Hello you savages. Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/ Here's the timestamps: 00:00 Why Mads’ Activism Caused Trouble 05:59 The Stats That Caught Mads’ Attention 09:23 Why is a Declining Birth Rate a Bad Thing? 23:51 Is Mads the Vanguard of This Issue? 27:01 The Global Issues Causing a Birth Rate Crisis 39:09 Do Men Need to Change & Improve? 47:42 How Society Can Help Elevate Men 57:07 How to Improve Our Mating Ideology 1:02:31 The Actual Reasons Why People Aren’t Having Kids 1:08:09 Opposition to Mads’ Work 1:19:01 Where to Find Mads
Great interview, you are right up there with Rogan in my opinion. This is behavioral sink, this is a death of purpose, leading to self worship and entropy. We must diagnose this psychosis and find out how to help people and bring more life into this world.
I was born in NYC in '91 and grew up surrounded by cousins and kids in the parks. Now, as a mother of three, it’s striking how different things are. Most of my female cousins aren’t having kids, and my best friends either can’t afford to or don’t want to in today’s environment-even though they’d make amazing parents. After moving to CA, I rarely see mothers my age, and parks often feel empty. The concept of 'a village' feels obsolete. Motherhood today is incredibly isolating and nearly impossible without financial privilege.
Undervslued reason women are more inclined to folow into the footssteps of friends or slightly over women if theyre not having kids they dont aspire to either coz it looks like ur gonna miss out on what they have
@@searose6192 how old r u and how many children have you had? Because everyone in my generation thinks having children is unattainable due to cost of living.
Animals in captivity often breed less due to stress, limited space, disrupted social structures, and unnatural environments. Poor diet or health issues can also impact fertility.
Our society is a worse rat-race than many of the vocal social critics in the 80's could have foreseen. Social media has definitely made us unsocial and purchasing power for the individual consumer is going down the drain. Salaries/wages are stagnant and housing prices and the cost of daily products and services just keep going up. Combine this with an ever-present sense of impending chaos and doom with the economy and you have a terrible mess on your hands.
I was just thinking about this the other day-- most of our issues come from legal and social systems (and elites running all that) trying to tame us into submission in increasingly tinier spaces and lives like we are factory-farmed chickens. And we wonder why we all feel like crap, some folks start acting out like a tiger pacing in its cage, why many of us are sad like animals out of their native environment in a small box, and why we all seem to succumb to illnesses our great-grandparents never saw? We are like zoo animals being kept in small cages being fed the wrong food because it's cheap... only we have to work to keep our cage!
The biggest problem is the world-view that has been stripped away - the biblical world-view. The general world-view *can* exist without a true belief, such as in the 1980s, and, IMO, that would make society happier.
You didnt listen to single thing said by the person who actually studies this. The natural tendency of women does not match to evenly distributed pair bonding..... They either want to get the top ten percent of men or have nothing....
@@neondystopian This shows how children can be a disadvantage for woman. They risk to be held back by responsibility for the children. For woman its emotionally very difficult to give over the children to the father if they are divorced.
@@inglin4895 the risk is enormous for women. I get that. I stay convinced that it's mostly a men problem: not reliable enough, persuaded that they will just have to snap their fingers to find a fertile woman if they want children age 45, extremely picky when it comes to long term relationships, not willing to do their part at home. Unpopular opinion: it's really into men's hands.
I actually had women tell me i was selfish for being straight forward and ending any relationship that would have meant i needed to have children, either because they already had them, or because the bird i was dating was saying it was a requirement for her in her future. Never wanted to have kids of my own, never mind look after someone else's.
I've always thought that its ironic that the same entities that have cause the decline in quality of life across the board are the same that seem to show "concern" that people are slowly but steadily having less and less children. Housing is a nightmare, inflation is through the roof, healthcare is abysmal. You always seem to be working the same, sometimes more hours yet you can only afford less, life is filled with stressants and uncertainty and yet governments and corporations seem dumbfounded by the lowering birthrates, only concerned because their pool of cheap labor and tax slaves diminishes year by year.
UK here - if you and your missus can barely make the rent, then you're unlikely to procreate. That is what is happening around our way - the rental market is ridiculously overpriced and undersupplied. Also, poverty is a massive indicator of poor health, mental health and educational outcomes - this isn't news, so why would you bring children into that? We live in an era of 'maximise this', 'optimise that' and everyone is trying to squeeze the pips out of everyone else to make bank. In this situation is it any wonder that people aren't breeding? The west needs to rediscover the concept of 'enough', both consumers and businesses. You reap what you sow.
If cost of living was the issue, humans would have gone extinct centuries ago. Society is much richer today, than it was just 20 years ago. And we are exponentially wealthier than we were 100 years ago. The finances conclusion just doesn't make sense. Birth rates DECLINE as countries become wealthier... Poorer countries today (e.g., SE Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) have higher birth rates compared to wealthier western countries. I challenge you to find ONE country that has growing economies (not hard to find... Growth rates are relatively high in SE Asia) and also has increasing or even stable birth rates.
I’m Norwegian electrician, make 77grand a year, my wife makes also good money. And we can’t afford 2nd child. The bank make minus -120.000,- in our loan capacity per child. So the Norwegian state punishes us if we have children. If we have 3 children, it will be impossible to have a place to live.
That's why they impregnate captive animals via artificial insemination to force them to reproduce. Most of us are merely products, machinery, commodities, and units of capital in the eyes of those who exploit and profit off of us. If our population declines to much, the matrix will break down. If we don't reproduce voluntarily, they will find ways to coerce us (or deceive us).
Oh please don't take me for a moron, the collapse of births happened well before people could not afford a house on one salary, it happened in the 60s and 70s. What coincides with those decades then? Using contraceptives and abortion as a contraceptives, that's why you don't have children, it's not because of money.
As a guy in his 30s now, I feel like I spent my youth surrounded by people who decided they didnt want to sow their crops and now are shocked there’s no food to harvest. It’s becoming increasingly hard to care.
Was with several girlfriends that I expressed I wanted kids with in my 20s, very open and honest about it. They all agreed, but then they prioritize career over kids, and I have to leave the relationship because I realize their time table is decades in the future if ever.
@@koy540 Definitely an issue on both sides. Most boyfriends I had either 1. weren't interested in/didn't believe in marriage 2. didn't want to have kids 3. wanted to have kids but only *after* the age of 30. A lot of women I know have experienced this, as well as men whom I'm friends with. Then there's the opposite issue. I have a few friends who don't want to get married/have kids and they seem to only end up on dates with people who do. Then you get the people who lie about their intentions because they think they can convince you to have/not have kids or get married/not get married. It would be far better if they'd just be honest. All this makes it so much harder to find a partner to settle down with because you don't know if the person you're with actually shares your life goals.
Perfect analogy. People say rome is not built in a day, but same people want riches and generational wealth without having to prove that they are worth it.
@koy540 why not only enter relationship with someone of the same mindset as you? You seem to be dating successful women and hoping to they'll change instead of finding a similar mind.
I think a core piece of this is that our society has largely reduced the value of a child. TV shows and movies are mostly adults living in apartments with no children. A child is viewed as something that you should have AFTER doing everything else you want to do (travel, have a career, etc). An unexpected pregnancy is looked at as something that will ruin your life. The unsaid thing about all of these aspects of our culture is that a child is not a positive thing. It gets in the way of ME. My hopes, my dreams, my wants, my fun. If I have a kid, I’m not the most important person in my life anymore. We’ve built a narcissistic society that simply doesn’t value children. Thats not an easy thing to fix.
I don't think this is wrong but watch the video as this looks at women not able to have as many children as they would like to have and the spiral this leads to culturally. Like all these one theme podcasts it over-focuses on one aspect of the issue but one not being considered at all so worth discussing.
I agree but it's not only narcissism. Society makes it prohibitive to have and raise kids. People watch the news and see what happens to kids and families and they thank God they don't have any. Pretty sad.
I think you are missing one point - in ancient times kids where your pension. Nowadays your pension depends on taxes you pay to government... But having kids reduces this tax amount so kids are effectively downgrading your life level not just short term but long term as well... From government point of view kids also are pure expenses... Its much cheaper to import workforce from abroad. And thats what they are doing in West.
In the last little while, the subject of children came up in 2 different conversations. The first was a man in his 30's who asked me, after I proudly said that I had 2 children: "Were you not concerned about having children in such a broken world?" I paused and asked myself if he was accusing me of being irresponsible. Well, I was in love, which leads to wanting to give life and I believe in the future. What a sad way to look at life he has. The second, a woman in her 30's as well, asked me basically the same question. I think young people have lost faith and hope in the future. Every generation obviously has its challenges.
The world as a whole is better now (materially) than it ever has been, and even the first world is much better off than any time in the past until about 1960. Poverty isn't the cause of low birth rates, materialism is. People would rather keep their time and money for themselves than share it with a child.
@Mike-br8zt A big part of the problem is that a lot of men don't know how to pick a good partner. They overestimate a woman's looks as an indicator of a suitable partner. The men we know who have been married the longest aren't married to models. People generally also tend to pick partners based on their feelings, which change from day to day. Whereas marriage and commitment is a choice and not a feeling. This is missing from a lot of the conversation. There's actually a male therapist out there who tells men to pursue more average looking women and to give attraction time to develop. But how many men do you think are willing to do that?
@@emilyl6746 What are you talking about? Do you really think most men even have the ability to chose between partners? Most have the chance to be with a few woman in their league over their whole lifespan at best. Either they pick them or they end up with noone.
This conversation will NEVER be discussed, because the lawyers the courts and the women get paid, the only loser is the men, and unfortunately noone cares, between feminism and divorce courts, men are terrified of marriage
@@giveitatry951It's always about blaming men and women not taking any responsibility for their own actions and shaming other women or changing ANY of the clearly insane laws around marriage and children.
The data shows it isnt all women having less kids. Its a certain subset of women have no kids. Perhaps those women are toxic. Perhaps those women are just focused on other things. But in many nations, like Japan, its a case of women not having any kids at all. I dont think there is a universal answer as to the why. In each country its different. But the underlying issue is the same. Women being treated the same as men always seems to lead to this end. Irrespective of cultures. It happend in Rome, it happened in Greece. It even happened in Persia. Every place women are made equal to men ALWAYS has a catastrophic effect on birth rates. Always.
Why wasn't mass immigration mentioned in this discussion? It is the essential stop gap governments use to negate low fertility. As long as high immigration is incentivised, collapsing birth rates will remain a non issue for economic policy makers.
It also just makes the issue worse. Now there's another reason for people not to want to have kids. They don't feel it's safe because of all the violence and drugs being sold around the playgrounds where kids used to play. Kids have been shot and killed because they ended up in the crossfire of rivaling gangs. A father was shot to death in front of his son when they were out walking, by a group of young criminals loitering in the area. Horrifying, unprovoked and deliberate attacks against kids have also happened in better areas, now there's even a new term called "humiliation robberies". I can't go into details of such cases here, but things like this don't exactly encourage people to want to have kids.
did you consider cultural gaps, racism, etc? it's not a long term solutions. The problem is the current system needs to be fixed, but we need to find the root cause first. Otherwise, the results will be the same.
Men are also checking out of relationships due to the cost of divorce , men's wages are stagnant and men's education have fallen .. everything needs to be addressed
@@kdeulerIm apalled just how these podcasts dont discuss how society functions only for rich They are becoming like msm Ppl dont realise this podcasts are not alternative to mom They are becoming msm slowly but surely
Cost of living makes having a child financially difficult. Society is structured to break apart communities, making raising kids more socially difficult and effort intensive. Social media makes young people feel like they could get more attractive/higher status mates than reality, making long term commitment difficult.
the problem is cities are owned by billionaires gamblers and jobs are only on these crappy places just diversify and cut off trade with China and all things suddenly come back to normal
Weird enough Norway has fantastic support for having lot og kids. Even for single mothers. So finances here is not so important: THEY STILL DO NOT HAS MORE CHILDREN
a lot of cost-of-living issues are self inflicted, at least in the US. The big house, overly-expensive cars, an RV, etc. Too many people live way above their means.
I think all these things are not by accident. It is the stated goal of the global power elite to drastically lower the population. They set things up in certain ways to make this a reality.
We have six kids, my husband and I both wanted to have a big family. The hardest part is honestly the judgment from other people. Our kids are all healthy and normal with no behavioral issues but bringing them all out of the house together gets literal glares and rude comments from people (some are kind) almost like disgust from the majority of people. It’s a different world than when I was a kid.
6 is awesome! That's so weird they throw you shade. I guess they are part jealous, and other part in a death cult that demands they sacrifice their bloodlines to Baal. Ugh.
My wife and I have four kids and I am very happy and proud about it. We moved from Oklahoma to Seattle, WA area (feminist/atheist) stronghold. After that I began to notice the same thing. Then I began to connect the climate alarmism with the attitude.
I had 3 kids and when they started school I strarted working outside home. What I noticed was that my colegues that had no kids could work more freely than the ones that had them so, it was much easy for them to get promoted. If you have kids you have responsabilities that divides you and make you feel bad inside. If you have kids you have to have a bigger house, you spend much more money than the people that have no kids, if you have no kids you can buy clothes, you can go to the hairdresser, you can even buy a car and go out. So, since we live in a society that really does not apreciate or respect motherhood, why should we have kids? We are not infertile, we take the pill.
@@watamuthawhat she is saying is that today's society values work more than family (I would add that feminism is probably the biggest force pushing this value system) so it is hard to expect most people going the family route
@@jahmalbaptiste9915 I dont think society values it more, I think most people do. I say that bc I dont care abt any of that stuff. But I really blame Boomers more for that. They pushed this individualist culture way too far. Also we used to have a culture that supported youth, now it supports the old.
@@jahmalbaptiste9915who the hell wants to be tied down to kids and be broke? Lose their identity and autonomy? There’s no village, people don’t build relationships with each other to even have a support system. Work is the only support system in this hyper individualized society. people who want families are people who don’t have friends. especially the man.
This is an amazing example of cognitive dissonance. One the one hand he states that Norway has created one of the very best societies in the world, then goes on to say that this society is heading for extinction. A society that destroys itself is not a good society, even though you may feel good in it.
Indeed. He also repeats over and over how "abolishing women's freedoms would be a bad thing that nobody wants", even though it is clear that said freedoms are the cause of civilizational collapse.
Thank you !!! It’s like saying “ my diet is making me obese & sick, I recognize that, and talk about eating healthy, but will not advocate for actually doing it.”
@@viggotannhauser7251 Well that isn't quite clear. South Korea has far less women's freedoms and half the birth rate. The gap between men and women's expectations might be more crucial. So making men more feminist and women less.
Haha that's so true. What a deranged take. If you're people are heading towards extinction, get off your comfortable sofas and fix the freaking problem!!
A major point to discuss more on this issue is status. The ideal nowadays is to be successful in a career endevour and make lots of money. Women play a unique role in family life by being the heavy lifters of childbirth and care, but this is seen as a lesser position to fill it seems, especially if you choose to be a stay at home mom who works on family oriented things full time. Its like you're settling for a lesser life than the career woman who skips out on having kids and goes off to girlboss her way up the economic latter. Its a value thing, we just dont value family as much as we value status and money. And the financial landscape being hellish for young people right now only drives that ideal even harder as its getting more and more difficult to make enough money to live. Having kids is seen as an unnecessary financial burden to an already difficult situation. Im norwegian and my mom was a stay at home mom. She made our childhoods incredible with all the things she did for us, but I remember clearly how she was looked down on by working moms for staying home. Our culture simply doesnt appreciate things that are not exchanged for money. Taking care of your kids? Nah. Paying someone else to care for your kids while you work? Absolutely!
That’s one way of stigmatisation. Our household is me working full time and my wife is part time. A part time ED nurse who is quite fantastic at her job. It doesn’t hurt our son to see us both working. The modern economy and societal needs can easily accommodate all sorts of ways of working while parenting I even hear working from home is a thing now….
I think this is very true, as a hous3wife myself, I got a lot of pushback when I said I wanted to do this and got a lot of comments on how I was basically wasting my potential and also that I was setting myself up to be in a position to be abus3d or that if something happened to my husband I would be S.O.L. lots of fear mongering about him either kicking the bucket or finding someone on the side and my having to put up with it etc...even though I know that's not my husband it gave me so much stress. So young ladies who consider this get a lot of negative feedback.
@MC-ze8wj Exactly, "wasting your potential". For what, slaving for a corporation that can replace you at any moment? No hate to people who love their jobs, but taking care of your family has its own reward that is not measured in money. Good on you for sticking to what is right for you, Im sure you are a blessing to your loved ones.
I’m a fan of SAHM’s and would want to be one, because I used to be a teacher and the children of invested SAHM’s get the best results. Sad that your mum was judged by other women, but great that she experienced the judgment and did it anyway. Likely her efforts produced healthy stable outcomes. ❤
This guy is so calm with people attack him personally and professionally. He has an amazing attitude of indifference and thinks it’s at least good people are talking about it.
He's a little tone deaf to why folks react negatively to his approach, which sounds academic, but is actually divorced from lived reality. The problem is both cultural and economic. Cultural, meaning the impact of technology on the population's social lives.
He isn't tone deaf. As a society we have put the brakes on male hypergamy to all but a select few and have fully pressed the gas pedal to the floor on female hypergamy with predictable results. The results being all the women select the top tier men and get burned by them . When women are ready to settle down they are at the very end of their fertility . The men she settles for aren't attractive to her and if she gets into a marriage she makes life a living hell for that unlucky S.O.B. with marital strife and divorce. Men cannot fix this , women won't fix this and nothing will change. Men have accepted this and have quietly walked away without anger just quiet acceptance of how things are .
I had my first child with my wife 8 years ago and since we have had two more. These 8 years have been the best of my life. I firmly believe that having children is the greatest thing you can do in your life.
For you. What is true for you would not be true for me. And there needs to be room for both. A question, do you actually take care of the kids and house, or do you leave it mostly to your wife? You don't need to answer me, but I do want you to think about it. A lot of the time men think that having children is a joy, a wonderful thing, because most of the actual work is being done by their wife. I am not saying this is the case with you, mind (I don't know you). Just that it is something worth taking a moment every so often and examining. Have a good day.
May be anecdotal but I find it’s usually men who talk like this. Ya’ll can’t even have children and most of you don’t make any real sacrifices or put in a substantial amount of effort into raising children. Certainly not compared to mothers. So you aren’t really qualified to tell anyone, especially women how “great” this is or if it’s worth the risks and downsides bc you don’t experience those risks and downsides in the first place.
@@MirrimBlackfox I think you’re correct in some respects. It’s true not all people should be parents. I’ve seen terrible mothers and fathers. It’s goes both ways. People that divide humans by gender lines are idiots. We are not all robots that think the same way. I’ve always tried to be as big a part as possible in my kids lives because I love spending time with them. Im always the one running around with them playing games at the park. I don’t sit there on my phone like a lot of other parents. My mother told me to cherish every moment because before you know it they grow up. Of course it’s not easy but the joy far outweighs the effort. I always tell my wife how lucky we are to have three beautiful and healthy children. To answer your question my wife does most of the cooking as shes an excellent cook. I do most of the cleaning and other tasks around the house. I work for myself so I’m able to get the kids up on the morning. And ready for daycare/school. Of course I’m not perfect and neither is my wife. But we work as a team and support each other. We make mistakes but we acknowledge them.
I keep pointing out to my husband the lack of children we see when we are out in public. We used to see strollers everywhere, not anymore. There are no "portable classrooms" anymore. There are hardly any children in parks anymore. It is very disturbing. I only have 2 grandchildren and it is unlikely I will have anymore. If societies want children, families have to be supported. Until governments and these shortsighted corporations see that no customers means no tax base or no profits, things will continue on in this ridiculous fashion.
Idk. I went to the zoo this last spring and it seemed like every other woman I saw was pregnant. They were mostly older women tho. Over 30 but they also had a brood with them already too
My parents are some of the youngest baby boomers. They spend $200 PER MONTH on satellite tv. Plus subscriptions for prime, netflix, etc. I have no idea how much money they spend on booze, going out to eat, etc, but by the amount the do it, it must be several hundred a month. They blow EVERY MONTH what my mortgage is. Parents used to build wealth for their children to inherit and continue building. I worked as an electricians help for several years. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE we went to that had an older woman in it wad FILLED with useless decorations. Parents stopped caring about building their children.
You need to plan for your own retirement. Don’t rely on your parents; and if they leave you anything be grateful. Basically no one is going to save you; save yourself
I'm one of those single women, and I can tell you, my parents left me NOTHING--but they did provide money for college. I worked my ass off and didn't have enough income for a family, or vacations--or to buy a house til I was 60. Anyone who thinks they're entitled to inherit ANYTHING material IS the problem. Get out there and do it yourself.
Fr. I did the math and it would cost me $2,000+ for daycare, car payment and insurance a month if I got a job before I even got out the door. That’s why I’m a sahm lol
I think he loses me when he attributes the lack of partners to evolutionary biology. By losing me I mean I am not persuaded by his argument. The declining birth rates are due to choices based upon faulty worldviews imho. They match the evolution of bad ideas that track with the rise of feminism, the pill, rise in divorce, rejection of religious values among other things and they are leading to civilizational suicide. Any worldview that leads to civilizational suicide should be questioned and its assumptions challenged. I am not expecting my views on this to be popular.
I am 62 and have three grown children, and the many young women I have talked to about this have told me that they really think they can wait until they're late thirties or forties to have children. They are so wrong. Maybe they'll get lucky but they probably won't. Total ignorance as to their biology
💯 I have some family members in their twenties who say they won't marry until 30 then have kids at 35. I hope it works out for them, but infertility is brutal and far more likely in mid to late thirties.
Simpliest answer: money. All these single/childless people aren't driving around in lamborghinis and living their best life. They can't have kids because it's financially impossible for most. If anyone needs proof, look up the average incomes and then look up the average price of a family home in the respective area. You'll have your answer by doing basic match. Really the question should be split into two because there's two completely different things going on. 1. What is the reason why wealthy people don't have enough kids, 2. What is the reason the other 93% of the population are not having enough kids.
