable judgmental view of family and children.

More people raising ill behaved kids because they are isolated in parenting and raising a child in isolation does not socialize the kid like it should be.

We need to think about how to combine the benefits of having a diverse workforce capable of achieving innovation and technological growth with an appreciation for creating families in which having children doesn't ostracize you from the rest of the world in certain ways.

LadyLazarus2021 · 2023-12-16T19:32:53+00:00

No.

First, a lot of men don’t want a nest of kids.

Second, look at cultures popping out indiscriminate numbers of kids. They look flourishing to you?

Visual_Pizza1922 · 2023-12-16T19:50:51+00:00

That only matters if we want the current version of society to continue existing. With fewer people to exploit, companies will have to treat workers better. Who will work: machines. Who will fight: just nuke anybody that ever starts a war going forward. Take care of the elderly: either have the robots do it or since people wont have jobs they can take care of their own parents

Aromatic_Ad5473 · 2023-12-16T20:21:26+00:00

Woman’s emancipation isn’t the only or biggest reason for declining birth rates

mrbesito · 2023-12-16T22:32:55+00:00

I disagree with your assumption. I don't think women's emancipation is what led to lower birth rates, I think it's modern capitalism.

JumboJetz · 2023-12-17T01:05:19+00:00

It is presently one of several reasons why the birth rate is below replacement level which IS bad for society.

I believe there are sex positive feminist ways of solving it though. For one; any woman who has some IVF treatment to have more than two kids, twins or triplets gets $1 million from the government.

People choosing to be childless would not be an issue if people WITH children were having 3, 4 and 5 kids.

couturetheatrale · 2023-12-17T14:35:00+00:00

What a silly take.

Society survives by inventing new ways of handling the labor discrepancy, like, you know, mechanization and AI.

You are aware that we produce absolutely immense quantities of food and infrastructure despite a much, MUCH smaller percentage of the population working in those fields compared to 100 years ago?

When we desperately need more caretakers for the elderly, we'll have even fewer jobs available in production, and people will have to shift to available jobs. This is not the crisis you're imagining, and it's not as good an excuse to shove women back into submission under male rule as you want to think it is.

Lyzard9666 · 2023-12-16T16:24:12+00:00

No. The only good society is a libertarian society where everyone, regardless of gender, has the right to their own pursuit of happiness whether they want children or not.

Besides, we don't live in a "medieval society", we live in a modern society with technology and science and perpetually advancing fertility treatments. What does pretending we did live in that sort of society do to prove that (moderate, egalitarian) feminism is bad for our real life world?

Gitsumrestmf · 2023-12-16T16:17:06+00:00

Low birth rates are indeed bad for the society. However, are women (alone) to blame for that?

It takes two to form a relationship. If there are problems with relationships on a wide scale, the fault lies with both sexes, not either one.

Birh rates are low because modern society twisted the concept of relationships and sex. Everything is... "casual" now. And "casual" really means - no reaponsibility. Chasing quick, shallow pleasure. Children are treated like... side effect, that needs to be avoided with birth-control.

And this is something both men and women are guilty of.

thedarkracer · 2023-12-16T17:13:30+00:00

Not exactly. Our ancestors fought for free will even though women weren't always at the front lines, they should have that as well. Also low birth rates is not gonna be a problem unless we start colonizing space and I am pretty sure when we achieve that we will have artificial wombs and such science that even gay couples will have a kid entirely of it's parents aka the gay couple dna.

Also is free will dangerous? yes. Do women choose badly? Sometimes yes. But that's the price of free will. That's what God intended and if you take that away you are fighting against god so yeah good luck with that.

DangZagnutsNewSon · 2023-12-16T16:28:02+00:00

Because tech relies on fossil fuels and plastics less humans means less pollution which is the only thing that could save the human species. Antinatalism could save humans. Not the other way around. Republican right wingers don't understand this because they don't understand resource allocation.

MyLastBestChance · 2023-12-16T19:51:10+00:00

These birth rate posts are pretty hard to take seriously.

It feels like the sexually frustrated version of the pro-lifers that LOVE fetuses and don’t give a crap about actual children, only these birth rate guys “concerns” stop at ejaculation instead of birth.

Are we going to ignore the post a couple of hours ago in which more than a few men advocated coercive abortion or running away and changing their identity to avoid taking responsibility for children that they might father? One even suggested that murder was a reasonable solution…or how about the hatred for single mothers and general resentment that tax dollars go towards supporting these children?

