Feminist blames declining birth rates on reality of reproduction
09-11-2016, 01:27 AM
Here's my theory on the subject.
------------------------------
In the Western world, in the 1950's, we had high marriage rates and high birth rates - as much as 4 kids per woman. This was before feminism came into play. Nuclear families were everywhere: the woman cooks and takes care of her husband, and in exchange, she had nothing to pay - he provides everything she needs so she can raise the kids in peace. There was basically no recourse for women wanting to divorce their husband. The motto was simple: you have kids with someone, you stay with this person. You couldn't break your family that easily.
Now came first-generation feminism in the 1970's. Right to vote, right to work, etc. and we all thought that it was reasonable. After all, women would get a part-time job in case of emergency, and since they pay taxes, they can vote. So the people gave credibility to feminism, and everyone thought feminism was something great. Those women groups then tasted something called power, which once you get used to it, there's no going back. Seeing that their efforts to get "equal rights" were succeeding, they decided to push it further in order not to let the feminist movement die. They wanted equal control and equal decision power in the household, basically taking away the husband's role.
Women then came up with a pretty absurd thought: since we can work, vote, make our own money, and raise kids by ourselves, why do we need husbands for?. One problem remains though: there's nothing in it for us if we leave. So let's work on that, and create a child support system, alimony system, and anything to ensure that we can leave and have a good life. The 1980's feminists pushed this further, by encouraging women to feel oppressed by their husband, and attempting to gain control of the household. In return, alimony and child support laws were on the woman's side, forcing husbands to give up their roles and allow women to gain power. "I don't want to cook today - do it yourself. If I leave, you have to pay me anyway".
With new child support / alimony laws in place, and the quasi-absence of prenups, men quickly caught up with the harsh reality: If I commit to the wrong woman or impregnate the wrong one, I can lose half of my assets and/or be condemned to make monthly payments for the next 18 years of my life. A simple change of heart from your woman, and you're on the hook for years. Marriage was now synonym with a huge flashing sign saying DANGER. Marriage rates dropped from 80% to as low as 30% in a decade, and the same decline has been observed with birth rates. Having a child and getting married, which were the norm back then, were now associated with danger.
The social justice stigma pushed people to "always respect women, no matter what". If you have a pussy, you cannot be held responsible for your actions. People were calling for "equal rights", even if it meant the demise of the Western society. People who wanted to have children while minimizing the risks did so outside marriage. There are 2 risks: losing 50% of your assets, and being on the hook for child support. By having a bastard, you can at least eliminate one of the 2 risks. Women more and more frequently left the man, while collecting child support. Less and less birthrates. And so on. "Respect women", they said. This means more women on the workplace, and they can now compete with men for jobs that require skilled workers. The will of God was to get married and leave a legacy. With less and less people following this path, the faith in God slowly faded away from the population, and we started to see empty churches, atheists, and so on.
With birth rates now being lower than the population renewal threshold of around 2.1 children per woman, we need people to replace those missing "economical units", also known as "people". Businesses, governments, etc. still need money. We need a solution, quick. There are two ways to solve this:
1) Put women back in the home where they belong, choke the feminist movement, and do like we did for hundreds of years, or;
2) Bring more people from outside into the country. People who are sure to breed and make more economical units. We all know who they are.
In order to preserve "equal rights", we chose solution #2. One problem remains: will the population accept to give up their lands for this? We need to employ population control measures. Divide to conquer. If the population is too busy fighting against each other, we can push whatever agenda we can, and it won't meet resistance. I know: LGBT rights. Let's start a movement to legalize gay marriage. With an equal number of proponents and opponents, the masses are sure to be busy for a while. The governments helped the media to push this ideology in the minds of people, while we opened the door for migrant economical units. It all went smooth, because the masses were too busy arguing over transgender bathrooms, wage gap, spectator sports, and trying to win arguments on social media.
The laws of supply and demand apply for religion too: the faith in God slowing fading away, and the number of migrants coming in the country rising, we need more laws for those people to feel welcome: no pork in schools, saying "holidays" instead of "Christmas", etc. all that while the masses continue to support the feminist movement, all that for "equal rights".
With the nuclear family broken, feminists refuse to back down. Instead of concentrating on restoring the nuclear family model, we concentrate on more rape laws, better child support laws for women who decide to break their family, and letting more people in. In short: Feminism is the root of our society's problems, especially the declining birth rates.
What do people now say? "I'd love to help rebuild my society, but I don't have time. Yeah but it's because.....".
You know the rest.
--------------------------------------
That's why I live in Thailand. You can't change the world by yourself, but you can choose which one you want to live in.