I have 13 cousins, and I am one of three children myself. My son and daughter only have 2 cousins, and we would be commiting financial suicide if we have another child. This shows the drop in population from our generation to the next. Childcare cost is double our mortgage a month, and that is with one grandparent helping out twice a week. Wages have not increased in real terms with inflation for decades so we are working just as hard or harder for less. Animals will delay reproducing if the environmental conditions are not good enough to support offspring, many animals like deer will re-absord the fetus if only enough resources are available to sustain the mother alone. Humans are no different, if no surplus funds or resources are available, they will put off having children. This is all about big business manipulating the labour markets and wages, also people are now being denied property ownership as the costs are too high??!!! If people have no stability they will never take the risk of being destitute with a baby. The jobs market is also highly unstable, many people have no stable income or even a long term place to live.
This is hilarious. A person in 2024, living in the developed part of the world, comparing themselves to starving deer to demonstrate just how bad the situation is for having children. You have to stop comparing yourself to your parents and grandparents. They were living during the golden age that was an anomaly and will probably not repeat ever again. I don't have anything against anti-natalism, but it irks me to no end that people can't recognize that it is actually our expectations and our lifestyle that are the problem. We have set the bar too high, which will ironically lead to the economy dropping further, and people will only start having more children when the entire system collapses and dictatorship just start coercing people into having children.
@@julius43461 my grandfather was born during the depression, into a family of 7. He worked as did his brothers at a young age to help support the family. See, the economy was horrible, yet children could help produve a surplus. This is quite the opposite post ww2, since children could no longer work at a young age unless under an apprenticeship. Therefore children started to become a burden. The reality is that child labor is a contributing factor that people fail to see. Call it slavery (in some cases very true) but these kids ended up with valuable skills, confidence and maturity, humility, and often times decent pay once their apprenticeship was compleete. Most children started work at 13 for most of human history until the 1930s when that was completely phased out, although the process had been happening slowly across the industrialized nations since the 1890's.
My friend, you should be looking into government policy as the primary cause of the CoL crisis. While I agree big business can manipulate the market to some degree, it only does so by capturing regulators and then using the government to prevent competitors from joining the market. In other words, it is almost always state policies and regulations (e.g., restrictions in new housing development) that create artificially high costs and reduce the spending power of your currency (e.g., inflation is caused directly by the printing of money, and nothing else!). As a fellow sufferer of CoL increases, we must direct our energy towards the correct perpetrators.
@@nk53nxg pretty silly to say humans are like deer and don’t produce offspring when resources are scarce. Deer do that naturally, humans where condoms, use birth control and have abortions. We are nothing like deer.
Off the top of my head, I can think of eight women I know who have raised children while sacrificing career and income. In each case their relationship with their husbands/partner broke down and now these women are spending their middle/older ages living in poverty as they have failed to build up enough superannuation that comes from having a career. In a society where the family unit is no longer valued and divorce/separation is so prevalent, it's probably advisable for women to avoid having children.
@@h8h215 Two of them were victims of domestic violence, one of them left because her husband gambled. Another two, their husband/partner cheated (one husband running off with a younger woman, the other just left). Another one, the partner died of an illness. One woman left her husband because she wasn't happy (probably mid-life menopause crisis). The women weren't perfect, nor were their husbands.
A lot of my female relatives have a ton of kids and when their relationship breaks down, they move to a new boyfriend or husband to have more kids. Their solution is find a new man to pay for everything. We’ll see how it goes for them age 40 and 50 and up. Maybe the kids will take care of them
i cant say what all women are looking for, but i found my partner (not only because we hit it off), but after a period where I was totally uninterested in giving men a chance to date me unless they were respectful...he reached out, and on our first date he showed interest in listening to me, learning about me, and did not even try to come home with me or kiss as we left...after negative experiences from dating and online dating, i decided to stop altogether, and someone worthy finally reached out again and it worked out. we're now married and expecting our first. wish us luck!
I wish the best for your family,i understand not dating, I'm a man that's been treated wrong in relationships to where I'm not looking because I'd rather be happy by myself than miserable with someone. If someone special comes along,great,if not I'm ok with that also
so after the chads you went celibate and have now snagged a provider good for you i guess but will this really last the statistics say you will most likely divorce him down the line dont get me wrong i wish you luck i am just not holding my breath because if have seen this movie time and time again
On my end it is I can't find a partner, the ones I was interested in were either taken or not interested and those interested in me didn't meet my standards. Considering going across seas at this point.
The needle will not move in any significant way until single income households is possible again. I know many young couples where the wife WANTS to be a stay at home mother, but it's simply impossible unless the husband on their own is making $200k per year (Canada). A decent home adequate to raise children anywhere close to civilization is over $1 million dollars (Canada). Guess how many people make $200k or more in Canada? Less than 2%. Doubt the numbers? $1.2mil home mortage at 4% interest, assuming you have 20% downpayment (most don't even have that), comes to $6400 per month for mortage, tax, utilities. $200k income per year, you take home $130k, you're left with less than $11k per month, and just for the home alone is 60% of your income. You're left with $4400 per month. Sounds comfortable? Average cost to raise a child in Canada is $1500 per month. Have two kids and add transportation costs, you're left with nothing to save. People like financial security. Living paycheck to paycheck does not motivate people to have children. This is best case scenario, I mentioned 1 person making $200 per year which is less than 2% of the population. Maybe a two person income can do it? People who make $100k per year or higher is 5% of the population. Average income in Canada is $65k per year. In this case, the average couple in Canada making the average income, literally cannot have children and a home to raise them. Gee, I wonder why people aren't having kids. Maybe it's because it's literally impossible. Is it possible the government could be this blind? Doubtful. It's obvious this is by design.
Ban all forms of birth control and abortion and watch the birth rate rise. And yes, government has that power. Haha, just look at Iran's population growth pre and post Islamic revolution.
See: population of Iran 1960 to 2020. Government CAN solve this entire problem, you just don't want to hear what the solution is (taking all freedom away from women).
@@eustacemcgoodboy9702 we're talking about fertility rate though. Iran is at near it's lowest birth rate in history. it was slightly lower in 2008 but it is falling again currently. by your logic removing women rights actually made the birth rate worse in Iran.
Basic economics, increase supply and the price decreases. The labour market supply has virtually doubled so the prices have relatively decreased. Now it takes two incomes to buy a house, pay the rent, have a family. Men and women likely see it as hard to have a family when both parents have to work.
Thats not why, executive pay is 100 times what it was. Also, more businesses are on the stockmarket meaning they need to produce earnings to pay investors instead of investing in their workers or keeping prices low. Last the taxes on the lower and middle class has increased; as have the prices of housing, education and everything else we need. Its greed, not women in the workforce.
We should also be talking about the overuse of endocrine disrupters in most products. It has a negative effect on fertility and we should do more to stop the use of these unecessary chemicals in products
look up how birth control works. It literally fills your body with progesterone to trick it into thinking it's already released an egg and it's been fertilized. This suppresses your desire for sex as agajn your body thinks that's already happened. There's NUMEROUS studies that show women find different things attractive on and off BC, and that they prefer more effeminate men when on BC (because they aren't a "threat" to the baby) and more masculine men when off BC. This doesn't only effect women either. Testosterone is a reactive hormone, so the male body produces more or less determined by environmental factors. And because almost every woman between the age of 13 and 45 now days is taking BC 24/7/365 we've actually noticed measurable amounts of progesterone in the water supply from women urinating out the massive excess. This gets in the men and causes them to produce less testosterone. Leading to the "why aren't men like they used to be" "wheres the real men" effect. The lack of testosterone makes men more obese, more irritable and agitated. Hormonal birth control is poisoning men and women
What percentage of the population collapse is due to people having the funds and support system to have children but can’t due to infertility? I understand your stance and agree that man-made foods and products are harmful but this variable by itself only impacts a small minority of people, people who usually wait far too long to try and have children.
@hennyindacup yea I'd say that choice is the primary driver behind this rather than infertility. We have data from every country on earth that shows that as the country becomes richer and more "equal" the birthrate always plummets.
@@hennyindacup I don’t know the statistics on that but it’s a no brainer that we shouldn’t have products that ruin people fertility and make them sick. Of course fertility issues is only one part of the equation but if a lot of people struggle to find a partner before they reach their 30’s then it’s a pretty bad idea to have so many products that decrease fertility when it’s already a Challenge because of age
@@Patson20 even so, fertility is still an important issue that we should ALSO make changes to improve. It’s not a competition, rather we want to make changes that improve all aspects. It’s truly sad that a significant amount of couples who actually want to have babies are struggling to get pregnant
I waited 56 Minutes for Mads to say it - we men are not giving our power/resources to women directly any more, but government takes it and gives it to women. And the legislation is getting worse by the year! Who got the oil out of the Norwegian sea and thereby created the wealthiest state in Europe? It was men.
Though in a lot of countries we've had decades of deindustrialization. That's produced a lot of men who no longer can find the type of jobs that they used to do. So it's kind of shifted. Higher income women are now subsidizing men on the dole who piss away what aid they get on gambling and their time on video games, all while refusing to adapt to a changing economy. In quite a few countries, women now have higher labor force participation rates than men in various regions and demographics.
I'll come out and say what he hints at but doesn't quite say. Throughout human history, women never actually wanted or liked most men (yes I know there were always gigachads), they just needed the resources men provided. When countries give women the right to decide whether or not to have children, they generally choose not to. There's nothing wrong with that, it's their choice and we can't make them like us. Men and society just have to accept that reality. Creating new ways for women to meet average men isn't going to make them attracted to those men.
That's such a grim assessment but I'm not sure it's wrong. I think modern culture has really exacerbated this, and Christian culture mitigated this. Also, I don't want a young trophy wife, I want an intelligent companion who treats me like a human being and has family aspirations. Materialism and nihilism are the fault here. And it suggests you have to culturally cultivate love and family.
I'm 48 and have six children and in the UK. I left school at 16 and met my wife at work at 18. First four children before 30 then a couple of didn't try hard enough not too afterwards. How is that possible? We accessed the property market in the mid-late 90s when property was at its cheapest following the 89/90 property crash. To put in perspective, 3 properties were on the market for a total cost which is now one third of the cost of just one of those same houses (we bought the house in the middle). Same should've happened on 07/08 meaning this generation missed getting a homes at a reasonable value. Now this is the difficult one. I live opposite my in-laws (and have done so for 27 years). Free child care. I was amazed speaking to another father who explained their child care costs were like another mortgage. Our holidays have been camping and not going abroad. There is quite a bit of guilt for the children having to share bedrooms. My biggest fear, given if i were my children's age, this would never happen now, is that I will have fewer grandchildren than children. Sadly different parts of society will need to feel pain for this issue to be resolved, there are too many workers depressing wages. A labour shortage will put up wages meaning higher cost of living for mine and older generations, but if a home and a family becomes a genuine hope for young people, they will make babies.
In Asia, where I spent a few decades, multi-generational households are the norm. As I'm sure you'd agree, the benefits go far beyond just free child care. Instead of being "warehoused" in nursing homes, the elderly are cared for by family, allowing much deeper connections to develop across the generations. I agree, eventually this infertility problem will resolve itself. Just as, in the natural environment, populations adjust to the availability of resources. It stands to reason that at some point our population decline will make large families viable again. It's just a question of how far we have to go down that path before we recover, and start increasing our population again.
you, my friend sound like an American. People in Europe look down on Americans because several Americans don't have passports. one our country is big enough that we have a lot to see we don't need to leave our country. Two people have larger families here and it’s hard to travel abroad.
He says the fertility rate in Norway is 1.4 births per woman. What he's not adding (because of the incendiary nature of it) is that if you're talking about the white/native population there, that rate is probably even lower, and the Muslims they've imported are probably doing just fine with their birthrate.
I am 81. I paid my house off when I was 33 because I was extremely frugal !. i drove my 13-year-old car to work, holding my nose because the exhaust came into the car. I used light bulbs only in my house for the first five years. - you get the idea. I don't even recognize the country that I was born in! For starters, we must make it illegal for corporations to buy up ANY kind of housing whether it be trailer parks or condos. Secondly, we must get rid of this ridiculous intensification idea. Save the good land - yes, but much of the land south of Hamilton, for example, is just marginal and yet we have the city council preventing the expansion of city boundaries. This drives up the cost of housing and as a result, almost no houses were build this year in Hamilton - a city of 615 000.. We are NOT the Netherlands with no land!!!! Thirdly, we must decentralize the large cities in Canada. For example, move the Ontario government out of Toronto and spread the jobs all across Ontario. Move health to Hamilton, finance to London etc. Encourage / force big companies locate head offices in Sarnia or Brandon to give these places a good economic foundation.. There are a lot of things that we could do but won't until Canada is destitute because big business wants it this way. In the end, they will also go bankrupt as there will be no buyers. This is a little off topic but in order to have children, we need cheap housing. We need to go back 100 years when we had settlers who built their own houses and grew most of their own food. Most countries, Norway included, have a lot of excess land where new cheap cities could be built - no sewers but septic systems. People need around a hectare of land. Children must again be an asset. They must hoe the gardens, raise the chickens, help dad shingle the roof or build another room onto the house as I did when I was 11. We never worried about building inspectors. Our houses are gone now but served their purpose 60 - 80 years ago. You should study why our Dutch immigrants have around 10 children. They all have jobs to do at an early age. They live in the country and not in horrible places like Toronto. If you want children, you have to decentralize out of big cities.
1:18, "In Norway women would like to have 2.4 children". Not sure how this survey was conducted, but don't get your hopes up. Normally the way this is asked, people will essentially respond with "In ideal circumstances, I would like to have 2 or 3 children". The thing is, those ideal circumstances will never come for most people. So the fact that they only want 2.4 is one of the best indicators that this can't be fixed with some light incentives.
Even if they did implement extreme measures, I'm not sure it would work. Augustus Caesar tried that and the nobles just worked around the laws. They didn't actually have children, they adopted. Personally, there is nothing you could offer me, even if divorce was impossible and a woman 100% submitted, that I would take most of these women, even if they looked like 10s. I do wonder how many men share the same disgust factor as I do but if it's even 20% it still would be devastating for society.
Exactly. And I'm not sure they examined the reasons why women didn't have the desired amount. They seemed to assume it was external circumstances but maybe they just realised they didn't enjoy it...
@@AngelDeedyou'd be surprised how mundane the reasons are. A lot of women I know stop at 2 or 3 children because it's hard to find a big enough car to fit all the children in, or it makes traveling hard. The biggest barrier to me having a large family is the fact that my family lives 17000km away and it'll be financially impossible to ever visit them. Another reason is that people have children later and it gets more tiring the older you get. Simple as that really
"They only want 2.4" bro do you know how fast brats get traumatised if they decide you haven't given them enought attention and emotilnal availability 💀 3 is already pushing it time-wise.
I think cost of living is the main reason. In the 70’s , a typical blue collar job can bring an average house, a wife staying home, and children. Having children is super costly today. Society is selfish today, materialism way surpasses the desire of family building.
You got it. Housing costs are what is holding people back. Plus, it takes more to set up your kids to succeed, and these days 'succeed' means 'not live in poverty.' I know a family where they decided to have 4 kids, and the mom stayed home. The parents had middle class lives and were college grads. Their kids are now adults, and they work retail. With declines like that happening, you can see why people aren't having kids.
Costs of housing and the terrible state of the housing market is a major issue. You need two well paying jobs to be able to buy anything in the areas that have decent jobs and that are safe and pleasant, where you'd want to have kids. Boomers/others buying to let/Airbnb are a major detrimental factor.
@@billiemunchen A huge problem in the USA is that highly restrictive zoning laws mean that housing cannot adapt to demand. You get big, gigantic suburban homes that have appreciated a lot since they were built. This is good for the current owners who want to sell, but bad for everyone else. And then if you're looking at reliable urban neighborhoods, there's either a similar lack of housing, or the danger of excessive gentrification and a loss of housing stock, if people decide 'let's buy this duplex, knock it down, and then build 1 home with a bigger lawn.'
The modern fascism of stress, medical abuse, bad nutrition, industrial food, environmental pollution, psychological distraction, no purpose in life, narcissistic dispositions, children avoiding society etc. helps everything but fertility or family life.
Yeah, its an anti-human flourishing system right now. And its 100% a choice. We have the abundance and human capital to solve any problem, it's just that we can't because a system that is more and more becoming a death cult keeps driving humanity in the wrong direction!
As a progressive, independent career woman of the 90s, I ended up getting married and quitting my career to have 3 kids. My husband who said he wanted a family and to be the money maker, ended up hating being a husband and father. I was left as a single mother having to completely rebuild my life and find a new career. I found so many women my age went through the same exact thing. Our kids - gen Z - watched fathers abandon their kids and grew up not wanting to get married or have kids, and definitely not want to walk away from career to stay home and take care of kids. We really can’t raise children without one parent being home caretaking and raising kids and maintaining the home and food. 🤷♀️ There is so little trust of women with men in relationship bonding. Who wants to have children when the women know the chance of getting abandoned in the near future is likely. It’s too much of a risk for women and kids
I think it's too easy putting the fault solely on men. Frankly lots of people in my generation don't even want women anymore. Too many expectations, too much guilt for things we didn't do, and nothing we want is acceptable. Might as well leave.
I grew up poor and all but two families that went thru that complex over the years were single mothers, not by choice. It’s so true. The only two that was a drunken father’s the wife wouldn’t leave and the husband to a quadriplegic. We never played house, and none of the kids I grew up with wanted kids. We all had to scale tooth and nail to get out of that poverty, and most never did, and did not want to pass that on.
This is so ludicrous. I thought pretty much everyone knew that WOMEN, not men, initiate 70% of divorces in most Western nations. Most of the risk of desertion actually falls onto men and they also no longer trust women. Regardless of who leaves though, this problem stems from no-fault divorce, which was introduced by the Left to make feminists happy because they viewed marriage as an institution that was oppressive to women. So everyone's lack of security in marriage stems from actions by feminists supposedly to help women.
In my view, the real reasons we arent having kids: 1. Young people have a lot more entertainment and interests than older generations. When I look at people with kids who I know, they have maximum 1 actual hobby, sometimes zero. Most people without kids spend lots of their spare time on multiple hobbies, and do not want to lose that time. Raising kids may be meaningful to some, but its not fun, and its hard work. Many would rather relax and engage with their hobbies instead. 2. The growing divide in values and politics between men and women. Nobody wants to date someone with opposing values, and the more the divide grows, the less people will get together. Less dating means less relationships. Less relationships means less kids. 3. Financially, its not just that people cannot afford to have kids, but they cant afford to have kids without making significant sacrifices to our own comfort. However, it is also true that some people cannot afford to move out of their parents house or out of renting a house share. Nobody wants to raise kids if they cant raise them in their own home.
@@ickster23 There is definitely a strong element of that in points 1 and 3. I think this is a natural development of a world of abundance. Essentially, we are living in mouse utopia.
Thats one of the frustrating things, in these conversations, kids and their well being is rarely taken into serious consideration. Kids are human beings that need more than just some random couple casually giving them birth and the bare basics, what about parent's emotional and mental maturity, what about their financial stability? Without those, the kids are likely to have an adverse childhood and with that long term issues in adulthood, like anxiety, insecurity, depression, trouble completing basic tasks regularly, health issues, addiction (not just drugs but food and alcohol) and so on.
The 1st reason people have fewer children is because women are conditioned / forced into full time jobs during their already small reproductive window, generally between the ages of 20 and 35. So most women spend most of their younger years chasing a lifestyle unfit with family life. You may have two incomes to leverage from but you end up lacking the time, attention, and energies to focus on children. As a society we moved millions of women from domestic roles to career roles, only at the advantage of work productivity. Most women end up earning not enough to hire someone to raise their kids - so economically this trade off does not make sense all things considered. And no, people won’t have kids if they can barely afford them or care for them appropriately. The whole setup now just doesn’t make sense.
While before we were conditioned to be mother's!!!! The main point you made is economic one, where two wage earners are required to rent or buy a house, we have also created the nuclear family meaning the loss of intergenerational care from grandparents. Instead as you rightly point out families now have to pay for child care. Looking after children is just plain hard work, which men all too often do not want to put the effort in to assist and with no close family to help as in the past can make it unbearable. The plain fact many women now want to stay single, have a career and find these pursuits for more enjoyable. The thought of being stuck at home with sleepless nights is not attractive. Stay at home mums are also at the mercy of their partner since they no longer have economics means of their own, a very insecure place when 1 in 4 can suffer physical abuse. Finally women will not take so much shit as they used to. The idea of stay at home mum is a 1950's concept, actual studies show that women in the Victorian era from working class background had to work 12-15 hours a day to make ends meet in such work as domestic service, charwoman, laundress or shirt-maker. The census of 1850 shows hundreds of different occupational titles for women, including married women working in agriculture, artificial flower-making, chemical working, cigar-making, warehouse supervising, the lithograph trade, meat preserving, straw plaiting, manufacturing of food and drink, printing, rabbit fur pulling and even medical galvanising. Not only that the figure may be underestimated due to men who filled in the form did not like to admit their wives worked. So the stay at home mother is myth of ages past and may have been real for just a for a very short period of time in the 1940-1960's and then only mainly the middle classes.
Who forced women into full time jobs? Maybe if we can be honest about that chain of cause and effect there'd be some hope. But nope, nobody wants to talk about that. Not even this podcast.
@@biscottigelato8574 no one. We just wanted to be independent, lead our own lives and have creative jobs of not just having children, in the same way men do.Hence we fought for the vote, equal pay. Sadly, in part, ecomonics has also meant that many women do not have choice.
I blame electric clothes dryers. Really, think about it. Washing clothes used to take all day. Once modern utilities came along women decided they were bored staying home with nothing to do so they flooded into the workforce.
We need to encourage young women to have their families first, then get into career stuff once the children are in school. They'll know themselves more fully then and choose more realistic career paths. Not wrack up student debt on an idea that won't even pay anything. Just my 2 cents.