How about the endless “financial abortion” posts coupled with the attitude that child care is the woman’s responsibility because reasons or because she earns less (even when working the same or more hours) when one of the main causes of the gender pay gap that causes her to earn less is that women have the primary responsibility for childcare…

CraftyCooler · 2023-12-16T16:23:47+00:00

I guess that investment in education and career makes much better return for women than investment in giving birth. If somehow we manage to balance the outcome of both decisions, then we may improve tfr. Ie. if women having at least 2 kids would have their student debt cancelled in US, or if such women would have the priority when appying for well paid jobs. For example the teacher proffession could be made 'mom friendly' by being much better paid and by 'moms first' policy when it comes to job openings. Being a mom need to regain its prestige, and in modern world money=prestige.

Lift_and_Lurk · 2023-12-16T18:21:46+00:00

Low birth rates lead to higher wagers for in demand skilled workers. Those workers make more money and pitches bigger homes and then have bigger families. At the same time the “necessity of invention” causes people to develop more efficient (see automation) ways to meet demand.
That economic growth leads to “baby booms”

This is what has happened before, and will continue to happen throughout history. It’s a self correcting problem.

Wattehfok · 2023-12-16T20:36:58+00:00

This fuckin shit again…

People aren’t having less babies because feminism.

People are having less babies for 2 main reasons:

lack of need for children (don’t need free farm labour? Don’t need six kids).
Consumer capitalism makes it virtually impossible to have a large family with any kind of dignity. A lot of people want more kids, but can’t have them sit to lack of support, time and money.

throwaway_kcal · 2023-12-17T12:59:01+00:00

Yep. Western society shoots itself in a foot. What are they going to do when most of the white population is old, no one is paying taxes and there's heaps of young immigrants with conflicting cultural values?

CountMandrake · 2023-12-16T19:35:07+00:00

We know for sure through history and empiric evidence that extremely restrictive, conservative, law abiding civilizations tend to develop faster and further down the line of social improvement, so in a sense, yes, technically it doesn't make sense for a society at a time given to make "sacrifices" and consecions to gain rights and freedoms that will be given away by future generations through reckless and irresponsible behaviours.

But then, the funny part is, we also know for sure through history and empiric evidence, this is what extremely liberal and "yoistic" societies (that often are the direct byproduct of conservative, law abiding societies that came before) actually do...

You know how the phrase goes...

"Bad times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create bad times"

It couldn't be more true.

As for the women's emancipation, it always has been troubblesome for societies mostly created and dominated by men to trust women the rights to rule the destiny of a nation because, well, women's vision of the world is not compatible with the men's vision.

There is actually a historical fact that women voted along with men in the first democracies of the western world for example.

For example, in Greece, they used the "ostrikon" or "ostracon" to decide if Greece went to war against the persian, and women massively voted against war because they didn't want their sons to die.

Now, from the women's perspective that could have made sense. Who wants their sons to die in war right?

But if Greece would have surrendered it's weapons to the persian armies, greek women would have been enslaved, greek men would have been butchered anyways, and today, more than 2400 years after, we westerness probably wouldn't be talking about democracy and women's rights.

So dudes said "fuck women", restrained women from the right to vote, and did the voting again, and then war won by an overwhelming majority, they went to war and kicked the persians in the balls.

Another one, christianity.

It's funny because feminism hate christiandoom these days, but back in the time of Rome, it was women who compossed the majority of christian followers.

In fact, Christianity was instaurated as the roman empire secular religion thanks to women. Catholics OWE their faith to women, for real.

But that weakened the borders of the roman empire.

I mean, if you're planning to become an empire... Which god are you most likely wanna pray to?

The God of forgiveness, love and compassion who's nailed to a cross and lays there absolutely dead and inmutable while their believers are getting killed and raped?

Or you will instead pray to the God of war, thunder, fire and steel so he grants you courage in battle and promise you an honorable dead if you slaughter enough enemies and crush enough skulls and make enough widows?

Heck, if you were a barbarian assaulting the roman gates... Which romans would you like to face?

The christian romans, who are more likely to spare your life if you accept Jesus?

Or the pagan romans, armed to the teeth and carrying Jupiter and Marte banners, who believe they are superior, you are just a dumb beast, and they don't take prisioners?

If I was Athila I would be like "Oh yeah, Hail Jesus".

There was an intresting video on YouTube some time ago titled "How women weaken civilizations", and the dude covered all this historical facts quite well actually.

As a former history teacher and sociology student I do believe women's view of the world, prone to empathy, forgiveness and kindness, is often counterproductive to the intrests of a nation.

Very unpopular opinion, mind you.