As a woman living and dating in the western world, I don't want to have to leave my 6 months baby 🤱🏼 in some daycare to go to work 40 hours a day somewhere. Having to work full time and then go home and clean, cook, take care of children with no support from my spouse. 🤷🏾♀️ So as someone dating, yeah I looking at the financially secure, the 20% so I won't have to be in this situation. A man that will provide Support.
It's such a shame. There was a time when most men could support a family. They could get a job right out of high school if they wanted to and take care of a family. Now it's considered a luxury. It's always been this way until around the 1980s, when it became harder and harder to do this. Now it's rare. You are not wrong for wanting this. I feel so sorry for men too, most of whom will probably never get to this point. It's all just so sad.
As a woman in her 40's, let me make this quite clear: Most of us are not going to pop out 2 or 3 babies at this age, especially if we haven't already started creating our own football team. Modern fertility treatments can do a lot, but it's not magic, and it won't make it easier to deal with the demands of an infant once it is born.
I can say you are right but... I had myvfirst at 40, being infertile .. so we tried again and use FIV for the second at 46. Yes, it is hard every day, and not natural, but a great thing to live though...
I think the older ladies need to be telling the younger women not to wait. A career and higher education can be had at any time but children should be had in their early/mid twenties optimally.
Society has so much influence on us. I was told by my granny that I am lazy because i dont want to work.. i have 2 kids - a 3yo and a 10-month-old at home, i was working between them, but now I feel like it is the best for them when i spend some time with them at home. Both my parents and grandparents had a huge family (grandparents) support, which we dont have at all because our parents have their own lives and they still work, the circumstances are just so different, yet i really dont understand why mothers are shamed, i would like to have more kids but i know i would be very criticized for such decision even in my own family..
Have more kids! Don't let your family shame you - that's horrible!! It's a decision for you and your husband. I know I'm never going to look back and wish I'd done more 'work' and had less kids. Yes, it involves a lot of sacrifice, but also a lot of joy and love. I'm about to have my 4th and the reaction from one of my grandfather's was... "Oh..." like he was disappointed I wasn't going back to work!? It was bizarre! I have no regrets. Third child was best decision ever. Looking forward to adding the next soon :)
Tbh, they had support because they earned it. Nowadays, women bully the ones who are supposed to help them take care of their kids (other women) then wonder why they don’t have support. How many times in middle school were you a “mean girl” to a potential ally? I personally love kids and is happy to help moms, yet no good deed goes unpunished so I sit out watching the moms struggle instead. I’ve had moms I’ve given money too to & help with their kids not talk to me over $40 (after I’ve given them the equivalent of thousands- covered schooling costs, childcare, picked up their kids from school etc). This generation of XX’s want to take while being narcissistic and so the “village” decided to let them handle it on their own.
Refocus on creating and maintaining our sense of community and connection to one another would go a long way to reversing our fertility decline. Serving one another, looking after eachother. Having our "tribes". Such an environment of support and love naturally encourages the desire for children to add to the community.
I am a parent, and it’s pretty exhausting because of the changes in society (less social and physical (cars) safety for playing outside by themselves, no neighbourhood children they know due to individualisation, the lure of the screen and bad food environment, no village to raise a child, less and less room and support for diversity in learning styles in overcrowded classrooms mean that the parents need to put a lot of time and effort (or money to make someone else do it) into the upbringing to meet healthy developmental standards. One of my children also needs a lot of medical care on top of that, and I’m very aware we would have been bankrupt if we’d lived in the USA. At the same time the growing percentage of people that don’t have children seem less and less supportive of families and state that they feel they already pay too much and have to pick up too much slack for parents that have to leave work early to take care of sick children etcetera, because those children were ‘their own choice’. Children, and by extension parents, are seen and treated as inconvenient nuisances that disrupt efficient, productive society. People in general seem very judgy, however you choose/manage to shape your family life, and the more sensitive children aren’t exactly thriving in modern society (are any, really?). Seeing for yourself or reading studies about how much problems and stress parents experience is even worse of a deterrent than not seeing anyone with children, imho. I was certainly not overly excited about all the known, lifelong detrimental effects on my body, career and relationship having children would have, and underestimated the mental health toll on top of that. I love my children and am in many ways very privileged and grateful, but we’re also still stuck in survival mode nearly a decade in (as a consequence my children are already convinced that having children is way too much work 😂)…
What kind of society do we have to move towards to get people to want to have kids? That is the big question. Our society is not play oriented, it’s way too serious, Work oriented, depressing, lacking in fun. There’s no time for play, creativity, and having fun. You have to work in order to support a lifestyle. Unless you have a stay at home parent, kids demand a lot of time. People without a comfortable financial status are too stressed to take on kids on top of everything else.
I'm a 39 year old, single, childless woman who very much wanted a family of my own. I have a good career, have started a small homestead, I'm no great beauty but take care of my health. Maybe my standards for a partner are too high but I would rather never have children than become a single mom and I just haven't found a partner who wanted a family and who I felt confident that they would stay with me long-term and I wanted to stay with them long-term. Becoming a single mom would ruin the life I have worked insanely hard to build. I don't have the money for childcare on my own nor would I want some random person spending more time with my kids than I could while I work full-time and I have no family nearby who could help support me with raising a child. Maybe I would have taken a bigger risk with men I've dated in the past if I had some family support, I dunno. But I dont think my situation is that uncommon and I think a big part of the issue is the breakdown of multigenerational families where everyone comes together to help raise children. The vast majority of the responsibilities of raising kids has now fallen on mom and dad, it is no longer 'it takes a village to raise a child' and it's insanely difficult for 1 or 2 people to do it alone. Edited to add: i just finished the video and I'm disappointed they didnt have advice for someone like me on new/unconventional ways of finding a partner because I've tried everything and very open to ideas, lol. At this stage of my life i have very low hopes of finding a partner before conceiving would be very difficult so my plan is to keep working hard, retire early, around 52, and then foster and adopt children when I can be financially secure enough to stay home and raise them right. But if a suitable man suddenly fell into my life tomorrow I'd be willing to give it a go so y'all, please tell me where to find him 😂
You can’t eat your cake and have it too. You have become the partner you are looking for. You wanted financial and sexual power but it comes at a cost. Anyone with both powers is in effect a tyrant and no one healthy likes a tyrant. I don’t know what to tell you darling. This bed is made.
Dear Heather, if you want a good family man, you need to attract him, he's not randomly "falling into your life". And there's nothing more attractive to a good man than a loving and faithful woman, who's not acting too crazy. ;-) Be a lady. Go out places where your preferred character is likely to frequent and make it OBVIOUS you're available with eye contact and smile. Positive motivation is stronger than demands/complaints. Plus you'll feel better, too. (Your 52 plan sounds sad, tired and aimed at more kids without a father figure. Worse than cats. Please don't do that to yourself.) God speed!
@@Martin_137 What makes you think I haven't tried that for the last 2 decades? I'm not stupid or totally socially inept, what you laid out is the traditional advice for women to attract men. Nothing new or revolutionary. Well, some of us just aren't lucky enough or pretty enough to land a quality man when we are young. And it only gets harder and harder as people get established and settled in their lives. I've dated a lot and have had a few multiple year relationships trying to figure out if we can make it work but we ultimately run up against an incompatibility in what we want in life. At this age I'm much more content to just take care of myself and look forward to kids later in life rather than forcing it with someone who is not someone I think would be a good husband and father. I think that would be a much sadder reality than being a cat lady or adoptive mom.
My wife and I married at 35 (both for the first time) and went on to successfully rear our 4 kids in our own home (mortgage paid off and now in our mid-late 60s). We are very much a product of assortative mating (comparable looks, similar interests, similar family of origins, similar earning capacity, similar social history). When we met, through an outdoor group activity, we were both actively looking for a partner to commit to (ie we were getting to know and sounding out potential partners). The stereotype was true though. She was looking for 'commitment' and I was looking for 'sex'. She had got acquainted with more potential partners than me and was 'dating?' a guy when I asked her out. Though she stopped seeing him after our first 'walk and chat'. My wife-to-be sincerely believed I was more accomplished, had more social standing, more intelligence and more 'potential' than her (or the other guy). While, in reality I was 'self-employed', only earning enough to scrape by and had minimal savings. Lesson: meet men where they do stuff, preferably in groups but it doesn't need to be. Get to know them in that context. Preferentially interact with the (single) ones you feel comfortable with in that situation. Move to 'dating' (I initiated) late in the process. If you initiate, don't call it 'dating' but test what physical intimacy feels like with them. A different example, though also assortative mating: A friend of ours married, for her 2nd time, in her eary 40's and had a child at 45. Her first husband was a bit of a chad (good looking, tall, high earner and they had 3 kids) and traded her in for a younger partner. The new husband was a 'gaulky' never married professional guy (she was an ageing though well presented professional). He was/is thrilled with her. That was about 15 years ago and I expect them to stay together for life.
No, he really just understands nuance and complexity without the need to catastrophize and bemoan the fact that civilizations change and run into problems. Which is something you could apprehend if you didn't have an out-of-date, stadial view of history you unknowingly inherited from the 18th century.
@@anastasis-cm5hw I feel that the OP is actually saying the same thing as you. Men don't want to recognise that the modern paradigm is the result of Capitalism and Patriarchy That you cannot separate the two as they're cause and effect, so if Men don't want to grow up and take responsibility, then they shouldn't bemoan the crashing reproduction rates
@anastasis-cm5hw "Out-of-date" is a rather laughable description of highly sustainable reproductive models that have been universal in the development and persistence of humanity since the inception of record-taking. Yet, you claim this model is out-of-date, while all available evidence indicates the contrary. Assuredly, the trajectory of travel of this promiscuous, matriarchal reproductive model will result in self-extinction of these quixotically-minded populations of both the West and East. I wrote a book detailing, amongst other things, the tendency of late-stage empires towards adopting anti-natalist and anti-family reproductive models. It will come as no surprise, but they always fail catastrophically and we see a mean reversion back to arranged-marriage or pair-bonding, along with resuming of patriarchal structures and institutions. Indeed, the only thing different in this iteration of the conceitedly faux "sophisticant", of the intrepidly "modern", is that they now possess viable forms of contraception and termination. Hence, it is rapidly accelerating our collision course with the inevitable. That was 2500 years of history that I covered, with these trends being determinably cyclical. There is nothing new under the Sun, hence it would seem to be you who has the stadial view of history with your "out-of-date" quip. The speaker is milquetoast in his idealistically-driven naivety, but he is right to be terrified of the irreparable prospect of demographic destiny. Comedically, what we will experience as the consequences of our failure to reproduce will be akin to a Time-Machine back to that "out-of-date" past. Huzzah for the critical-path of "progress"!
Taxes, rent, energy and food are about 85% of my income and the percentage has increased over the last 10 years, why would I ever have children. The signals from society that I am not good enough to make it could not be louder
@@danielpye7738 Last 10 years my fixed costs went from about 60% to 85% now, if the next decade is the same it will be above 100%. I am not going to add another being into this
@@danielpye7738 False, my great grand parents, grand parents and parents had a better life. They didn't work the long hours I works nor were their bills and rent as high.
I always wanted kids. I had 3 siblings and wanted at least 3 kids of my own, but we could only manage one. Put $250k in my bank account and I'd have another one right now. Governments could stem the bleeding if they paid women who are already moms to have additional children. SK has proven that money isn't enough of an incentive to go from no kids to kids but it absolutely would work for people who are already parents by choice. My parents had 4 kids in 8 years and had ample help from their parents and siblings. I have lived 2 hours away from my parents for 7 years and they have only bothered to visit once each. The message is received, we're on our own, but it is extremely unnatural and difficult to raise kids in siloed nuclear families.
"Put $250k in my bank account and I'd have another one right now" - doesn't work that way. Have the baby....the money will follow. Trust me on this. I have 11 children (all with one wife, don't worry). Every time we got pregnant, I got a raise, a promotion....money almost fell from the sky. But you have to step out in faith FIRST...then the good things come.
I used a strategy to get married. I dated multiple men at once, was upfront of dating multiple people, refused to have sex before marriage, was upfront about wanting marriage. Lots of guys wanted one night stands. Once they found out I wasn't doing one night stands, they generally refused to call me back. I used this method to avoid the stepping stone girl trap- where a girl dates a guy for 10 years before finding out he was leading her on. Despite using this logical and mathematically sound strategy- I still didn't get married until I was in my 30s. A large portion of guys asking me out- were not interested in marriage. There is a huge pool of guys out there that just want one night stands. It is really hard to go through that haystack to find a guy who wants more. Lots of guys will lie if they think it will get you into bed with them. I don't think the issue is just that women are picky. A very large percentage of men out there just want sex and are willing to lie and manipulate to get it. This makes it very hard to find the good men out there. I also think that most men are chasing the top 1/3 of all women and have little interest in 2/3s of women. We live in a really demanding environment, which pushes up the standards for both men and women. However, due to health issues, politics, and economic issues, quality has decreased and we are all being dragged down. Double whammy. Its a hard world out there peeps.
Where did you find these men? In college? In a workplace? In a sports/music/coding club? Getting involved in healthy hobbies might expose you to many potential partners. It’s important to spend time in productive places - improves our personality and our social circle and we can pick somebody from that social circle if they are compatible.
I think you've made a false assumption. Many people are not interested in marrying someone they haven't had sex with. What if its unpleasant? What if that person doesn't actually like sex? Since sex is important to most people, this could be a disastrous situation. Its like buying a house from a picture, without visiting and experiencing it. So when a woman says no sex before marriage, she gets crossed off the list.
@ Such men r huge red flags. What if he has dangerous diseases? That could be a huge disaster as well. Any kind of protection is not 100% fail proof, so why risk your health to impress some random person. Personally I feel “some activities” should be contained inside a marriage OR at least a very very serious relationship. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, I don’t care.
One thing I recall from being a new mom was that 6wks of maternity leave felt very short. I actually was placed on bed rest the last week of my pregnancy so instead of 6 weeks off work after my son was born I only had 5 weeks. I think a lot of young people can easily see themselves living it up without kids. They’re not able to see how they’ll feel at 55 with no grandchildren or family to be with on holidays. The world is going to look very different.
Having a family is no longer a major goal for many cultures, and instead people have been focusing on career and being “independent.” We need to change culture to value familes again.
I feel like it's fear of going back to less free and nore oppressive times that are causing people to make up the idea that anyone will be "forced" into having families. I think the plan more likely to happen is that people will be "encouraged" to have build more families. The ability to create a family is a powerful and essential to the survival of the human species and with great power comes great responsibility.
@@ss-ds2dn I mean, I meant what I said in regards to those two words actually having different meanings. Forcing would be akin to something like creating a law that says if people don't have at least one child by the time they turn 30, they'll be subjected to work in a slave labor camp, while encouraging would be something like offering child tax credits to incentivise people to have children, which was mentioned in the video. But by saying heavy lifting, would I be correct in assuming you're worried that those words could be misconstrued as being vague enough that institutions in charge would see the definition of both terms as essentially being one in the same, and that they would choose to push for the forceful option while advertising it as simply encouragement? If not, what do you mean by heavy lifting?
Women's standards typically lower by themselves as they age because reality always catches up, the best women are always out of the dating market early, but the leftovers are either spoiled (Alpha widows) or ripe (lower their unrealistic standards).
Most people can't survive on 1 income. Look prices of rent, healthcare and food. Most of it boils down to 2 people being financially forced to work long hours to just afford rent and food. Physical exhausted does not encourage good sexual and relationships. Exhaustion is real. Sleep is the new sex!
This is the issue right here, look up the UNs definition of genocide thats whats actually going on in open borders western worldnative births are traded for mass imigration @@marianhunt8899
I moved to Norway 10 years ago with my Icelandic husband, we had 3 kids 2 years apart. My eldest’ class (5th grade) is about 75% ethnic Norwegian kids, my middle (3rd) is 50%, my son’s (1st) class has 24 students - 2 of which are ethically Norwegian. Most of the children in the class are first generation immigrant children who barely speak Norwegian when they enter school. There is an enormous issue with bullying and behavioural issues with many of the immigrant groups - who often live in poverty, aren’t given ample enough opportunities to integrate, and are beginning to form religion based social groups. Kids are being targeted for bullying for being ethically Nordic.
Excellent point and it's what I said earlier in the comment which was that we won't have a reduction of population necessarily but we will have a change in demography as the developing nations' migrants continue to flood the Western Nations.
The comments share many important points, and I agree that culture, resources, and health are some of the most important factors for low infertility. There is one thing I'd like to add. The interview states that men aren't "good enough" anymore, and that men need to get better, but that there are no concrete ways for them to become better, other than "don't go fishing". It is mentioned that 'high value men' are available for women on Tinder (which I don't think is true - both men and women aren't getting what they want on dating apps). Finally, there was a comment that "men try to cry their way into women's pants," which, indeed, is a dismissive statement. When Mads speaks of 'high value men', I am under the impression that by high value he means a man with more resources/power/influence/status than the woman. If so: to a degree there is truth to it, but I don't think that's a full picture. Those things are not all that makes men attractive. Probably the best indicator of a man's success with women can be contributed to attractive behavior. This includes many qualities, such as humor, social awareness/intelligence, taking initiative (also sexually), displaying risk-taking behavior, building connection, walking their talk, being disciplined and having good habits, being respectfully unapologetic, protectiveness, etc. I hope that this description is more concrete and helpful than just "don't go fishing". Also, it's an advantage if a man is looking to improve himself in every way; improving his behaviors as well as increasing the earlier mentioned resources/power/influence/status. Many women tend to feel attracted to a man with unrealized potential similarly to men with realized potential, so long as a man shows that he is 'building'. Especially if she values the same things, she likes to 'build' a future with him. My male friends who have the most success with women have grown up around girls and women, which helped them understand the female brain better and that gave them an edge with the opposite sex during puberty. Once they had that advantage, the gap between them and less succesful men only widened further with time and experience. Not all of my friends are traditionally handsome, particularly rich or whatever. They simply have all the right behaviors, so women flock to them and stay with them. That may sound like bad news for men who grew up without having the same edge. You can't change the past. But I think it's actually good news, because all of these things can be learned. It's not easy, but all is not lost. All of the above is not to say that women don't have a lot to work on - they do. However, that was not the question that was posed here. I think that both men and women could work on their relationship skills to have more success in the dating market. Ideally, society would only produce people with these skills, and with a healthy attachment style, but that's stuff for a utopia probably. Society doesn't care about teaching these skills. That's how we've ended up with an unhealthy polarity in which both men and women aren't getting their relational needs met. People need to teach themselves.
I find it interesting that these conversations or discussions never lead to looking at low birth rates as symptoms. Because of that, it will lead to the “Handmaids Tales”
They can't because the same corporations that cause the issue are watching. But beyond that, let's say that over three generations most countries do drop to 10% of their numbers. Depending on A.I. and other Automation techniques, it's entirely possible the collapse will fix itself. And the environment will have time to catch up. I'm not saying this isn't a crisis, but does it necessarily have to be? Humanity's population skyrocketed over the last century. We can afford to drop back down.
I think much of the dating crisis comes down to this: The sexes objectify each other as commodities. Dating sites, porn, & the birth control pill all contribute. And a moral & even spiritual renewal is actually needed to change the "use and abuse" dynamic, and develop the virtues needed to attract a long-term mate.
Our very economic system in its current iteration is one that implicitly forces, coerces, promotes the objectification you diagnose... in fact, since 1980 it has led to viewing self as a commodity to be "branded" and sold. Even Chris and most of his male guests over the years speak this language of "success." Internalization of the inherent value system of late-stage predatory capitalism is the elephant in the room. This is why it is incomplete & unproductive to have this discussion about falling birth rates with only an evolutionary biologist, without (alternative, non-neoliberal) economists, political scientists, and philosophers on the panel. To ignore the unspoken ideology of our Matrix -- the global economy -- unwittingly buys into that system: it's all about "individual responsibility" to solve societal crises... blame of identity groups is promoted... only private solutions can be entertained with ideas of "incentives" to coerce behavior... THIS IS THE WORLDVIEW of NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS trying to diagnose and "solve" the crises it has created... an insidious system of thought that has inevitably led to political fascism and is rapidly headed toward technocratic totalitarianism. Both women -- and men -- fear the draconian measures that may ultimately be taken by such a system, if it identifies low birth rates as a problem to be solved... ala Elon. Thank goodness most comments on this post highlight the issue of economics & don't fall into the trap of blaming women's high standards for reliable, dependable, morally wise fathers with whom to raise children. But none of these people have actually named the economic system itself & its accepted, underlying "values" as the root cause. That would be heresy.
Homeschooling parent of five here. Huge, incredible sacrifice to provide the best education for the younger years. I agree with all of the comments about degrees and the risks their costs incur, but what are viable options? I feel like the be-a-plumber-and-you’ll-be-rich mantra is the new “learn to code” trope. Sounds attractive, but in know first hand that the local tradesmen aren’t rolling in dough.
The rate isn't going to go up in the next ten years, any woman that has a kid in late 30s that ends up having one kid is going to realize how exhausting a kid is in late age and won't have another
Interesting. I had my first at 18 & my 9th at 39. I do more (cloth diapers, homeschool & garden/chickens) than I did at 18 years old. I think babies/children keep you young.
@@ashjankins960 Thank you for saying this! That's when I plan to have my last as well. I think people make it more complicated than it has to be because of all the ideas of what children "need", when in reality no amount of educational toys, perfect outfits, lovely vacation destinations or all the latest technology can make up for a good attachment, and a good attachment is free. Working hard because they care so much about the needs of their children is a beautiful trait that most mothers share, but it has been taken advantage of by those selling ideologies or material goods, leaving many on the brink of exhaustion.
Much like pets, having two is easier than having one. But in order for this to work you must task them with taking care of each other. And you must be good at doing this.
4,000+ comments in, someone else has already said this,. but this problem won't be fixed by trying to fix it head-on. What we need to do is fix the underlying concerns (cost of living, cost of college, cost of having kids). If you fix all those things, it by default incentivizes people to feel safe and secure in having more kids. When inequality continues to get worse and the 1% at the top own 50% of assets,.. we'll never fix declines in population. The world has to be come more fair,. and it doesn't seem like people in power at the top seem all that interested in that goal.
There are 3 reasons why people have more difficulty finding a partner, maintain long-term relationships and having children: 1. Unrealistic expectations of a partner, 2. Unwillingness to work on the relationship, and 3. selfishness. We need a cultural shift to turn this around. We need to begin to value long-term relationships and family again. I found a man who had these values early in life. As a result I had children in my twenties and was a stay-at-home mom for a while and I had to remind myself why I was doing this because society devalued me for it at every turn. I was ostracized and treated as if I was stupid for being at home with my kids instead of chasing a career, even at church where you would expect family values to be at least respected if not promoted. That needs to be changed and bringing back some romantiscism would not hurt either.
I got married at 24, and had three kids by the time I was 36- they are without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened in my life. They are closing schools in my city because of the shrinking student population, and the move towards charter and home schooling. As far as I can tell people are self selecting out of the gene pool and the only people having kids are more conservative and religious.... demographics are destiny.
Yup, all nations need to have that religious conservative core to survive. Without that, you can never get higher birth rates as people will never want to have more children.
I'd disagree with the notion of "self-selecting". For a lot of people, men and women alike, the reality is that by the time they get their priorities right, it's already over. Not sure how it works for women, but for men the ability to commit decreases with each disappointment. You can only put all of your heart into a relationship so many times before you get cynical and start holding back just for the sake of self-preservation. You can only do the right thing if you are raised into knowing what that is.
My youngest son has to go to a merged class because the school had to merge classes due to other schools closing. The few schools that stay open have larger classrooms.
We need each other. Everyone is getting more miserable these days "not needing each other"... population collapse, depression, health decline ... the family unit being broken has allowed this to fester.
Do you realize how much they delete comments on your page - which directly affects your videos in the algorithm? I bet you're already minus 100 for the 8 that they let show.
They've been on a mass deletion trend lately. I get shadowbanned, replies hidden and comments deleted regularly despite being civil and polite. I called it out this afternoon on another video by editing the comment and all of a sudden, people started seeing it, left likes and commented.
Two things come to mind for me: I think in the past, in many traditional societies, the expectation was, that the man would be physically attracted to his wife, and not the other way around. The idea was that women would do their "wife duties", and hope she married a kind man who loved her and treated her with respect, and maybe, eventually she would grow to find him attractive over time. I feel we don't talk about this directly enough, but rather dance around it saying, "women had little choice in the past as they had to be dependant on a man for social and sometimes physical safety." Also, the expectation was that they would reproduce legitimate children to keep the family lineage going, but men of means could, and probably would produce illegitimate children as well. So, the "good ole days" of procreation were not as "rosey" as we romanticize. And secondly, it is true that the smaller the pool of people to choose from, less picky a person is about beauty standards for mate selection. So, the advent of the internet and seeing the most beautiful people as an "option" has definitely adjusted everyone's ability to see common features as beautiful.
It definitely works. Look at the comments from all these ‘based’ people. They still blame abstractions like ‘money’ instead of just admitting that vvomen don’t want kids or husbands.
Most households were much poorer and living standards were worse 100 years ago, yet we have people blaming todays economy even though we have government assistance and women have earning potential as well which was not the case 100 years ago. Its clear to me that the sexual liberation of women, the decline in religion and communities as well as hookup culture which makes women unable to pair bond has caused this problem.
@@BoothsGalore7 Bingo. Sometimes I am afraid that I will be alone in the comment sections explaining this incredibly simple thing that people just refuse to understand. The truth is that our modern society was never sustainable
how are "involuntarily single women" misogynistic? LOL It's Sour grapes, because they've long thrown around "Incel" as an insult to men who can't find a woman, and that has now bounced back on them (and the closeness of the comparison makes them uncomfortable).
I watched a documentary on actual incels who identify as that I didn't know it was an actual thing. But it was those guys who had the weirdest most toxic view towards women blaming them for everything. I don't think someone who is just lonely deserves to be called an incel. But real incels are dangerously weird is what I took from that documentary
It's also different because they aren't "involuntary". These women have nearly limitless options for willing mates, they just view themselves as too good for them. The dating crisis is entirely driven by bad economics holding men back, and women having unreasonable standards for mates, and this has been objectively proven on many occasions. Women view the average man as being obscenely unattractive while men view the average woman as average.
@@JoweI-d4vMaybe, those "toxic" incels became so toxic only due to a long history of being rejected by women, no matter how they behaved - rejected because of something they haven't chosen to be and can't change about themselves, such as their physical looks. This can be a very dehumanising experience for these man, because after some time they start reading these repeated rejections as the following message: "you're not a human being, you're not even eligible for mating within human species". Their bitterness is then made even worse by the awareness that the traits because of which they are rejected by women have got noting to do with their real quality as potential mates, because the whole business of dating and mating is (from nature's point of view) about becoming fathers and mothers, and there's no reason whatsoever why a short balding guy should be less qualified to be a good father than a "tall, dark and handsome" guy.
Another great podcast and an important topic. Family is the fabric of society. I think it’s really sad for genetic lines to end unnecessarily. One factor that wasn’t mentioned was arrested development/prolonged adolescence. People doing recreational drugs and fooling around like 20 year olds until they’re 40+. I’m 39 and an “insing” and “incel” for a variety of reasons too long to list. Some men think it would be amazing to get propositioned all the time. I explain it to them like this… “Have you ever met a woman you’re not attracted to? Or a woman who makes you cringe?” They’ll always say “yes,” and then I say, “Now imagine women like that are coming up to you every day.” Then they get it. It’s not at all fun to be approached by men you’re not interested in. What’s worse is men you are interested in who only want to use you for your body in exchange for nothing or “free” drinks and food. If I’m not easy, plenty of other women will be, so if he’s not looking to start a family or he’s not financially prepared to, he’ll likely go where it’s easy. For this reason, a lot of modern dating is basically free or cheap prostitution on the women’s part. Feminists sell it as liberation, but it’s self-destruction. I’d much prefer to be an “incel-insing,” than a disposable woman. 40-50% of pregnancies in the west are unplanned, so playing the minefield will result in children for some women, but likely not result in a healthy two parent family. As an intentional person who wants the best for my unborn, playing father and family roulette is frightening. Friends say, “You know you could have a baby on your own.” Even my therapist asked if I would as if that’s normal! It’s not and shouldn’t be. Recently, a father of 4 argued with me that fathers are not important until he realised how stupid his argument was and stopped. The world’s brainwashed. The best healthiest thing for children is a stable two parent home protected by the legal bind of marriage. As an ex-teacher of 8 years, I observed that the children from two parent homes with one invested stay-at-home parent achieved the best results at school. I want the best for my unborn. Solutions? Solutions could involve better tax breaks for first home buyers. A man with a house is a more attractive proposition. A woman in a secured home feels safer to start a family. I know many men complain about female hypergamy but would you want your daughter to partner with a financially insecure man? That’s unsafe, even a dunce could do that math. Government funded free-to-use dating apps e.g. apps that are not driven by profit to keep people on for eternity, but rather want people to match. Ending remote work. 33% of people meet at work, but not in a remote world. I forfeited remote work in part for this reason. Environmental awareness. It’s wise of women to avoid female dominated sectors, or if you choose teaching, nursing etc., then be conscious to make an effort to meet men after hours before it’s too late. 8 years teaching, nothing but married men, flowery men and PE teachers. Event connection. I went to Chris’s event in Melbourne recently. That room of 2,000 could’ve potentially had some decent single men in it. It would help if eligible interested people could tick a box post-event, then their profile could be visible to all the other eligible people. Starting out via a shared interest makes it more likely that values will align for greater compatibility. Lastly, teach people how to flirt and be flirted with, and how to select a safe available partner as early as possible e.g. the last year of high school. Critical life skills likely very lost on a device-first post-Covid cohort.
Your comment was one of the most well-thought-out ones and it actually gave possible solutions or at least ways to amend the situation. The last one really caught my eye because men often think I'm flirting and sometimes I think women may think I'm flirting because I've not lost the art of conversation. My family used to laugh and say I kissed the blarney Stone and even though I'm not Irish, I'm technically Scottish or Scot-Irish to be specific, I probably did because I love to chat and a lot of the chatter of course tends to seem flirtatious because when you're talking in a light manner and you're being creative it can look like that. BUT actually it's not flirtatious if everyone's doing it and they understand the art of conversation is an art, not a science . Also due to the change in the world especially through women's lib, men lost the ability to be chivalrous and to actually really be gentlemen and that has put a huge huge monkey wrench in the whole works of mating; dating; courting, call it as as you will. With the beginning of women's lib, which actually I had to live through, also came a change in rhetoric or ways of communication and people would say:cut to the chase; what is the bottom line; and Men generally would begin a conversation with-- do you want to f***? Literally. I noticed when I said that into my phone, it put the F word with asterisks but that is what these young women were hearing from men and they were coming from good homes where that type of language was not used and their mother definitely was NOT courted in that fashion. I still remember when I was very young and visiting Italy and I met a man who was not American and I thought he said to me do you want an ice cream and I said-- no thank you --and he started laughing because actually he had said to me do you want to f***. That sort of sums it up and that's where romance is at and that would be true and I would say in America for sure, as well as many of the other countries in the West. Women no longer go to finishing school but they do usually have a few abilities to interact and communicate with the opposite sex, although I will say I think they could refine those abilities by developing the art of conversation, but men are absolutely abysmal. They used to be schooled by their father and by society in what it means to be a man and what it means to be a gentleman and what it means to be a productive and strong member of a society. They no longer are, wearing their clothes that are dirty and torn and ripped and wearing their raggedy hair and beards and failing any basic hygiene. You do wonder if they ever had a mother who told them to wash their hands & their face before dinner. Early on when womens lib was beginning , women would say that women have changed greatly but men have not changed at all and that is still true. They have not changed because they did not have to change. I would say now though suddenly they come up empty-handed and they are very unhappy people. They need help. THESE are basic things that can be done by society but we must be aware that the elites as shown during the pandemic, which was actually population reduction, have created a situation where even a two income family can no longer to afford to have more than one child, if that. The elites have created this and I thought about that at the time which was decades and decades ago but after the pandemic it becomes very very clear. The population reduction that the pandemic wanted and achieved is also occurring because of the terrible and actually unhealthy food that people are buying that is disrupting their bodies such that the virility of men has reduced sperm count by 50% or more and mobility is greatly reduced as well. Women I would say have problems with conceiving and that's due to the processed food and also to birth control pills which physically change the size of the tube that goes from the ovaries to the uterus such that eggs cannot pass thru it. Acupuncturists can tell you about that and address that problem if you've been on birth control for period of time. Once you change your food, you can get off all of your pharmaceuticals which also interrupt fertility in both sexes and do it in such a way that it's the silent killer. Again the powers that be including the pharmaceutical industry which actually makes more money than the military industrial complex and big food are going to put up a huge fight against the public and their leaders, such as Kennedy, in the States. Something that these men did not mention, probably because it's very sensitive, is that the things in the food r actually feminizing men and one of them is estrogen which is in chicken to a huge degree but it's in many other things as well as a phytoestrogens which feminize men, while masculinizing women. As you can see there is a war on fertility and on reproductive productivity and it has to be approached from many different avenues by many different people. Touche.
I like the way you think. It's pretty much the red pill but from a female perspective. Unfortunately I think affection is non negotiable. As you even pointed it out yourself in the beginning. We just can't change that most females aren't attractive to most males(hypergamy) . The marriage on the past only work due to culture and religion(limited mating choice, particularly women's). What we are seeing in modernity entails as females get more options. There is more to this topic, bust let's just say pushing for marriage to happen is not really the solution. I don't think we should force females to Iike, or even commit themselves the mostly unattractive men. It's interesting though u mention about helping men to get more attractive such as the housing incentive. But I don't think that's how the taxes work. I don't thk the gov is interested to catering to uplift the average dude.
As a man in my early 30s, women are not my number 1 priority. Focusing on my self is. Working out, eating healthy, making money and doing what I enjoy gives me the ultimate peace.
@@JohnJourdan88 cope? I’m a pretty decent looking guy. I can have a woman if I wanted to. But women cost money and stress. I enjoy being able to live freely. I don’t have to answer to anyone.
@@daalmightpanda as a woman, I get your view. Relationships are super high maintenance and cost a lot of energy. I’m also focusing more on myself and on my family. Being an introvert could explain this as well
I think there are plenty of guys like you and I understand why. It's scary out there, and social media made it worse. It goes both ways too. Men think women are dispensable or just not worth it, and women think the same about men. Different times from when I was that age. So many horror stories in relationships now.
1 million per women!! Only way i can understand it is politicans wanted to put women into the workforce. Higher supply of workers to drive down wages. Maybe boost GDP after the war years? But it costs men 1 million per woman in Denmark!!
@@Victoria-Enzula If a woman is married to a man and she stays home usually he would go out and work to pay for both of them. It's a voluntary exchange of services consented to by both parties, the government doesn't need to be involved. Or do you mean single women need to be compensated by the government just for taking care of themselves and their own home like a responsible adult?
Maybe if we didn't punish women for having children, economically and socially, there wouldn't be this problem. And no, one day a year doesn't cut it. Societies will have to be organized to centre the needs of mother/child. Or we will perish.
Well, there are a lot of couples who are deciding to not have kids too. The cost of having children is quite high now. Blame the economy instead of men or women specifically.
it's proven many times that money doesn't really play a role, most often the poorest families have the most children and the more wealthy people have none.
I agree with the other comment. Money is an issue but t not THAT big. I say government could be handing out houses to everyone and it would not make a real difference when it comes to birthrates. The issue goes much deeper.
I just don't understand how billions of people throughout human history have done it with much less and almost no resources...why it can't be done today?
@@emilyk.5664 The capitalist system, the modern economy, is a machine engineered to take human babies and extract maximum resources from them. American property taxes are insanely high and FORCE productivity, not to mention most people have a mortgage....a big one.
When I was a young woman, married with a 4 year old child, I so desired a second child. When I got pregnant my father said to me: "You had a choice and you still wanted another child?" He was coming from generations of people who kept having babies each year and who obviously resented their circumstances. When I desired a third child my husband said to me: "Fine, but you are the one that will get stuck with it." This was by then in the 1980's. We did not have a third child. And sure enough he eventually left, leaving me to raise the children on my own. He found family life very limiting of lifestyle. He did not see himself as a family man and to this day does not acknowledge his grand children or great grand children.
I court reported many divorces for decades. Typical divorce, there's a 2 year old kid (more often female since men want a son) and the guy is exiting, wants to free his money from the family expense. They succeeded too: child support did not even cover the extra bedroom the female needed for the kid. And not paying this child support was common, and excused. (Fuck that.)
They wonder why every society on the planet places restrictions on them, and ones that don't collapse quickly. Historical precedent don't matter in their eyes, look at everything after 1960, ignore hundreds of thousands even million of hominid history.
@@ReneeDeane The problem is women will only ever date up, which is fine. But with women being pushed into high positions in the workforce, they have taken over the economic spots of the men they would have wanted to marry. Now she is a high earner herself, she expects a man who makes even more. Statistically, this is impossible.
It is hard time finding a man who wants a serious relationship at a young age. I would date someone for at least 4 years before having children to make sure that the partner would not leave me once I am pregnant. I would not settle for being treated like garbage either.
It is gonna get worse. Im 34 and most of my friends, myself included, definately won't be having children. The rest have an average of 2 kids (both have with multiple women which means visitation and custody battles) which they can barely afford. My family name and my mothers family name will probably completely gone within my life time. I dont have many male cousins, seeing as how we lost one to drug OD/ suicide. My grandpa came from a family of 7, my father came from a family of 6, myself from a family of 4 and then "Kerplunk!" 0 for me so yah. Not lookin good. I cant afford kids or the 2-3 divorces required to get a keeper these days.
Isn't it worth risking a divorce or out of wedlock birth to keep your family line going? I come from a completely different setting than you, so I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this resignation.
@@tarquin161234 Start working remotely, or just chat with someone till you can take a 2-3 week vacation. I know, not ideal, but I'm just throwing some suggestions out there.
Just think of all those many thousands or hundreds of thousands of ancestors we have that had children that led to us and so many of those lines end right now or with the next generation.
Two things: A. Women are not interested in men. B. Even less interested in having children. I know not why all the dancing around the subject. It's blatantly obvious to me.
@flemutter7211 I would not go even that far. What we are experiencing is not a case of women hating men. Simply put, they Do Not Care. Three little words, that's it, mystery solved.
If a man doesn’t trust/love me enough to marry me I’m not giving him children. Very simple equation for me personally. I spent many years caring for men to no avail, now I mainly feel indifferent towards them and find I am much happier being single. I never craved motherhood at all so born in another time I might well have been a nun.
There's no fertlity crisis. There's a hopeless economic crisis as seen in all the other indicators also getting worse like depression, salary, and housing & rent prices. Even married ppl are not having children bc it's very expensive today and there's no hope for the future, plus both ppl have to work and childcare costs as much as rent. Maybe the Scandinavian doesn't understand this, which is he is hyper-focused on "mating practices".
Years ago one man wage could run a house. leaving the woman to be be a mum. Now both the man and woman need to work to have at least a half decent lifestyle. Women are working and men are increasingly expected to help atound the house more. Believe you me that leaves little time for kids. I have two and am at my limit.
In Norway as well, any man with an attractive income and capital will pay half of it in taxes (I’m not joking), which goes to unproductive men, single women, and third world migrants. So the men who women want children with become closer to just average, and the losers women don’t want children with become well also just average. Socialism is so evil because it warps all of our natural incentives
That "one wage" was with hell of a lot of overtime. People forget that. Many Baby Boomers hardly saw their fathers growing up. When they rebelled, it was overwhelmingly against the values that their fathers treasured, and no generation before or since ever had such a favorable view of their mothers.
The state and *Chads* _Unwin also stated "In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy (para. 168). _*_In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate._*_ Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended. Sexual desires could then be satisfied in a direct or perverted manner... _*_So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared."_*_ He points out that "No society has yet to succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a Way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period." - _*_and thus all societies have collapsed._* - J. D. Unwin, _Sex and Culture_ circa 1930s 💊
As long as native populations are not replaced with migration, this problem fixes itself. Natural selection increases the frequency of traits (cultural and genetic) that makes both men and women want and make children in the current environment. It also makes it easier as goods such as housing become more abundant and thus cheaper as the population decreases.
It’s amazing how many people gave me shit for having five children, but like painting the walls in my kitchen, black and living happily in a positive coparenting relationship with my ex-husband-I am ahead of the curve. Fuck off haters.
I raised four and was made to feel selfish, told I was irresponsible, many awful comments over the years. We are middle class with regular ups and downs. But the only way through tough times is with family.
@@JohnJourdan88lots of comments about how I’m wasting my education, they (the kids) will be a burden on the “system” (likely from someone who doesn’t realize that the “system” they’re so worried about is dependent on more income-earners to keep it operational). LOTS of negative feedback from strangers in public spaces about my apparent lack of either self-control, understanding of the mechanisms of reproduction, or hobbies. Some folks suggested that I might be having babies bc I need to feel needed or loved, or maybe I’m too competitive and was having kids for spiteful reasons. Countless “you should get a tv in your bedroom ha ha ha” comments, which I looked forward to because I had the sassy comeback of “We do! It’s great to watch porn on the big screen.” 😂😂😂
@@sarahahmad9891Black walls are great. Now I’m painting my LR ceiling a deep purple, aubergine. The room feels so cozy and inviting now. The perfect spot to have good conversations. I Highly recommended painting ceilings something other than flat white if possible
I think everyone needs to have a growth mindset. Let me explain. With regard to the conversation about women having too high standards. I think the problem is not women's standards. The problem is a fixed mindset. With a fixed mindset, you see what a person offers right now as a potential partner. In the age range, when people traditionally got married, very few men have anything to offer. With a growth mindset, you look for how you can build a life together. He might not have much now, but you can see how you two together can make something wonderful. If you build each other up, you can accomplish amazing things. If you only look at what people offer you now, you will end up with nothing.
Conversely, if a woman pairbonds with a man and has a baby with a man based on romantic love (which we all agree is made up) or because he has the “potential” to be a good partner- she has put herself at high risk of living in poverty and or single parenthood with limited resources. It’s simply not worth the gamble for many women. And who can blame them? Mama’s baby and daddy’s maybe. 🤔
When my husband and I got married, we were quite poor. We each brought a car and maybe a couple thousand dollars into our marriage. But what I could tell about him was that he was a hard worker, intelligent, and valued family. He now does quite well and can support our large family. I have noticed a few young family members who seem to expect men to already have built wealth or have an attractive income. Ironically, if a young woman waits for that, he will suddenly be a hotter commodity and a girl's odds of catching his interest shrinks.
Hello you savages. Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/ Here's the timestamps:
00:00 Why Mads’ Activism Caused Trouble
05:59 The Stats That Caught Mads’ Attention
09:23 Why is a Declining Birth Rate a Bad Thing?
23:51 Is Mads the Vanguard of This Issue?
27:01 The Global Issues Causing a Birth Rate Crisis
39:09 Do Men Need to Change & Improve?
47:42 How Society Can Help Elevate Men
57:07 How to Improve Our Mating Ideology
1:02:31 The Actual Reasons Why People Aren’t Having Kids
1:08:09 Opposition to Mads’ Work
1:19:01 Where to Find Mads
Dude. What’s wrong? You know where the real sauce is. Why are you evading me?
Men fought the wars to protect society woman fight for the right for abortion
Great interview, you are right up there with Rogan in my opinion.
This is behavioral sink, this is a death of purpose, leading to self worship and entropy. We must diagnose this psychosis and find out how to help people and bring more life into this world.
Great needed discussion and great rational guest. Well done!