But then again, as humans, we are crossed through our morals by the ethics of our times, we need to understand that.

Even if things got real right now and shit hits the fan, modern men would be quite opposed to the idea of strip women away from their rights, because our morals would feel compromised.

It gets a special kind of man to do that, one that still doesn't exists, at least in the western world, and that the kind of men who are born in shitty times.

SwaySh0t · 2023-12-16T21:52:49+00:00

History is pretty clear on this…aging or dying societies are conquered by more patriarchal and fertile societies.

PMmeareasontolive · 2023-12-16T17:31:19+00:00

There will probably be a pain point as demographics shift. But Boomers are already starting to expire. It's probably Millennials who will get it in the pants as they get older, in terms of service reductions. But I think the problem is vastly overstated. It's used as a talking point on internet forums to promote certain agendas. Why? Because there isn't a single study that you can draw on that cites all effects in play in a complete economic analysis, like the anticipated prices of housing (lower), value of labor (higher), other reductions of cost (children aren't free in a progressive society) and redistributions of wealth (where does the money go?) Population reductions in the past have lead to prosperity, not depressions (see the renaissance after the plague). Even though this is "demographic collapse" (a politicized crisis term) the same effects are in play.

Cethlinnstooth · 2023-12-16T19:15:57+00:00

I don't think it inevitably leads to low birth rates.

Obviously all the actually important things slaves had to do still get done once you rework things so people get paid properly for their labour.

Deadwalking2k · 2023-12-16T22:21:54+00:00

Perhaps in terms of population quantity. But in terms of quality, might not be the worst thing for these kinds of women to not reproduce.

Safinated · 2023-12-16T22:57:19+00:00

Traditional birth rates aren’t exactly healthy for society either in the absence of traditional mortality

giveuporfindaway · 2023-12-17T00:27:24+00:00

Non-replacement level birth rates are catastrophic in pretty much every practical way. But philosophically speaking liberal independent women will be bred out of the system. Only submissive women will breed the next generation of women. So this is nature's way of getting rid of genetic dead ends. The current childlessness crises is basically a self inflicted anti-liberal purge that will inevitably create a more patriarchal society in the future.

pikecat · 2023-12-17T01:13:36+00:00

All wealthy and free er societies have ended.

It's a moral double bind. Those with higher birth rates will dominate the future

mrastml · 2023-12-17T02:54:09+00:00

kinda sad that people are getting so defensive about what you're saying even though you tried to make it clear you're talking about the past. I consider myself very progressive which is why I acknowledge that in the past, a more conservative society would wipe the floor with a more liberal one. If you have a nation of rash, impulsive men with likewise leaders, they're gonna run through a similar nation with other things being equal (population size, resources etc.)

Emergency-Escape1708 · 2023-12-17T10:24:59+00:00

Who gives a shit. Bring on the extinction and scorched earth. Will be a good day for me. I'm not even a woman btw and don't give even a mini shit about what they want.

HandBananaHeartCarl · 2023-12-17T14:31:29+00:00

It is, which is why such societies will be outbred by societies that are vehemently against emancipation.

MattPayneWrestler · 2023-12-18T02:52:44+00:00

Yeah, in the first world where women have rights, they don’t wanna be screwed the hell out of and just pop out babies like crazy, so less children are born. Meanwhile in the third world, they have no rights and are just boned the heck out of, and have tons of kids. First world will just allow immigration in to supply the dwindling population. Eventually the third world sexist culture will take over as people whose culture is to rape the hell out their wives and have a million kids overwhelm the tiny population of first worlders and the sexist culture will dominate, be the majority, win all the elections, have all the power. This will probably happen in a few decades as old people die off. Women’s emancipation will backfire, this is the sad reality of it, its just mathematics.

Warm_Gur8832 · 2023-12-18T05:22:08+00:00

Why are low birth rates bad? Is overpopulation good?

apresonly · 2023-12-18T21:54:25+00:00

you're missing a premise that argues the purpose of a society is to provide workers.

Shhhhyt_ · 2023-12-19T15:36:01+00:00

No. People should be able to do what they like. No one should ever be forced to have a child.

If you are old and there is no one to take care of you, you die.

Title	From a cold, practical perspective isn't women's emancipation bad for society if it leads to low birth rates
Author	Novel-Tip-7570
Upvotes	0
Comments	210
Date	December 16, 2023 3:52 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/18ju0m8/from_a_cold_practical_perspective_isnt_womens/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/from-a-cold-practical-perspective-isnt-womens.1240910 https://theredarchive.com/post/1240910

Comments