❤❤❤
I was born in NYC in '91 and grew up surrounded by cousins and kids in the parks. Now, as a mother of three, it’s striking how different things are. Most of my female cousins aren’t having kids, and my best friends either can’t afford to or don’t want to in today’s environment-even though they’d make amazing parents. After moving to CA, I rarely see mothers my age, and parks often feel empty. The concept of 'a village' feels obsolete. Motherhood today is incredibly isolating and nearly impossible without financial privilege.
That simply isn't true ...kids hardly cost a thing.
and you only had 3. That's the bare minimum required to not be a part of the problem. let alone a solution.
@@dontcallthemliberals3316 I dont think that was the message. 3 is plenty. but so so many have 0.
Undervslued reason women are more inclined to folow into the footssteps of friends or slightly over women if theyre not having kids they dont aspire to either coz it looks like ur gonna miss out on what they have
@@searose6192 how old r u and how many children have you had? Because everyone in my generation thinks having children is unattainable due to cost of living.
Animals in captivity often breed less due to stress, limited space, disrupted social structures, and unnatural environments. Poor diet or health issues can also impact fertility.
Our society is a worse rat-race than many of the vocal social critics in the 80's could have foreseen. Social media has definitely made us unsocial and purchasing power for the individual consumer is going down the drain. Salaries/wages are stagnant and housing prices and the cost of daily products and services just keep going up. Combine this with an ever-present sense of impending chaos and doom with the economy and you have a terrible mess on your hands.
I was just thinking about this the other day-- most of our issues come from legal and social systems (and elites running all that) trying to tame us into submission in increasingly tinier spaces and lives like we are factory-farmed chickens. And we wonder why we all feel like crap, some folks start acting out like a tiger pacing in its cage, why many of us are sad like animals out of their native environment in a small box, and why we all seem to succumb to illnesses our great-grandparents never saw? We are like zoo animals being kept in small cages being fed the wrong food because it's cheap... only we have to work to keep our cage!
I keep reading this. As if this was the REAL problem of fertility.
The biggest problem is the world-view that has been stripped away - the biblical world-view. The general world-view *can* exist without a true belief, such as in the 1980s, and, IMO, that would make society happier.
You didnt listen to single thing said by the person who actually studies this. The natural tendency of women does not match to evenly distributed pair bonding..... They either want to get the top ten percent of men or have nothing....
Never met a woman who wanted to have kids with me but I sure have met plenty of women who wanted me to help take care of the ones they already had.
I've attempted to make 2 women pregnant this year, plenty of women want children, the main issue is... Can't say that...
@@neondystopian This shows how children can be a disadvantage for woman. They risk to be held back by responsibility for the children. For woman its emotionally very difficult to give over the children to the father if they are divorced.
@@inglin4895 the risk is enormous for women. I get that. I stay convinced that it's mostly a men problem: not reliable enough, persuaded that they will just have to snap their fingers to find a fertile woman if they want children age 45, extremely picky when it comes to long term relationships, not willing to do their part at home. Unpopular opinion: it's really into men's hands.
@ingridlindquist4895 which only happens when they choose poorly
I actually had women tell me i was selfish for being straight forward and ending any relationship that would have meant i needed to have children, either because they already had them, or because the bird i was dating was saying it was a requirement for her in her future. Never wanted to have kids of my own, never mind look after someone else's.
I've always thought that its ironic that the same entities that have cause the decline in quality of life across the board are the same that seem to show "concern" that people are slowly but steadily having less and less children.
Housing is a nightmare, inflation is through the roof, healthcare is abysmal. You always seem to be working the same, sometimes more hours yet you can only afford less, life is filled with stressants and uncertainty and yet governments and corporations seem dumbfounded by the lowering birthrates, only concerned because their pool of cheap labor and tax slaves diminishes year by year.
Yep. Why would anyone choose to have kids in suck a situation?
They're not dumbfounded and they don't care. This is all by design to collapse the population. The real question is whether this is good or bad.
They know exactly what they are doing.
This. So many people freaking out about declining birth rates are rich men, who pay other people to raise their kids.
@@smrndalodz7182 you nailed it. A lot of people have not matured past high school.
UK here - if you and your missus can barely make the rent, then you're unlikely to procreate. That is what is happening around our way - the rental market is ridiculously overpriced and undersupplied. Also, poverty is a massive indicator of poor health, mental health and educational outcomes - this isn't news, so why would you bring children into that? We live in an era of 'maximise this', 'optimise that' and everyone is trying to squeeze the pips out of everyone else to make bank. In this situation is it any wonder that people aren't breeding? The west needs to rediscover the concept of 'enough', both consumers and businesses. You reap what you sow.
This is a great example 👏 thanks so much, its way more complex than just "have more babies!!"
YT people won their own Darwin award with all the wilful ignorance and ego
You Love to see it 😍
Every country has this problem not just western ones. China's at 1.15 on a 3 child policy
Concisely put. Clarity of each point. Love it - especially the "both consumers and businesses" line. 👍👍💯💌😉
If cost of living was the issue, humans would have gone extinct centuries ago. Society is much richer today, than it was just 20 years ago. And we are exponentially wealthier than we were 100 years ago.
The finances conclusion just doesn't make sense. Birth rates DECLINE as countries become wealthier... Poorer countries today (e.g., SE Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) have higher birth rates compared to wealthier western countries.
I challenge you to find ONE country that has growing economies (not hard to find... Growth rates are relatively high in SE Asia) and also has increasing or even stable birth rates.
I’m Norwegian electrician, make 77grand a year, my wife makes also good money. And we can’t afford 2nd child.
The bank make minus -120.000,- in our loan capacity per child. So the Norwegian state punishes us if we have children. If we have 3 children, it will be impossible to have a place to live.
100%
@@cordfortina9073yes, alcohol is taxed heavily.
Why do you think you can’t afford a second child?
@@A_Hardy That happens with Australian banks too. But once you buy a house they can't control how many kids you have.
Absurd lie.
Animals don't breed in captivity.
The economic situation is similar to being captive.
That's why they impregnate captive animals via artificial insemination to force them to reproduce. Most of us are merely products, machinery, commodities, and units of capital in the eyes of those who exploit and profit off of us. If our population declines to much, the matrix will break down. If we don't reproduce voluntarily, they will find ways to coerce us (or deceive us).
Very good observation
Oh please don't take me for a moron, the collapse of births happened well before people could not afford a house on one salary, it happened in the 60s and 70s. What coincides with those decades then? Using contraceptives and abortion as a contraceptives, that's why you don't have children, it's not because of money.
What are you
Some kind of Pinko
/S not /S
Good point!
As a guy in his 30s now, I feel like I spent my youth surrounded by people who decided they didnt want to sow their crops and now are shocked there’s no food to harvest. It’s becoming increasingly hard to care.
Great analogy
Was with several girlfriends that I expressed I wanted kids with in my 20s, very open and honest about it. They all agreed, but then they prioritize career over kids, and I have to leave the relationship because I realize their time table is decades in the future if ever.
@@koy540 Definitely an issue on both sides.
Most boyfriends I had either 1. weren't interested in/didn't believe in marriage 2. didn't want to have kids 3. wanted to have kids but only *after* the age of 30.
A lot of women I know have experienced this, as well as men whom I'm friends with. Then there's the opposite issue. I have a few friends who don't want to get married/have kids and they seem to only end up on dates with people who do.
Then you get the people who lie about their intentions because they think they can convince you to have/not have kids or get married/not get married. It would be far better if they'd just be honest.
All this makes it so much harder to find a partner to settle down with because you don't know if the person you're with actually shares your life goals.
Perfect analogy. People say rome is not built in a day, but same people want riches and generational wealth without having to prove that they are worth it.
@koy540 why not only enter relationship with someone of the same mindset as you? You seem to be dating successful women and hoping to they'll change instead of finding a similar mind.
I think a core piece of this is that our society has largely reduced the value of a child. TV shows and movies are mostly adults living in apartments with no children. A child is viewed as something that you should have AFTER doing everything else you want to do (travel, have a career, etc). An unexpected pregnancy is looked at as something that will ruin your life.
The unsaid thing about all of these aspects of our culture is that a child is not a positive thing. It gets in the way of ME. My hopes, my dreams, my wants, my fun. If I have a kid, I’m not the most important person in my life anymore.
We’ve built a narcissistic society that simply doesn’t value children. Thats not an easy thing to fix.
They put putting babies in a blender over motherhood and wonder why men aren't lining up
I don't think this is wrong but watch the video as this looks at women not able to have as many children as they would like to have and the spiral this leads to culturally. Like all these one theme podcasts it over-focuses on one aspect of the issue but one not being considered at all so worth discussing.
I agree but it's not only narcissism. Society makes it prohibitive to have and raise kids. People watch the news and see what happens to kids and families and they thank God they don't have any. Pretty sad.
I think you are missing one point - in ancient times kids where your pension. Nowadays your pension depends on taxes you pay to government... But having kids reduces this tax amount so kids are effectively downgrading your life level not just short term but long term as well...
From government point of view kids also are pure expenses... Its much cheaper to import workforce from abroad. And thats what they are doing in West.
I agree but. I think society has reduced the value of humans as a whole. Not just children.
In the last little while, the subject of children came up in 2 different conversations. The first was a man in his 30's who asked me, after I proudly said that I had 2 children: "Were you not concerned about having children in such a broken world?" I paused and asked myself if he was accusing me of being irresponsible. Well, I was in love, which leads to wanting to give life and I believe in the future. What a sad way to look at life he has. The second, a woman in her 30's as well, asked me basically the same question. I think young people have lost faith and hope in the future. Every generation obviously has its challenges.
@@andromeda_25 it is both correct and sad
Doomers.
The world as a whole is better now (materially) than it ever has been, and even the first world is much better off than any time in the past until about 1960.
Poverty isn't the cause of low birth rates, materialism is.
People would rather keep their time and money for themselves than share it with a child.
@mickcrovo5238 both incorrect and sad
@michaelmicek I agree.
As a lawyer who practices in the area of family law (divorce), I can think of many reasons why men do not want to get married, especially in the USA.
@Mike-br8zt A big part of the problem is that a lot of men don't know how to pick a good partner. They overestimate a woman's looks as an indicator of a suitable partner. The men we know who have been married the longest aren't married to models. People generally also tend to pick partners based on their feelings, which change from day to day. Whereas marriage and commitment is a choice and not a feeling. This is missing from a lot of the conversation. There's actually a male therapist out there who tells men to pursue more average looking women and to give attraction time to develop. But how many men do you think are willing to do that?
@@emilyl6746 What are you talking about? Do you really think most men even have the ability to chose between partners? Most have the chance to be with a few woman in their league over their whole lifespan at best. Either they pick them or they end up with noone.
This conversation will NEVER be discussed, because the lawyers the courts and the women get paid, the only loser is the men, and unfortunately noone cares, between feminism and divorce courts, men are terrified of marriage
@@giveitatry951It's always about blaming men and women not taking any responsibility for their own actions and shaming other women or changing ANY of the clearly insane laws around marriage and children.
The data shows it isnt all women having less kids. Its a certain subset of women have no kids. Perhaps those women are toxic. Perhaps those women are just focused on other things. But in many nations, like Japan, its a case of women not having any kids at all.
I dont think there is a universal answer as to the why. In each country its different. But the underlying issue is the same. Women being treated the same as men always seems to lead to this end. Irrespective of cultures.
It happend in Rome, it happened in Greece. It even happened in Persia. Every place women are made equal to men ALWAYS has a catastrophic effect on birth rates. Always.
Why wasn't mass immigration mentioned in this discussion? It is the essential stop gap governments use to negate low fertility. As long as high immigration is incentivised, collapsing birth rates will remain a non issue for economic policy makers.
It isn't sustainable for more than a few years. Even the countries these migrants are fleeing have these problems.
It also just makes the issue worse. Now there's another reason for people not to want to have kids. They don't feel it's safe because of all the violence and drugs being sold around the playgrounds where kids used to play. Kids have been shot and killed because they ended up in the crossfire of rivaling gangs. A father was shot to death in front of his son when they were out walking, by a group of young criminals loitering in the area.
Horrifying, unprovoked and deliberate attacks against kids have also happened in better areas, now there's even a new term called "humiliation robberies". I can't go into details of such cases here, but things like this don't exactly encourage people to want to have kids.
did you consider cultural gaps, racism, etc? it's not a long term solutions.
The problem is the current system needs to be fixed, but we need to find the root cause first. Otherwise, the results will be the same.
We’re not allowed to discuss the Kalergi Plan
Just dont bring muslims and africans, imo!
Too different culture. Also, look at denmark! They did it right
Men are also checking out of relationships due to the cost of divorce , men's wages are stagnant and men's education have fallen .. everything needs to be addressed
Mgtow
Yeah. Most vids on this topic concern men who’ve had enough.
No kidding. Here in the US the average man has not had a pay raise that equaled and actual increase in their standard of living since 1974.
Marriage is not needed to have kids
@@kdeulerIm apalled just how these podcasts dont discuss how society functions only for rich
They are becoming like msm
Ppl dont realise this podcasts are not alternative to mom
They are becoming msm slowly but surely
Cost of living makes having a child financially difficult.
Society is structured to break apart communities, making raising kids more socially difficult and effort intensive.
Social media makes young people feel like they could get more attractive/higher status mates than reality, making long term commitment difficult.
the problem is cities are owned by billionaires gamblers and jobs are only on these crappy places
just diversify and cut off trade with China and all things suddenly come back to normal
Weird enough Norway has fantastic support for having lot og kids. Even for single mothers. So finances here is not so important: THEY STILL DO NOT HAS MORE CHILDREN
a lot of cost-of-living issues are self inflicted, at least in the US. The big house, overly-expensive cars, an RV, etc. Too many people live way above their means.
I think all these things are not by accident. It is the stated goal of the global power elite to drastically lower the population. They set things up in certain ways to make this a reality.
Ban corn
We have six kids, my husband and I both wanted to have a big family. The hardest part is honestly the judgment from other people. Our kids are all healthy and normal with no behavioral issues but bringing them all out of the house together gets literal glares and rude comments from people (some are kind) almost like disgust from the majority of people. It’s a different world than when I was a kid.
Your husband is a lucky man.
6 is awesome! That's so weird they throw you shade. I guess they are part jealous, and other part in a death cult that demands they sacrifice their bloodlines to Baal. Ugh.
@@VisionaryStorytelling Wouldn't it be to Gaia instead of Ba'al??
Congratulations on your big family!
My wife and I have four kids and I am very happy and proud about it. We moved from Oklahoma to Seattle, WA area (feminist/atheist) stronghold. After that I began to notice the same thing. Then I began to connect the climate alarmism with the attitude.
I had 3 kids and when they started school I strarted working outside home. What I noticed was that my colegues that had no kids could work more freely than the ones that had them so, it was much easy for them to get promoted. If you have kids you have responsabilities that divides you and make you feel bad inside. If you have kids you have to have a bigger house, you spend much more money than the people that have no kids, if you have no kids you can buy clothes, you can go to the hairdresser, you can even buy a car and go out. So, since we live in a society that really does not apreciate or respect motherhood, why should we have kids? We are not infertile, we take the pill.
Well you should value kids more than promotions if you want them
@@watamuthawhat she is saying is that today's society values work more than family (I would add that feminism is probably the biggest force pushing this value system) so it is hard to expect most people going the family route
@@jahmalbaptiste9915 I dont think society
values it more, I think most people do. I say that bc I dont care abt any of that stuff. But I really blame Boomers more for that. They pushed this individualist culture way too far. Also we used to have a culture that supported youth, now it supports the old.
@@jahmalbaptiste9915who the hell wants to be tied down to kids and be broke? Lose their identity and autonomy? There’s no village, people don’t build relationships with each other to even have a support system. Work is the only support system in this hyper individualized society. people who want families are people who don’t have friends. especially the man.
Wow!! Going to the hairdresser and buying clothes are more important than kids, imagine how lonely she is going to be.
This is an amazing example of cognitive dissonance. One the one hand he states that Norway has created one of the very best societies in the world, then goes on to say that this society is heading for extinction. A society that destroys itself is not a good society, even though you may feel good in it.
Indeed. He also repeats over and over how "abolishing women's freedoms would be a bad thing that nobody wants", even though it is clear that said freedoms are the cause of civilizational collapse.
Thank you !!!
It’s like saying “ my diet is making me obese & sick, I recognize that, and talk about eating healthy, but will not advocate for actually doing it.”
@@viggotannhauser7251 Well that isn't quite clear. South Korea has far less women's freedoms and half the birth rate. The gap between men and women's expectations might be more crucial. So making men more feminist and women less.
Haha that's so true. What a deranged take. If you're people are heading towards extinction, get off your comfortable sofas and fix the freaking problem!!
Everything now is measured by economy.
A major point to discuss more on this issue is status. The ideal nowadays is to be successful in a career endevour and make lots of money. Women play a unique role in family life by being the heavy lifters of childbirth and care, but this is seen as a lesser position to fill it seems, especially if you choose to be a stay at home mom who works on family oriented things full time. Its like you're settling for a lesser life than the career woman who skips out on having kids and goes off to girlboss her way up the economic latter. Its a value thing, we just dont value family as much as we value status and money. And the financial landscape being hellish for young people right now only drives that ideal even harder as its getting more and more difficult to make enough money to live. Having kids is seen as an unnecessary financial burden to an already difficult situation.
Im norwegian and my mom was a stay at home mom. She made our childhoods incredible with all the things she did for us, but I remember clearly how she was looked down on by working moms for staying home. Our culture simply doesnt appreciate things that are not exchanged for money. Taking care of your kids? Nah. Paying someone else to care for your kids while you work? Absolutely!
That’s one way of stigmatisation.
Our household is me working full time and my wife is part time. A part time ED nurse who is quite fantastic at her job.
It doesn’t hurt our son to see us both working.
The modern economy and societal needs can easily accommodate all sorts of ways of working while parenting
I even hear working from home is a thing now….
I think this is very true, as a hous3wife myself, I got a lot of pushback when I said I wanted to do this and got a lot of comments on how I was basically wasting my potential and also that I was setting myself up to be in a position to be abus3d or that if something happened to my husband I would be S.O.L. lots of fear mongering about him either kicking the bucket or finding someone on the side and my having to put up with it etc...even though I know that's not my husband it gave me so much stress. So young ladies who consider this get a lot of negative feedback.
@MC-ze8wj Exactly, "wasting your potential". For what, slaving for a corporation that can replace you at any moment? No hate to people who love their jobs, but taking care of your family has its own reward that is not measured in money. Good on you for sticking to what is right for you, Im sure you are a blessing to your loved ones.
You nailed it!
I’m a fan of SAHM’s and would want to be one, because I used to be a teacher and the children of invested SAHM’s get the best results.
Sad that your mum was judged by other women, but great that she experienced the judgment and did it anyway. Likely her efforts produced healthy stable outcomes. ❤
This guy is so calm with people attack him personally and professionally. He has an amazing attitude of indifference and thinks it’s at least good people are talking about it.
He has an evolutionary psychology outlook.
He very much expects humans to behave the way they do in certain environments.
He's a little tone deaf to why folks react negatively to his approach, which sounds academic, but is actually divorced from lived reality. The problem is both cultural and economic. Cultural, meaning the impact of technology on the population's social lives.
He isn't tone deaf. As a society we have put the brakes on male hypergamy to all but a select few and have fully pressed the gas pedal to the floor on female hypergamy with predictable results. The results being all the women select the top tier men and get burned by them . When women are ready to settle down they are at the very end of their fertility . The men she settles for aren't attractive to her and if she gets into a marriage she makes life a living hell for that unlucky S.O.B. with marital strife and divorce. Men cannot fix this , women won't fix this and nothing will change. Men have accepted this and have quietly walked away without anger just quiet acceptance of how things are .
I had my first child with my wife 8 years ago and since we have had two more. These 8 years have been the best of my life. I firmly believe that having children is the greatest thing you can do in your life.
So true. Creates purpose and vision that was never needed before.
I am a parent as well and enjoyed it but not everyone is cut out to raise children.
For you. What is true for you would not be true for me. And there needs to be room for both.
A question, do you actually take care of the kids and house, or do you leave it mostly to your wife?
You don't need to answer me, but I do want you to think about it.
A lot of the time men think that having children is a joy, a wonderful thing, because most of the actual work is being done by their wife.
I am not saying this is the case with you, mind (I don't know you).
Just that it is something worth taking a moment every so often and examining.
Have a good day.
May be anecdotal but I find it’s usually men who talk like this. Ya’ll can’t even have children and most of you don’t make any real sacrifices or put in a substantial amount of effort into raising children. Certainly not compared to mothers. So you aren’t really qualified to tell anyone, especially women how “great” this is or if it’s worth the risks and downsides bc you don’t experience those risks and downsides in the first place.
@@MirrimBlackfox I think you’re correct in some respects. It’s true not all people should be parents. I’ve seen terrible mothers and fathers. It’s goes both ways. People that divide humans by gender lines are idiots. We are not all robots that think the same way.
I’ve always tried to be as big a part as possible in my kids lives because I love spending time with them. Im always the one running around with them playing games at the park. I don’t sit there on my phone like a lot of other parents. My mother told me to cherish every moment because before you know it they grow up. Of course it’s not easy but the joy far outweighs the effort. I always tell
my wife how lucky we are to have three beautiful and healthy children.
To answer your question my wife does most of the cooking as shes an excellent cook. I do most of the cleaning and other tasks around the house. I work for myself so I’m able to get the kids up on the morning. And ready for daycare/school. Of course I’m not perfect and neither is my wife. But we work as a team and support each other. We make mistakes but we acknowledge them.
I keep pointing out to my husband the lack of children we see when we are out in public. We used to see strollers everywhere, not anymore. There are no "portable classrooms" anymore. There are hardly any children in parks anymore. It is very disturbing. I only have 2 grandchildren and it is unlikely I will have anymore. If societies want children, families have to be supported. Until governments and these shortsighted corporations see that no customers means no tax base or no profits, things will continue on in this ridiculous fashion.
Vvomens rights + social media
Does less tax base mean higher interest rates for countries' borrowing?
Idk. I went to the zoo this last spring and it seemed like every other woman I saw was pregnant. They were mostly older women tho. Over 30 but they also had a brood with them already too
***usess anecdote that also proves nothing***
Mrtickleberries
That’s called confirmation bias. Imagine going to a football game and seeing football fans.
My parents are some of the youngest baby boomers. They spend $200 PER MONTH on satellite tv. Plus subscriptions for prime, netflix, etc. I have no idea how much money they spend on booze, going out to eat, etc, but by the amount the do it, it must be several hundred a month.
They blow EVERY MONTH what my mortgage is.
Parents used to build wealth for their children to inherit and continue building.
I worked as an electricians help for several years. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE we went to that had an older woman in it wad FILLED with useless decorations.
Parents stopped caring about building their children.
You need to plan for your own retirement. Don’t rely on your parents; and if they leave you anything be grateful. Basically no one is going to save you; save yourself
@BENR8108
Yeah...thanksfor that info.
@@BENR8108parents should try to vote to benefit the generations to come
Grow up
I'm one of those single women, and I can tell you, my parents left me NOTHING--but they did provide money for college. I worked my ass off and didn't have enough income for a family, or vacations--or to buy a house til I was 60. Anyone who thinks they're entitled to inherit ANYTHING material IS the problem. Get out there and do it yourself.
We really need to discuss how expensive daycare and raising a kid is now. It's insane. Daycare is a second mortgage.
They broke our money in 1964 causing this and there is no fix until we go back to honest and real money.
Good luck.
What about making raising your children your career at least while your children are not in school.
There was no such thing as daycare when I was a child
Fr. I did the math and it would cost me $2,000+ for daycare, car payment and insurance a month if I got a job before I even got out the door. That’s why I’m a sahm lol
I think he loses me when he attributes the lack of partners to evolutionary biology. By losing me I mean I am not persuaded by his argument. The declining birth rates are due to choices based upon faulty worldviews imho. They match the evolution of bad ideas that track with the rise of feminism, the pill, rise in divorce, rejection of religious values among other things and they are leading to civilizational suicide. Any worldview that leads to civilizational suicide should be questioned and its assumptions challenged. I am not expecting my views on this to be popular.
I am 62 and have three grown children, and the many young women I have talked to about this have told me that they really think they can wait until they're late thirties or forties to have children. They are so wrong. Maybe they'll get lucky but they probably won't. Total ignorance as to their biology
💯 I have some family members in their twenties who say they won't marry until 30 then have kids at 35. I hope it works out for them, but infertility is brutal and far more likely in mid to late thirties.
Society does not give an F about the slave class. Or men.
Exactly
Simpliest answer: money. All these single/childless people aren't driving around in lamborghinis and living their best life. They can't have kids because it's financially impossible for most. If anyone needs proof, look up the average incomes and then look up the average price of a family home in the respective area. You'll have your answer by doing basic match. Really the question should be split into two because there's two completely different things going on. 1. What is the reason why wealthy people don't have enough kids, 2. What is the reason the other 93% of the population are not having enough kids.
Or children
Society doesn’t care about children or women. If it did we wouldn’t have children living in poverty with lone parents
Thinking APE?
I have 13 cousins, and I am one of three children myself. My son and daughter only have 2 cousins, and we would be commiting financial suicide if we have another child. This shows the drop in population from our generation to the next.
Childcare cost is double our mortgage a month, and that is with one grandparent helping out twice a week. Wages have not increased in real terms with inflation for decades so we are working just as hard or harder for less. Animals will delay reproducing if the environmental conditions are not good enough to support offspring, many animals like deer will re-absord the fetus if only enough resources are available to sustain the mother alone. Humans are no different, if no surplus funds or resources are available, they will put off having children. This is all about big business manipulating the labour markets and wages, also people are now being denied property ownership as the costs are too high??!!! If people have no stability they will never take the risk of being destitute with a baby. The jobs market is also highly unstable, many people have no stable income or even a long term place to live.
This is hilarious. A person in 2024, living in the developed part of the world, comparing themselves to starving deer to demonstrate just how bad the situation is for having children. You have to stop comparing yourself to your parents and grandparents. They were living during the golden age that was an anomaly and will probably not repeat ever again. I don't have anything against anti-natalism, but it irks me to no end that people can't recognize that it is actually our expectations and our lifestyle that are the problem. We have set the bar too high, which will ironically lead to the economy dropping further, and people will only start having more children when the entire system collapses and dictatorship just start coercing people into having children.
@@julius43461 my grandfather was born during the depression, into a family of 7. He worked as did his brothers at a young age to help support the family. See, the economy was horrible, yet children could help produve a surplus. This is quite the opposite post ww2, since children could no longer work at a young age unless under an apprenticeship. Therefore children started to become a burden. The reality is that child labor is a contributing factor that people fail to see. Call it slavery (in some cases very true) but these kids ended up with valuable skills, confidence and maturity, humility, and often times decent pay once their apprenticeship was compleete. Most children started work at 13 for most of human history until the 1930s when that was completely phased out, although the process had been happening slowly across the industrialized nations since the 1890's.
My friend, you should be looking into government policy as the primary cause of the CoL crisis. While I agree big business can manipulate the market to some degree, it only does so by capturing regulators and then using the government to prevent competitors from joining the market. In other words, it is almost always state policies and regulations (e.g., restrictions in new housing development) that create artificially high costs and reduce the spending power of your currency (e.g., inflation is caused directly by the printing of money, and nothing else!). As a fellow sufferer of CoL increases, we must direct our energy towards the correct perpetrators.
If you're still skeptical, read or listen to Thomas Sowell. He really helped me understand these principles.
@@nk53nxg pretty silly to say humans are like deer and don’t produce offspring when resources are scarce. Deer do that naturally, humans where condoms, use birth control and have abortions. We are nothing like deer.
Off the top of my head, I can think of eight women I know who have raised children while sacrificing career and income. In each case their relationship with their husbands/partner broke down and now these women are spending their middle/older ages living in poverty as they have failed to build up enough superannuation that comes from having a career.
In a society where the family unit is no longer valued and divorce/separation is so prevalent, it's probably advisable for women to avoid having children.
Did the women divorce their men?
@@h8h215 Two of them were victims of domestic violence, one of them left because her husband gambled. Another two, their husband/partner cheated (one husband running off with a younger woman, the other just left). Another one, the partner died of an illness. One woman left her husband because she wasn't happy (probably mid-life menopause crisis). The women weren't perfect, nor were their husbands.
Sad but true
A lot of my female relatives have a ton of kids and when their relationship breaks down, they move to a new boyfriend or husband to have more kids. Their solution is find a new man to pay for everything. We’ll see how it goes for them age 40 and 50 and up. Maybe the kids will take care of them
But according to the drongos commenting here, women end up wealthy after divorce and when they have never worked and are SAHMs.
i cant say what all women are looking for, but i found my partner (not only because we hit it off), but after a period where I was totally uninterested in giving men a chance to date me unless they were respectful...he reached out, and on our first date he showed interest in listening to me, learning about me, and did not even try to come home with me or kiss as we left...after negative experiences from dating and online dating, i decided to stop altogether, and someone worthy finally reached out again and it worked out. we're now married and expecting our first. wish us luck!
Similar experience here!
Guy did all the work.
Gooood luck!
I wish the best for your family,i understand not dating, I'm a man that's been treated wrong in relationships to where I'm not looking because I'd rather be happy by myself than miserable with someone. If someone special comes along,great,if not I'm ok with that also
so after the chads you went celibate and have now snagged a provider
good for you i guess but will this really last
the statistics say you will most likely divorce him down the line
dont get me wrong i wish you luck i am just not holding my breath because if have seen this movie time and time again
Chris why aren't you a father yet? By choice? Can't find a mate? Fertility issues? In process of adopting?
😂. Best irony of him doing all of this is that he has no excuse for not popping out a hundred children.
On my end it is I can't find a partner, the ones I was interested in were either taken or not interested and those interested in me didn't meet my standards. Considering going across seas at this point.
It's not about individuals it's about the big picture of trends in populations.
He's bi. I'm sure that's a big part of it.
@@RockBottom4wishful thinking?
The concept of health in "The 23 Former Doctor Truths" book completely explains this. I wish I read it sooner.
How so??
I read the top comments and see people just feel demoralized, unloved, and unstable
Pretty much
I see them being broke with no family near
Good.
I sure do
The needle will not move in any significant way until single income households is possible again. I know many young couples where the wife WANTS to be a stay at home mother, but it's simply impossible unless the husband on their own is making $200k per year (Canada). A decent home adequate to raise children anywhere close to civilization is over $1 million dollars (Canada). Guess how many people make $200k or more in Canada? Less than 2%.
Doubt the numbers? $1.2mil home mortage at 4% interest, assuming you have 20% downpayment (most don't even have that), comes to $6400 per month for mortage, tax, utilities. $200k income per year, you take home $130k, you're left with less than $11k per month, and just for the home alone is 60% of your income. You're left with $4400 per month. Sounds comfortable? Average cost to raise a child in Canada is $1500 per month. Have two kids and add transportation costs, you're left with nothing to save. People like financial security. Living paycheck to paycheck does not motivate people to have children. This is best case scenario, I mentioned 1 person making $200 per year which is less than 2% of the population. Maybe a two person income can do it? People who make $100k per year or higher is 5% of the population. Average income in Canada is $65k per year. In this case, the average couple in Canada making the average income, literally cannot have children and a home to raise them.
Gee, I wonder why people aren't having kids. Maybe it's because it's literally impossible. Is it possible the government could be this blind? Doubtful. It's obvious this is by design.
Asking govts to solve the birth crisis is like asking them to fix bad music. It is beyond their abilities.
Dating apps, economics, promiscuity, unrealistic expectations.
Ban all forms of birth control and abortion and watch the birth rate rise. And yes, government has that power. Haha, just look at Iran's population growth pre and post Islamic revolution.
They're also a massive part of the problem on both economics as well as pushing toxic ideology.
See: population of Iran 1960 to 2020. Government CAN solve this entire problem, you just don't want to hear what the solution is (taking all freedom away from women).
@@eustacemcgoodboy9702 we're talking about fertility rate though. Iran is at near it's lowest birth rate in history. it was slightly lower in 2008 but it is falling again currently. by your logic removing women rights actually made the birth rate worse in Iran.
Basic economics, increase supply and the price decreases. The labour market supply has virtually doubled so the prices have relatively decreased. Now it takes two incomes to buy a house, pay the rent, have a family. Men and women likely see it as hard to have a family when both parents have to work.
Thats not why, executive pay is 100 times what it was. Also, more businesses are on the stockmarket meaning they need to produce earnings to pay investors instead of investing in their workers or keeping prices low. Last the taxes on the lower and middle class has increased; as have the prices of housing, education and everything else we need. Its greed, not women in the workforce.
It does not require two incomes. The artificially raised standard of living does.
We should also be talking about the overuse of endocrine disrupters in most products. It has a negative effect on fertility and we should do more to stop the use of these unecessary chemicals in products
look up how birth control works. It literally fills your body with progesterone to trick it into thinking it's already released an egg and it's been fertilized. This suppresses your desire for sex as agajn your body thinks that's already happened. There's NUMEROUS studies that show women find different things attractive on and off BC, and that they prefer more effeminate men when on BC (because they aren't a "threat" to the baby) and more masculine men when off BC. This doesn't only effect women either. Testosterone is a reactive hormone, so the male body produces more or less determined by environmental factors. And because almost every woman between the age of 13 and 45 now days is taking BC 24/7/365 we've actually noticed measurable amounts of progesterone in the water supply from women urinating out the massive excess. This gets in the men and causes them to produce less testosterone. Leading to the "why aren't men like they used to be" "wheres the real men" effect. The lack of testosterone makes men more obese, more irritable and agitated. Hormonal birth control is poisoning men and women
What percentage of the population collapse is due to people having the funds and support system to have children but can’t due to infertility? I understand your stance and agree that man-made foods and products are harmful but this variable by itself only impacts a small minority of people, people who usually wait far too long to try and have children.
@hennyindacup yea I'd say that choice is the primary driver behind this rather than infertility. We have data from every country on earth that shows that as the country becomes richer and more "equal" the birthrate always plummets.
@@hennyindacup I don’t know the statistics on that but it’s a no brainer that we shouldn’t have products that ruin people fertility and make them sick. Of course fertility issues is only one part of the equation but if a lot of people struggle to find a partner before they reach their 30’s then it’s a pretty bad idea to have so many products that decrease fertility when it’s already a Challenge because of age
@@Patson20 even so, fertility is still an important issue that we should ALSO make changes to improve. It’s not a competition, rather we want to make changes that improve all aspects. It’s truly sad that a significant amount of couples who actually want to have babies are struggling to get pregnant
I waited 56 Minutes for Mads to say it - we men are not giving our power/resources to women directly any more, but government takes it and gives it to women. And the legislation is getting worse by the year! Who got the oil out of the Norwegian sea and thereby created the wealthiest state in Europe? It was men.
Though in a lot of countries we've had decades of deindustrialization. That's produced a lot of men who no longer can find the type of jobs that they used to do. So it's kind of shifted. Higher income women are now subsidizing men on the dole who piss away what aid they get on gambling and their time on video games, all while refusing to adapt to a changing economy.
In quite a few countries, women now have higher labor force participation rates than men in various regions and demographics.
Men can't do it without women. We need each other.
I'll come out and say what he hints at but doesn't quite say. Throughout human history, women never actually wanted or liked most men (yes I know there were always gigachads), they just needed the resources men provided. When countries give women the right to decide whether or not to have children, they generally choose not to. There's nothing wrong with that, it's their choice and we can't make them like us. Men and society just have to accept that reality. Creating new ways for women to meet average men isn't going to make them attracted to those men.
It works the other way too. Men often don't want women older than mid 20s.
That's such a grim assessment but I'm not sure it's wrong. I think modern culture has really exacerbated this, and Christian culture mitigated this. Also, I don't want a young trophy wife, I want an intelligent companion who treats me like a human being and has family aspirations. Materialism and nihilism are the fault here. And it suggests you have to culturally cultivate love and family.
There’s nothing wrong with that? They violated the social contract. That ahould not be allowed to vote men into war.
tarquin161234
Absolutely untrue. We get stuck with them if we’re lucky,
women are natures eugenicists, we're just doing our job. Every few centuries womanity does a genetic cull like this.
I'm 48 and have six children and in the UK.
I left school at 16 and met my wife at work at 18. First four children before 30 then a couple of didn't try hard enough not too afterwards.
How is that possible? We accessed the property market in the mid-late 90s when property was at its cheapest following the 89/90 property crash.
To put in perspective, 3 properties were on the market for a total cost which is now one third of the cost of just one of those same houses (we bought the house in the middle).
Same should've happened on 07/08 meaning this generation missed getting a homes at a reasonable value.
Now this is the difficult one. I live opposite my in-laws (and have done so for 27 years). Free child care. I was amazed speaking to another father who explained their child care costs were like another mortgage.
Our holidays have been camping and not going abroad. There is quite a bit of guilt for the children having to share bedrooms.
My biggest fear, given if i were my children's age, this would never happen now, is that I will have fewer grandchildren than children.
Sadly different parts of society will need to feel pain for this issue to be resolved, there are too many workers depressing wages. A labour shortage will put up wages meaning higher cost of living for mine and older generations, but if a home and a family becomes a genuine hope for young people, they will make babies.
In Asia, where I spent a few decades, multi-generational households are the norm. As I'm sure you'd agree, the benefits go far beyond just free child care. Instead of being "warehoused" in nursing homes, the elderly are cared for by family, allowing much deeper connections to develop across the generations.
I agree, eventually this infertility problem will resolve itself. Just as, in the natural environment, populations adjust to the availability of resources. It stands to reason that at some point our population decline will make large families viable again. It's just a question of how far we have to go down that path before we recover, and start increasing our population again.
Our childcare is £1000 a month.
I notice they didn't discuss "starter marriage" on the podcast.
Are they unaware or just dodging the family court industrial complex?
you, my friend sound like an American. People in Europe look down on Americans because several Americans don't have passports. one our country is big enough that we have a lot to see we don't need to leave our country. Two people have larger families here and it’s hard to travel abroad.
wow respect
He says the fertility rate in Norway is 1.4 births per woman. What he's not adding (because of the incendiary nature of it) is that if you're talking about the white/native population there, that rate is probably even lower, and the Muslims they've imported are probably doing just fine with their birthrate.
Yep breeding like rabbits
Not really. Muslims in the West also have lower fertility now.
In denmark non western people have a lower birth rate than the native danes.
@@htondkar wow that's something I would find counterintuitive. Thx for the info.
Not 1.4% 1.4 kids per woman
I am 81. I paid my house off when I was 33 because I was extremely frugal !. i drove my 13-year-old car to work, holding my nose because the exhaust came into the car. I used light bulbs only in my house for the first five years. - you get the idea. I don't even recognize the country that I was born in! For starters, we must make it illegal for corporations to buy up ANY kind of housing whether it be trailer parks or condos. Secondly, we must get rid of this ridiculous intensification idea. Save the good land - yes, but much of the land south of Hamilton, for example, is just marginal and yet we have the city council preventing the expansion of city boundaries. This drives up the cost of housing and as a result, almost no houses were build this year in Hamilton - a city of 615 000.. We are NOT the Netherlands with no land!!!! Thirdly, we must decentralize the large cities in Canada. For example, move the Ontario government out of Toronto and spread the jobs all across Ontario. Move health to Hamilton, finance to London etc. Encourage / force big companies locate head offices in Sarnia or Brandon to give these places a good economic foundation.. There are a lot of things that we could do but won't until Canada is destitute because big business wants it this way. In the end, they will also go bankrupt as there will be no buyers.
This is a little off topic but in order to have children, we need cheap housing. We need to go back 100 years when we had settlers who built their own houses and grew most of their own food. Most countries, Norway included, have a lot of excess land where new cheap cities could be built - no sewers but septic systems. People need around a hectare of land. Children must again be an asset. They must hoe the gardens, raise the chickens, help dad shingle the roof or build another room onto the house as I did when I was 11. We never worried about building inspectors. Our houses are gone now but served their purpose 60 - 80 years ago. You should study why our Dutch immigrants have around 10 children. They all have jobs to do at an early age. They live in the country and not in horrible places like Toronto. If you want children, you have to decentralize out of big cities.
1:18, "In Norway women would like to have 2.4 children". Not sure how this survey was conducted, but don't get your hopes up. Normally the way this is asked, people will essentially respond with "In ideal circumstances, I would like to have 2 or 3 children". The thing is, those ideal circumstances will never come for most people. So the fact that they only want 2.4 is one of the best indicators that this can't be fixed with some light incentives.
Even if they did implement extreme measures, I'm not sure it would work. Augustus Caesar tried that and the nobles just worked around the laws. They didn't actually have children, they adopted. Personally, there is nothing you could offer me, even if divorce was impossible and a woman 100% submitted, that I would take most of these women, even if they looked like 10s. I do wonder how many men share the same disgust factor as I do but if it's even 20% it still would be devastating for society.
Exactly. And I'm not sure they examined the reasons why women didn't have the desired amount. They seemed to assume it was external circumstances but maybe they just realised they didn't enjoy it...
@@AngelDeedyou'd be surprised how mundane the reasons are. A lot of women I know stop at 2 or 3 children because it's hard to find a big enough car to fit all the children in, or it makes traveling hard. The biggest barrier to me having a large family is the fact that my family lives 17000km away and it'll be financially impossible to ever visit them. Another reason is that people have children later and it gets more tiring the older you get. Simple as that really
"They only want 2.4" bro do you know how fast brats get traumatised if they decide you haven't given them enought attention and emotilnal availability 💀 3 is already pushing it time-wise.
@edwardhisse2687 Lol I know, I have a third one on the way. Since we are all gamers that means buying a 5th gaming PC eventually 💀
I think cost of living is the main reason. In the 70’s , a typical blue collar job can bring an average house, a wife staying home, and children. Having children is super costly today. Society is selfish today, materialism way surpasses the desire of family building.
I agree
You got it.
Housing costs are what is holding people back. Plus, it takes more to set up your kids to succeed, and these days 'succeed' means 'not live in poverty.'
I know a family where they decided to have 4 kids, and the mom stayed home. The parents had middle class lives and were college grads.
Their kids are now adults, and they work retail. With declines like that happening, you can see why people aren't having kids.
Costs of housing and the terrible state of the housing market is a major issue. You need two well paying jobs to be able to buy anything in the areas that have decent jobs and that are safe and pleasant, where you'd want to have kids. Boomers/others buying to let/Airbnb are a major detrimental factor.
@@billiemunchen A huge problem in the USA is that highly restrictive zoning laws mean that housing cannot adapt to demand. You get big, gigantic suburban homes that have appreciated a lot since they were built. This is good for the current owners who want to sell, but bad for everyone else.
And then if you're looking at reliable urban neighborhoods, there's either a similar lack of housing, or the danger of excessive gentrification and a loss of housing stock, if people decide 'let's buy this duplex, knock it down, and then build 1 home with a bigger lawn.'
The modern fascism of stress, medical abuse, bad nutrition, industrial food, environmental pollution, psychological distraction, no purpose in life, narcissistic dispositions, children avoiding society etc. helps everything but fertility or family life.
Yeah, its an anti-human flourishing system right now. And its 100% a choice. We have the abundance and human capital to solve any problem, it's just that we can't because a system that is more and more becoming a death cult keeps driving humanity in the wrong direction!
This is soft matriarchy. Nothing fascist about it unless we are saying matriarchy is a default fascist state.
@@FazeParticles matriarchy. In a world lead predominately by men. Interesting thinking
psychological warfare too, ideologies degrade us
@@hydratejsn in 1st world countries men are second class to women in many ways. Those men are politicians women voted in.
As a progressive, independent career woman of the 90s, I ended up getting married and quitting my career to have 3 kids. My husband who said he wanted a family and to be the money maker, ended up hating being a husband and father. I was left as a single mother having to completely rebuild my life and find a new career. I found so many women my age went through the same exact thing. Our kids - gen Z - watched fathers abandon their kids and grew up not wanting to get married or have kids, and definitely not want to walk away from career to stay home and take care of kids. We really can’t raise children without one parent being home caretaking and raising kids and maintaining the home and food. 🤷♀️
There is so little trust of women with men in relationship bonding. Who wants to have children when the women know the chance of getting abandoned in the near future is likely. It’s too much of a risk for women and kids
Absolutely! I’ve met so many married men who are cheating or cheated. I want to get finically independent before having kids! Not worth the risk!
I think it's too easy putting the fault solely on men. Frankly lots of people in my generation don't even want women anymore. Too many expectations, too much guilt for things we didn't do, and nothing we want is acceptable. Might as well leave.
I grew up poor and all but two families that went thru that complex over the years were single mothers, not by choice. It’s so true. The only two that was a drunken father’s the wife wouldn’t leave and the husband to a quadriplegic. We never played house, and none of the kids I grew up with wanted kids. We all had to scale tooth and nail to get out of that poverty, and most never did, and did not want to pass that on.
Did you divorce him or he you?
This is so ludicrous. I thought pretty much everyone knew that WOMEN, not men, initiate 70% of divorces in most Western nations. Most of the risk of desertion actually falls onto men and they also no longer trust women. Regardless of who leaves though, this problem stems from no-fault divorce, which was introduced by the Left to make feminists happy because they viewed marriage as an institution that was oppressive to women. So everyone's lack of security in marriage stems from actions by feminists supposedly to help women.
In my view, the real reasons we arent having kids:
1. Young people have a lot more entertainment and interests than older generations. When I look at people with kids who I know, they have maximum 1 actual hobby, sometimes zero. Most people without kids spend lots of their spare time on multiple hobbies, and do not want to lose that time. Raising kids may be meaningful to some, but its not fun, and its hard work. Many would rather relax and engage with their hobbies instead.
2. The growing divide in values and politics between men and women. Nobody wants to date someone with opposing values, and the more the divide grows, the less people will get together. Less dating means less relationships. Less relationships means less kids.
3. Financially, its not just that people cannot afford to have kids, but they cant afford to have kids without making significant sacrifices to our own comfort. However, it is also true that some people cannot afford to move out of their parents house or out of renting a house share. Nobody wants to raise kids if they cant raise them in their own home.
I‘d add a 4th one. Societies are not kid friendly. They are seen as a disturbance.
To sum up, it's for selfish reasons. Why do something that isn't specifically about you.
@@ickster23 There is definitely a strong element of that in points 1 and 3. I think this is a natural development of a world of abundance. Essentially, we are living in mouse utopia.
@@numberproof7228 Yep, mouse utopia. I agree.
These are the cope reasons, actually.
The wolves are wondering why the sheep aren't breeding.
Exactly. When the low birthrate is discussed, it's always in the context of the economy. Kids are more than just consumers or debt slaves.
Thats one of the frustrating things, in these conversations, kids and their well being is rarely taken into serious consideration. Kids are human beings that need more than just some random couple casually giving them birth and the bare basics, what about parent's emotional and mental maturity, what about their financial stability? Without those, the kids are likely to have an adverse childhood and with that long term issues in adulthood, like anxiety, insecurity, depression, trouble completing basic tasks regularly, health issues, addiction (not just drugs but food and alcohol) and so on.
Good one!
rampant societal narcissism people want the best life for themselves few want to give selflessly for the future. its the same with retirement
Hell yeah. This right here is my favorite comment.
The 1st reason people have fewer children is because women are conditioned / forced into full time jobs during their already small reproductive window, generally between the ages of 20 and 35. So most women spend most of their younger years chasing a lifestyle unfit with family life. You may have two incomes to leverage from but you end up lacking the time, attention, and energies to focus on children. As a society we moved millions of women from domestic roles to career roles, only at the advantage of work productivity. Most women end up earning not enough to hire someone to raise their kids - so economically this trade off does not make sense all things considered. And no, people won’t have kids if they can barely afford them or care for them appropriately. The whole setup now just doesn’t make sense.
While before we were conditioned to be mother's!!!! The main point you made is economic one, where two wage earners are required to rent or buy a house, we have also created the nuclear family meaning the loss of intergenerational care from grandparents. Instead as you rightly point out families now have to pay for child care. Looking after children is just plain hard work, which men all too often do not want to put the effort in to assist and with no close family to help as in the past can make it unbearable. The plain fact many women now want to stay single, have a career and find these pursuits for more enjoyable. The thought of being stuck at home with sleepless nights is not attractive. Stay at home mums are also at the mercy of their partner since they no longer have economics means of their own, a very insecure place when 1 in 4 can suffer physical abuse. Finally women will not take so much shit as they used to. The idea of stay at home mum is a 1950's concept, actual studies show that women in the Victorian era from working class background had to work 12-15 hours a day to make ends meet in such work as domestic service, charwoman, laundress or shirt-maker. The census of 1850 shows hundreds of different occupational titles for women, including married women working in agriculture, artificial flower-making, chemical working, cigar-making, warehouse supervising, the lithograph trade, meat preserving, straw plaiting, manufacturing of food and drink, printing, rabbit fur pulling and even medical galvanising. Not only that the figure may be underestimated due to men who filled in the form did not like to admit their wives worked. So the stay at home mother is myth of ages past and may have been real for just a for a very short period of time in the 1940-1960's and then only mainly the middle classes.
Who forced women into full time jobs? Maybe if we can be honest about that chain of cause and effect there'd be some hope. But nope, nobody wants to talk about that. Not even this podcast.
@@biscottigelato8574 no one. We just wanted to be independent, lead our own lives and have creative jobs of not just having children, in the same way men do.Hence we fought for the vote, equal pay. Sadly, in part, ecomonics has also meant that many women do not have choice.
I blame electric clothes dryers. Really, think about it. Washing clothes used to take all day. Once modern utilities came along women decided they were bored staying home with nothing to do so they flooded into the workforce.
We need to encourage young women to have their families first, then get into career stuff once the children are in school. They'll know themselves more fully then and choose more realistic career paths. Not wrack up student debt on an idea that won't even pay anything. Just my 2 cents.
As a woman living and dating in the western world, I don't want to have to leave my 6 months baby 🤱🏼 in some daycare to go to work 40 hours a day somewhere. Having to work full time and then go home and clean, cook, take care of children with no support from my spouse. 🤷🏾♀️
So as someone dating, yeah I looking at the financially secure, the 20% so I won't have to be in this situation. A man that will provide Support.
It's such a shame. There was a time when most men could support a family. They could get a job right out of high school if they wanted to and take care of a family. Now it's considered a luxury. It's always been this way until around the 1980s, when it became harder and harder to do this. Now it's rare. You are not wrong for wanting this. I feel so sorry for men too, most of whom will probably never get to this point. It's all just so sad.
Why do you get no support from your spouse? And if you have a spouse why are you dating?
Good luck. As a man. We don’t care anymore. Too little too late.
@@BirdManUnlimitedLove yeahhh nan men care very much according to the studies, articles on the subject, men loneliness epidemic, low birth rates etc.
@@BirdManUnlimitedLove You need to realise that not all women see things the way feminists do and have not contributed to the problem.
As a woman in her 40's, let me make this quite clear: Most of us are not going to pop out 2 or 3 babies at this age, especially if we haven't already started creating our own football team. Modern fertility treatments can do a lot, but it's not magic, and it won't make it easier to deal with the demands of an infant once it is born.
Best to have babies before you are 30.... Surely every woman knows that.
Odds be, it's 10 years post wall
I can say you are right but... I had myvfirst at 40, being infertile .. so we tried again and use FIV for the second at 46. Yes, it is hard every day, and not natural, but a great thing to live though...
@@reasonablespeculation3893 says who? Men who think they're the world authority on everyone and everything?
Real mystery tho Reich
I think the older ladies need to be telling the younger women not to wait. A career and higher education can be had at any time but children should be had in their early/mid twenties optimally.
Society has so much influence on us. I was told by my granny that I am lazy because i dont want to work.. i have 2 kids - a 3yo and a 10-month-old at home, i was working between them, but now I feel like it is the best for them when i spend some time with them at home. Both my parents and grandparents had a huge family (grandparents) support, which we dont have at all because our parents have their own lives and they still work, the circumstances are just so different, yet i really dont understand why mothers are shamed, i would like to have more kids but i know i would be very criticized for such decision even in my own family..
Great comment. I agree with you.👍
Have more kids! Don't let your family shame you - that's horrible!! It's a decision for you and your husband. I know I'm never going to look back and wish I'd done more 'work' and had less kids. Yes, it involves a lot of sacrifice, but also a lot of joy and love.
I'm about to have my 4th and the reaction from one of my grandfather's was... "Oh..." like he was disappointed I wasn't going back to work!? It was bizarre!
I have no regrets. Third child was best decision ever. Looking forward to adding the next soon :)
Tbh, they had support because they earned it. Nowadays, women bully the ones who are supposed to help them take care of their kids (other women) then wonder why they don’t have support. How many times in middle school were you a “mean girl” to a potential ally? I personally love kids and is happy to help moms, yet no good deed goes unpunished so I sit out watching the moms struggle instead. I’ve had moms I’ve given money too to & help with their kids not talk to me over $40 (after I’ve given them the equivalent of thousands- covered schooling costs, childcare, picked up their kids from school etc). This generation of XX’s want to take while being narcissistic and so the “village” decided to let them handle it on their own.
They don't care about you. Why do you care about their opinion? None of them is lifting a finger to help you.
I would say it is the feminist narrative that criticizes women for being mothers who want to invest their lives into their children.
Refocus on creating and maintaining our sense of community and connection to one another would go a long way to reversing our fertility decline. Serving one another, looking after eachother. Having our "tribes". Such an environment of support and love naturally encourages the desire for children to add to the community.
I am a parent, and it’s pretty exhausting because of the changes in society (less social and physical (cars) safety for playing outside by themselves, no neighbourhood children they know due to individualisation, the lure of the screen and bad food environment, no village to raise a child, less and less room and support for diversity in learning styles in overcrowded classrooms mean that the parents need to put a lot of time and effort (or money to make someone else do it) into the upbringing to meet healthy developmental standards. One of my children also needs a lot of medical care on top of that, and I’m very aware we would have been bankrupt if we’d lived in the USA.
At the same time the growing percentage of people that don’t have children seem less and less supportive of families and state that they feel they already pay too much and have to pick up too much slack for parents that have to leave work early to take care of sick children etcetera, because those children were ‘their own choice’. Children, and by extension parents, are seen and treated as inconvenient nuisances that disrupt efficient, productive society. People in general seem very judgy, however you choose/manage to shape your family life, and the more sensitive children aren’t exactly thriving in modern society (are any, really?).
Seeing for yourself or reading studies about how much problems and stress parents experience is even worse of a deterrent than not seeing anyone with children, imho. I was certainly not overly excited about all the known, lifelong detrimental effects on my body, career and relationship having children would have, and underestimated the mental health toll on top of that. I love my children and am in many ways very privileged and grateful, but we’re also still stuck in survival mode nearly a decade in (as a consequence my children are already convinced that having children is way too much work 😂)…
What kind of society do we have to move towards to get people to want to have kids? That is the big question. Our society is not play oriented, it’s way too serious, Work oriented, depressing, lacking in fun. There’s no time for play, creativity, and having fun. You have to work in order to support a lifestyle. Unless you have a stay at home parent, kids demand a lot of time. People without a comfortable financial status are too stressed to take on kids on top of everything else.
I'm a 39 year old, single, childless woman who very much wanted a family of my own. I have a good career, have started a small homestead, I'm no great beauty but take care of my health. Maybe my standards for a partner are too high but I would rather never have children than become a single mom and I just haven't found a partner who wanted a family and who I felt confident that they would stay with me long-term and I wanted to stay with them long-term. Becoming a single mom would ruin the life I have worked insanely hard to build. I don't have the money for childcare on my own nor would I want some random person spending more time with my kids than I could while I work full-time and I have no family nearby who could help support me with raising a child. Maybe I would have taken a bigger risk with men I've dated in the past if I had some family support, I dunno. But I dont think my situation is that uncommon and I think a big part of the issue is the breakdown of multigenerational families where everyone comes together to help raise children. The vast majority of the responsibilities of raising kids has now fallen on mom and dad, it is no longer 'it takes a village to raise a child' and it's insanely difficult for 1 or 2 people to do it alone.
Edited to add: i just finished the video and I'm disappointed they didnt have advice for someone like me on new/unconventional ways of finding a partner because I've tried everything and very open to ideas, lol. At this stage of my life i have very low hopes of finding a partner before conceiving would be very difficult so my plan is to keep working hard, retire early, around 52, and then foster and adopt children when I can be financially secure enough to stay home and raise them right. But if a suitable man suddenly fell into my life tomorrow I'd be willing to give it a go so y'all, please tell me where to find him 😂
You can’t eat your cake and have it too. You have become the partner you are looking for. You wanted financial and sexual power but it comes at a cost.
Anyone with both powers is in effect a tyrant and no one healthy likes a tyrant. I don’t know what to tell you darling. This bed is made.
@@derek4412beautiful read. May God keep you both and protect your kids.
Dear Heather, if you want a good family man, you need to attract him, he's not randomly "falling into your life". And there's nothing more attractive to a good man than a loving and faithful woman, who's not acting too crazy. ;-) Be a lady. Go out places where your preferred character is likely to frequent and make it OBVIOUS you're available with eye contact and smile. Positive motivation is stronger than demands/complaints. Plus you'll feel better, too.
(Your 52 plan sounds sad, tired and aimed at more kids without a father figure. Worse than cats. Please don't do that to yourself.)
God speed!
@@Martin_137 What makes you think I haven't tried that for the last 2 decades? I'm not stupid or totally socially inept, what you laid out is the traditional advice for women to attract men. Nothing new or revolutionary.
Well, some of us just aren't lucky enough or pretty enough to land a quality man when we are young. And it only gets harder and harder as people get established and settled in their lives. I've dated a lot and have had a few multiple year relationships trying to figure out if we can make it work but we ultimately run up against an incompatibility in what we want in life.
At this age I'm much more content to just take care of myself and look forward to kids later in life rather than forcing it with someone who is not someone I think would be a good husband and father. I think that would be a much sadder reality than being a cat lady or adoptive mom.
My wife and I married at 35 (both for the first time) and went on to successfully rear our 4 kids in our own home (mortgage paid off and now in our mid-late 60s). We are very much a product of assortative mating (comparable looks, similar interests, similar family of origins, similar earning capacity, similar social history). When we met, through an outdoor group activity, we were both actively looking for a partner to commit to (ie we were getting to know and sounding out potential partners). The stereotype was true though. She was looking for 'commitment' and I was looking for 'sex'. She had got acquainted with more potential partners than me and was 'dating?' a guy when I asked her out. Though she stopped seeing him after our first 'walk and chat'. My wife-to-be sincerely believed I was more accomplished, had more social standing, more intelligence and more 'potential' than her (or the other guy). While, in reality I was 'self-employed', only earning enough to scrape by and had minimal savings.
Lesson: meet men where they do stuff, preferably in groups but it doesn't need to be. Get to know them in that context. Preferentially interact with the (single) ones you feel comfortable with in that situation. Move to 'dating' (I initiated) late in the process. If you initiate, don't call it 'dating' but test what physical intimacy feels like with them.
A different example, though also assortative mating: A friend of ours married, for her 2nd time, in her eary 40's and had a child at 45. Her first husband was a bit of a chad (good looking, tall, high earner and they had 3 kids) and traded her in for a younger partner. The new husband was a 'gaulky' never married professional guy (she was an ageing though well presented professional). He was/is thrilled with her. That was about 15 years ago and I expect them to stay together for life.
31:09 there is a French saying: "God laughs at those who bemoans the consequences of the causes they cherish".
It perfectly describes this researcher.
Bossuet-pilled
No, he really just understands nuance and complexity without the need to catastrophize and bemoan the fact that civilizations change and run into problems. Which is something you could apprehend if you didn't have an out-of-date, stadial view of history you unknowingly inherited from the 18th century.
@@anastasis-cm5hw I feel that the OP is actually saying the same thing as you. Men don't want to recognise that the modern paradigm is the result of Capitalism and Patriarchy
That you cannot separate the two as they're cause and effect, so if Men don't want to grow up and take responsibility, then they shouldn't bemoan the crashing reproduction rates
@anastasis-cm5hw "Out-of-date" is a rather laughable description of highly sustainable reproductive models that have been universal in the development and persistence of humanity since the inception of record-taking. Yet, you claim this model is out-of-date, while all available evidence indicates the contrary. Assuredly, the trajectory of travel of this promiscuous, matriarchal reproductive model will result in self-extinction of these quixotically-minded populations of both the West and East. I wrote a book detailing, amongst other things, the tendency of late-stage empires towards adopting anti-natalist and anti-family reproductive models. It will come as no surprise, but they always fail catastrophically and we see a mean reversion back to arranged-marriage or pair-bonding, along with resuming of patriarchal structures and institutions. Indeed, the only thing different in this iteration of the conceitedly faux "sophisticant", of the intrepidly "modern", is that they now possess viable forms of contraception and termination. Hence, it is rapidly accelerating our collision course with the inevitable.
That was 2500 years of history that I covered, with these trends being determinably cyclical. There is nothing new under the Sun, hence it would seem to be you who has the stadial view of history with your "out-of-date" quip.
The speaker is milquetoast in his idealistically-driven naivety, but he is right to be terrified of the irreparable prospect of demographic destiny. Comedically, what we will experience as the consequences of our failure to reproduce will be akin to a Time-Machine back to that "out-of-date" past. Huzzah for the critical-path of "progress"!
Nonsense. Africa has a long history of women leaders and equality. The albinos just destroyed and erased everything.
Having children in this day & age is way too much work & risk
Taxes, rent, energy and food are about 85% of my income and the percentage has increased over the last 10 years, why would I ever have children. The signals from society that I am not good enough to make it could not be louder
It wasn’t any different when your great grandmother, your grandmother and your parents were paying their way through life.
Yet here you are….
@@danielpye7738 Last 10 years my fixed costs went from about 60% to 85% now, if the next decade is the same it will be above 100%. I am not going to add another being into this
@@danielpye7738 False, my great grand parents, grand parents and parents had a better life. They didn't work the long hours I works nor were their bills and rent as high.
@@danielpye7738 It was different. Real state was cheap back then. You could have kids and have them working on the land, or build up their trade.
@@danielpye7738 Do you mind to remined what was taxes 100 years ago in your country? And what are they now?
I always wanted kids. I had 3 siblings and wanted at least 3 kids of my own, but we could only manage one. Put $250k in my bank account and I'd have another one right now. Governments could stem the bleeding if they paid women who are already moms to have additional children. SK has proven that money isn't enough of an incentive to go from no kids to kids but it absolutely would work for people who are already parents by choice.
My parents had 4 kids in 8 years and had ample help from their parents and siblings. I have lived 2 hours away from my parents for 7 years and they have only bothered to visit once each. The message is received, we're on our own, but it is extremely unnatural and difficult to raise kids in siloed nuclear families.
As a grandfather I'd love to help raise grandchildren,however the government wants me to work until I'm 70
"Put $250k in my bank account and I'd have another one right now" - doesn't work that way. Have the baby....the money will follow. Trust me on this. I have 11 children (all with one wife, don't worry). Every time we got pregnant, I got a raise, a promotion....money almost fell from the sky. But you have to step out in faith FIRST...then the good things come.
Money is not the issue, there are Somali families on welfare here with 15 kids.
I think this is the first step and group society should give money to. "Have another kid, have a 100k" or something similar.
@@-haclong2366 Don't worry. The issue here is that they want to steal your money through taxes. Why did you assume it's to increase the birthgap?
I used a strategy to get married. I dated multiple men at once, was upfront of dating multiple people, refused to have sex before marriage, was upfront about wanting marriage. Lots of guys wanted one night stands. Once they found out I wasn't doing one night stands, they generally refused to call me back. I used this method to avoid the stepping stone girl trap- where a girl dates a guy for 10 years before finding out he was leading her on. Despite using this logical and mathematically sound strategy- I still didn't get married until I was in my 30s. A large portion of guys asking me out- were not interested in marriage.
There is a huge pool of guys out there that just want one night stands. It is really hard to go through that haystack to find a guy who wants more. Lots of guys will lie if they think it will get you into bed with them.
I don't think the issue is just that women are picky. A very large percentage of men out there just want sex and are willing to lie and manipulate to get it. This makes it very hard to find the good men out there.
I also think that most men are chasing the top 1/3 of all women and have little interest in 2/3s of women. We live in a really demanding environment, which pushes up the standards for both men and women. However, due to health issues, politics, and economic issues, quality has decreased and we are all being dragged down. Double whammy.
Its a hard world out there peeps.
Great comment, I thought the same while listening to this video!
You are exactly right, this is a huge factor as well.
Where did you find these men? In college? In a workplace? In a sports/music/coding club?
Getting involved in healthy hobbies might expose you to many potential partners.
It’s important to spend time in productive places - improves our personality and our social circle and we can pick somebody from that social circle if they are compatible.
I think you've made a false assumption. Many people are not interested in marrying someone they haven't had sex with. What if its unpleasant? What if that person doesn't actually like sex? Since sex is important to most people, this could be a disastrous situation. Its like buying a house from a picture, without visiting and experiencing it. So when a woman says no sex before marriage, she gets crossed off the list.
@ Such men r huge red flags. What if he has dangerous diseases? That could be a huge disaster as well. Any kind of protection is not 100% fail proof, so why risk your health to impress some random person.
Personally I feel “some activities” should be contained inside a marriage OR at least a very very serious relationship.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, I don’t care.
One thing I recall from being a new mom was that 6wks of maternity leave felt very short. I actually was placed on bed rest the last week of my pregnancy so instead of 6 weeks off work after my son was born I only had 5 weeks. I think a lot of young people can easily see themselves living it up without kids. They’re not able to see how they’ll feel at 55 with no grandchildren or family to be with on holidays. The world is going to look very different.
Having a family is no longer a major goal for many cultures, and instead people have been focusing on career and being “independent.” We need to change culture to value familes again.
There's a difference between genuinely having "family values" and systemically forcing people into families.
Because lack of religion too
I feel like it's fear of going back to less free and nore oppressive times that are causing people to make up the idea that anyone will be "forced" into having families. I think the plan more likely to happen is that people will be "encouraged" to have build more families. The ability to create a family is a powerful and essential to the survival of the human species and with great power comes great responsibility.
@SalmonColoredSalmon6267
Those quotation marks are doing a lot of heavy lifting there
@@ss-ds2dn I mean, I meant what I said in regards to those two words actually having different meanings. Forcing would be akin to something like creating a law that says if people don't have at least one child by the time they turn 30, they'll be subjected to work in a slave labor camp, while encouraging would be something like offering child tax credits to incentivise people to have children, which was mentioned in the video.
But by saying heavy lifting, would I be correct in assuming you're worried that those words could be misconstrued as being vague enough that institutions in charge would see the definition of both terms as essentially being one in the same, and that they would choose to push for the forceful option while advertising it as simply encouragement?
If not, what do you mean by heavy lifting?
42:30 You don't have to tell them to lower their standards, but you have to tell them the truth; that they can't have it all.
🔥👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🤝🏼
Women's standards typically lower by themselves as they age because reality always catches up, the best women are always out of the dating market early, but the leftovers are either spoiled (Alpha widows) or ripe (lower their unrealistic standards).
Most people can't survive on 1 income. Look prices of rent, healthcare and food. Most of it boils down to 2 people being financially forced to work long hours to just afford rent and food. Physical exhausted does not encourage good sexual and relationships. Exhaustion is real. Sleep is the new sex!
This is the issue right here, look up the UNs definition of genocide thats whats actually going on in open borders western worldnative births are traded for mass imigration @@marianhunt8899
We do have to tell them... that their standards are pure hubristic fantasy.
I moved to Norway 10 years ago with my Icelandic husband, we had 3 kids 2 years apart. My eldest’ class (5th grade) is about 75% ethnic Norwegian kids, my middle (3rd) is 50%, my son’s (1st) class has 24 students - 2 of which are ethically Norwegian. Most of the children in the class are first generation immigrant children who barely speak Norwegian when they enter school. There is an enormous issue with bullying and behavioural issues with many of the immigrant groups - who often live in poverty, aren’t given ample enough opportunities to integrate, and are beginning to form religion based social groups. Kids are being targeted for bullying for being ethically Nordic.
You can thank the Jews for that
Excellent point and it's what I said earlier in the comment which was that we won't have a reduction of population necessarily but we will have a change in demography as the developing nations' migrants continue to flood the Western Nations.
Same , my son gets bullied for being a native and the other kids are taught to be racist by their parents.
The comments share many important points, and I agree that culture, resources, and health are some of the most important factors for low infertility. There is one thing I'd like to add. The interview states that men aren't "good enough" anymore, and that men need to get better, but that there are no concrete ways for them to become better, other than "don't go fishing". It is mentioned that 'high value men' are available for women on Tinder (which I don't think is true - both men and women aren't getting what they want on dating apps). Finally, there was a comment that "men try to cry their way into women's pants," which, indeed, is a dismissive statement.
When Mads speaks of 'high value men', I am under the impression that by high value he means a man with more resources/power/influence/status than the woman. If so: to a degree there is truth to it, but I don't think that's a full picture. Those things are not all that makes men attractive. Probably the best indicator of a man's success with women can be contributed to attractive behavior. This includes many qualities, such as humor, social awareness/intelligence, taking initiative (also sexually), displaying risk-taking behavior, building connection, walking their talk, being disciplined and having good habits, being respectfully unapologetic, protectiveness, etc. I hope that this description is more concrete and helpful than just "don't go fishing".
Also, it's an advantage if a man is looking to improve himself in every way; improving his behaviors as well as increasing the earlier mentioned resources/power/influence/status. Many women tend to feel attracted to a man with unrealized potential similarly to men with realized potential, so long as a man shows that he is 'building'. Especially if she values the same things, she likes to 'build' a future with him.
My male friends who have the most success with women have grown up around girls and women, which helped them understand the female brain better and that gave them an edge with the opposite sex during puberty. Once they had that advantage, the gap between them and less succesful men only widened further with time and experience. Not all of my friends are traditionally handsome, particularly rich or whatever. They simply have all the right behaviors, so women flock to them and stay with them.
That may sound like bad news for men who grew up without having the same edge. You can't change the past. But I think it's actually good news, because all of these things can be learned. It's not easy, but all is not lost.
All of the above is not to say that women don't have a lot to work on - they do. However, that was not the question that was posed here. I think that both men and women could work on their relationship skills to have more success in the dating market. Ideally, society would only produce people with these skills, and with a healthy attachment style, but that's stuff for a utopia probably. Society doesn't care about teaching these skills. That's how we've ended up with an unhealthy polarity in which both men and women aren't getting their relational needs met. People need to teach themselves.
Good comment! I assumed he means high value man = good genetics + developed masculinity, particularly when it comes to apps/casual sex.
"No more young slave sheeps for rich old wolves"
I find it interesting that these conversations or discussions never lead to looking at low birth rates as symptoms. Because of that, it will lead to the “Handmaids Tales”
Exactly
Good.
Oh stop.
They can't because the same corporations that cause the issue are watching.
But beyond that, let's say that over three generations most countries do drop to 10% of their numbers. Depending on A.I. and other Automation techniques, it's entirely possible the collapse will fix itself. And the environment will have time to catch up. I'm not saying this isn't a crisis, but does it necessarily have to be? Humanity's population skyrocketed over the last century. We can afford to drop back down.
I think much of the dating crisis comes down to this: The sexes objectify each other as commodities. Dating sites, porn, & the birth control pill all contribute. And a moral & even spiritual renewal is actually needed to change the "use and abuse" dynamic, and develop the virtues needed to attract a long-term mate.
I agree. Developing the virtues is so important. Modern society as a whole doesn’t value virtue or even understand what it is.
Our very economic system in its current iteration is one that implicitly forces, coerces, promotes the objectification you diagnose... in fact, since 1980 it has led to viewing self as a commodity to be "branded" and sold.
Even Chris and most of his male guests over the years speak this language of "success."
Internalization of the inherent value system of late-stage predatory capitalism is the elephant in the room.
This is why it is incomplete & unproductive to have this discussion about falling birth rates with only an evolutionary biologist, without (alternative, non-neoliberal) economists, political scientists, and philosophers on the panel.
To ignore the unspoken ideology of our Matrix -- the global economy -- unwittingly buys into that system: it's all about "individual responsibility" to solve societal crises... blame of identity groups is promoted... only private solutions can be entertained with ideas of "incentives" to coerce behavior...
THIS IS THE WORLDVIEW of NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS trying to diagnose and "solve" the crises it has created... an insidious system of thought that has inevitably led to political fascism and is rapidly headed toward technocratic totalitarianism.
Both women -- and men -- fear the draconian measures that may ultimately be taken by such a system, if it identifies low birth rates as a problem to be solved... ala Elon.
Thank goodness most comments on this post highlight the issue of economics & don't fall into the trap of blaming women's high standards for reliable, dependable, morally wise fathers with whom to raise children.
But none of these people have actually named the economic system itself & its accepted, underlying "values" as the root cause.
That would be heresy.
Homeschooling parent of five here. Huge, incredible sacrifice to provide the best education for the younger years. I agree with all of the comments about degrees and the risks their costs incur, but what are viable options? I feel like the be-a-plumber-and-you’ll-be-rich mantra is the new “learn to code” trope. Sounds attractive, but in know first hand that the local tradesmen aren’t rolling in dough.
The rate isn't going to go up in the next ten years, any woman that has a kid in late 30s that ends up having one kid is going to realize how exhausting a kid is in late age and won't have another
Correct
Interesting. I had my first at 18 & my 9th at 39. I do more (cloth diapers, homeschool & garden/chickens) than I did at 18 years old. I think babies/children keep you young.
Energy transfer. Children are full of light.
@@ashjankins960 Thank you for saying this! That's when I plan to have my last as well. I think people make it more complicated than it has to be because of all the ideas of what children "need", when in reality no amount of educational toys, perfect outfits, lovely vacation destinations or all the latest technology can make up for a good attachment, and a good attachment is free. Working hard because they care so much about the needs of their children is a beautiful trait that most mothers share, but it has been taken advantage of by those selling ideologies or material goods, leaving many on the brink of exhaustion.
Much like pets, having two is easier than having one. But in order for this to work you must task them with taking care of each other. And you must be good at doing this.
4,000+ comments in, someone else has already said this,. but this problem won't be fixed by trying to fix it head-on. What we need to do is fix the underlying concerns (cost of living, cost of college, cost of having kids). If you fix all those things, it by default incentivizes people to feel safe and secure in having more kids. When inequality continues to get worse and the 1% at the top own 50% of assets,.. we'll never fix declines in population. The world has to be come more fair,. and it doesn't seem like people in power at the top seem all that interested in that goal.
the cost is not the problem. If that was the case, then why do the poorest people have the most kids? Why do the poorest countries have the most kids?
30M. Never having kids. This society sucks.
If you think it’s bad now, you are gonna love what’s coming….
@mcihs2 I know. I am not optimistic about the future. I'm preparing for the worst.
There are 3 reasons why people have more difficulty finding a partner, maintain long-term relationships and having children: 1. Unrealistic expectations of a partner, 2. Unwillingness to work on the relationship, and 3. selfishness. We need a cultural shift to turn this around. We need to begin to value long-term relationships and family again. I found a man who had these values early in life. As a result I had children in my twenties and was a stay-at-home mom for a while and I had to remind myself why I was doing this because society devalued me for it at every turn. I was ostracized and treated as if I was stupid for being at home with my kids instead of chasing a career, even at church where you would expect family values to be at least respected if not promoted. That needs to be changed and bringing back some romantiscism would not hurt either.
I got married at 24, and had three kids by the time I was 36- they are without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened in my life. They are closing schools in my city because of the shrinking student population, and the move towards charter and home schooling. As far as I can tell people are self selecting out of the gene pool and the only people having kids are more conservative and religious.... demographics are destiny.
Yup, all nations need to have that religious conservative core to survive. Without that, you can never get higher birth rates as people will never want to have more children.
When we had our 4th (final) kid my wife was welcomed into the evangelical group of mothers at our kid's school. She was more of an atheist than me.
I'd disagree with the notion of "self-selecting". For a lot of people, men and women alike, the reality is that by the time they get their priorities right, it's already over. Not sure how it works for women, but for men the ability to commit decreases with each disappointment. You can only put all of your heart into a relationship so many times before you get cynical and start holding back just for the sake of self-preservation.
You can only do the right thing if you are raised into knowing what that is.
My youngest son has to go to a merged class because the school had to merge classes due to other schools closing. The few schools that stay open have larger classrooms.
Issue is that men and women don’t need each other as much as they used to .
A perception of not needing, because we've engineered each other apart. But yes, I agree too.
I believe they need each other more than ever and do not see it.
We need each other. Everyone is getting more miserable these days "not needing each other"... population collapse, depression, health decline ... the family unit being broken has allowed this to fester.
@@VisionaryStorytelling Yes perception of need but end result ending up horribly seems accurate.
I agree
Marriage is not a necessity anymore
Do you realize how much they delete comments on your page - which directly affects your videos in the algorithm?
I bet you're already minus 100 for the 8 that they let show.
Even the faintest critique of fem in ism is deleted on this channel, so I won’t be surprised if this mild comment is removed.
Any mention of a recent "medical" treatment of 80% of the population is also immediately deleted.
They've been on a mass deletion trend lately. I get shadowbanned, replies hidden and comments deleted regularly despite being civil and polite. I called it out this afternoon on another video by editing the comment and all of a sudden, people started seeing it, left likes and commented.
Your point was proven. I posted a reply to this comment and it didn't even show up, instantly deleted.
@@stonemarten1400Jews
As a young guy in his 30's im high as hell on hopelessness.
Not worth it, ill watch.
Two things come to mind for me:
I think in the past, in many traditional societies, the expectation was, that the man would be physically attracted to his wife, and not the other way around. The idea was that women would do their "wife duties", and hope she married a kind man who loved her and treated her with respect, and maybe, eventually she would grow to find him attractive over time. I feel we don't talk about this directly enough, but rather dance around it saying, "women had little choice in the past as they had to be dependant on a man for social and sometimes physical safety." Also, the expectation was that they would reproduce legitimate children to keep the family lineage going, but men of means could, and probably would produce illegitimate children as well. So, the "good ole days" of procreation were not as "rosey" as we romanticize.
And secondly, it is true that the smaller the pool of people to choose from, less picky a person is about beauty standards for mate selection. So, the advent of the internet and seeing the most beautiful people as an "option" has definitely adjusted everyone's ability to see common features as beautiful.
IIRC a study made a point that historically about 80% women have left offspring and only about 40% of men
The biggest problem is how are "they" going to convince us that ressources are scarce as population declines?
It definitely works. Look at the comments from all these ‘based’ people. They still blame abstractions like ‘money’ instead of just admitting that vvomen don’t want kids or husbands.
@@JohnJourdan88 Vvomen wants kids, just not with "brokies".
Most households were much poorer and living standards were worse 100 years ago, yet we have people blaming todays economy even though we have government assistance and women have earning potential as well which was not the case 100 years ago.
Its clear to me that the sexual liberation of women, the decline in religion and communities as well as hookup culture which makes women unable to pair bond has caused this problem.
Owned by few and called reserves/sanctuaries/ habitats.
@@BoothsGalore7 Bingo. Sometimes I am afraid that I will be alone in the comment sections explaining this incredibly simple thing that people just refuse to understand. The truth is that our modern society was never sustainable
how are "involuntarily single women" misogynistic? LOL It's Sour grapes, because they've long thrown around "Incel" as an insult to men who can't find a woman, and that has now bounced back on them (and the closeness of the comparison makes them uncomfortable).
The ironic thing is, thanks to Briffault's Law, they can not be involuntary by logic. As they decide the conditions of mating and dating.
I watched a documentary on actual incels who identify as that
I didn't know it was an actual thing. But it was those guys who had the weirdest most toxic view towards women blaming them for everything. I don't think someone who is just lonely deserves to be called an incel. But real incels are dangerously weird is what I took from that documentary
@JoweI-d4v Being an "incel" is not about what anyone "deserves".
It's also different because they aren't "involuntary". These women have nearly limitless options for willing mates, they just view themselves as too good for them. The dating crisis is entirely driven by bad economics holding men back, and women having unreasonable standards for mates, and this has been objectively proven on many occasions. Women view the average man as being obscenely unattractive while men view the average woman as average.
@@JoweI-d4vMaybe, those "toxic" incels became so toxic only due to a long history of being rejected by women, no matter how they behaved - rejected because of something they haven't chosen to be and can't change about themselves, such as their physical looks. This can be a very dehumanising experience for these man, because after some time they start reading these repeated rejections as the following message: "you're not a human being, you're not even eligible for mating within human species". Their bitterness is then made even worse by the awareness that the traits because of which they are rejected by women have got noting to do with their real quality as potential mates, because the whole business of dating and mating is (from nature's point of view) about becoming fathers and mothers, and there's no reason whatsoever why a short balding guy should be less qualified to be a good father than a "tall, dark and handsome" guy.
I love that he says. It’s hard for women to find partners and not that men have decided the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.
Another great podcast and an important topic. Family is the fabric of society.
I think it’s really sad for genetic lines to end unnecessarily.
One factor that wasn’t mentioned was arrested development/prolonged adolescence.
People doing recreational drugs and fooling around like 20 year olds until they’re 40+.
I’m 39 and an “insing” and “incel” for a variety of reasons too long to list.
Some men think it would be amazing to get propositioned all the time. I explain it to them like this…
“Have you ever met a woman you’re not attracted to? Or a woman who makes you cringe?” They’ll always say “yes,” and then I say, “Now imagine women like that are coming up to you every day.” Then they get it.
It’s not at all fun to be approached by men you’re not interested in.
What’s worse is men you are interested in who only want to use you for your body in exchange for nothing or “free” drinks and food.
If I’m not easy, plenty of other women will be, so if he’s not looking to start a family or he’s not financially prepared to, he’ll likely go where it’s easy.
For this reason, a lot of modern dating is basically free or cheap prostitution on the women’s part.
Feminists sell it as liberation, but it’s self-destruction. I’d much prefer to be an “incel-insing,” than a disposable woman.
40-50% of pregnancies in the west are unplanned, so playing the minefield will result in children for some women, but likely not result in a healthy two parent family.
As an intentional person who wants the best for my unborn, playing father and family roulette is frightening.
Friends say, “You know you could have a baby on your own.” Even my therapist asked if I would as if that’s normal! It’s not and shouldn’t be.
Recently, a father of 4 argued with me that fathers are not important until he realised how stupid his argument was and stopped.
The world’s brainwashed.
The best healthiest thing for children is a stable two parent home protected by the legal bind of marriage.
As an ex-teacher of 8 years, I observed that the children from two parent homes with one invested stay-at-home parent achieved the best results at school. I want the best for my unborn.
Solutions?
Solutions could involve better tax breaks for first home buyers. A man with a house is a more attractive proposition. A woman in a secured home feels safer to start a family.
I know many men complain about female hypergamy but would you want your daughter to partner with a financially insecure man? That’s unsafe, even a dunce could do that math.
Government funded free-to-use dating apps e.g. apps that are not driven by profit to keep people on for eternity, but rather want people to match.
Ending remote work. 33% of people meet at work, but not in a remote world. I forfeited remote work in part for this reason.
Environmental awareness. It’s wise of women to avoid female dominated sectors, or if you choose teaching, nursing etc., then be conscious to make an effort to meet men after hours before it’s too late. 8 years teaching, nothing but married men, flowery men and PE teachers.
Event connection. I went to Chris’s event in Melbourne recently. That room of 2,000 could’ve potentially had some decent single men in it. It would help if eligible interested people could tick a box post-event, then their profile could be visible to all the other eligible people. Starting out via a shared interest makes it more likely that values will align for greater compatibility.
Lastly, teach people how to flirt and be flirted with, and how to select a safe available partner as early as possible e.g. the last year of high school. Critical life skills likely very lost on a device-first post-Covid cohort.
Your comment was one of the most well-thought-out ones and it actually gave possible solutions or at least ways to amend the situation. The last one really caught my eye because men often think I'm flirting and sometimes I think women may think I'm flirting because I've not lost the art of conversation. My family used to laugh and say I kissed the blarney Stone and even though I'm not Irish, I'm technically Scottish or Scot-Irish to be specific, I probably did because I love to chat and a lot of the chatter of course tends to seem flirtatious because when you're talking in a light manner and you're being creative it can look like that. BUT actually it's not flirtatious if everyone's doing it and they understand the art of conversation is an art, not a science .
Also due to the change in the world especially through women's lib, men lost the ability to be chivalrous and to actually really be gentlemen and that has put a huge huge monkey wrench in the whole works of mating; dating; courting, call it as as you will.
With the beginning of women's lib, which actually I had to live through, also came a change in rhetoric or ways of communication and people would say:cut to the chase; what is the bottom line; and Men generally would begin a conversation with-- do you want to f***? Literally. I noticed when I said that into my phone, it put the F word with asterisks but that is what these young women were hearing from men and they were coming from good homes where that type of language was not used and their mother definitely was NOT courted in that fashion. I still remember when I was very young and visiting Italy and I met a man who was not American and I thought he said to me do you want an ice cream and I said-- no thank you --and he started laughing because actually he had said to me do you want to f***. That sort of sums it up and that's where romance is at and that would be true and I would say in America for sure, as well as many of the other countries in the West. Women no longer go to finishing school but they do usually have a few abilities to interact and communicate with the opposite sex, although I will say I think they could refine those abilities by developing the art of conversation, but men are absolutely abysmal. They used to be schooled by their father and by society in what it means to be a man and what it means to be a gentleman and what it means to be a productive and strong member of a society. They no longer are, wearing their clothes that are dirty and torn and ripped and wearing their raggedy hair and beards and failing any basic hygiene. You do wonder if they ever had a mother who told them to wash their hands & their face before dinner.
Early on when womens lib was beginning , women would say that women have changed greatly but men have not changed at all and that is still true. They have not changed because they did not have to change. I would say now though suddenly they come up empty-handed and they are very unhappy people. They need help.
THESE are basic things that can be done by society but we must be aware that the elites as shown during the pandemic, which was actually population reduction, have created a situation where even a two income family can no longer to afford to have more than one child, if that. The elites have created this and I thought about that at the time which was decades and decades ago but after the pandemic it becomes very very clear.
The population reduction that the pandemic wanted and achieved is also occurring because of the terrible and actually unhealthy food that people are buying that is disrupting their bodies such that the virility of men has reduced sperm count by 50% or more and mobility is greatly reduced as well. Women I would say have problems with conceiving and that's due to the processed food and also to birth control pills which physically change the size of the tube that goes from the ovaries to the uterus such that eggs cannot pass thru it. Acupuncturists can tell you about that and address that problem if you've been on birth control for period of time. Once you change your food, you can get off all of your pharmaceuticals which also interrupt fertility in both sexes and do it in such a way that it's the silent killer.
Again the powers that be
including the pharmaceutical industry which actually makes more money than the military industrial complex and big food are going to put up a huge fight against the public and their leaders, such as Kennedy, in the States.
Something that these men did not mention, probably because it's very sensitive, is that the things in the food r actually feminizing men and one of them is estrogen which is in chicken to a huge degree but it's in many other things as well as a phytoestrogens which feminize men, while masculinizing women.
As you can see there is a war on fertility and on reproductive productivity and it has to be approached from many different avenues by many different people. Touche.
I like the way you think. It's pretty much the red pill but from a female perspective.
Unfortunately I think affection is non negotiable. As you even pointed it out yourself in the beginning.
We just can't change that most females aren't attractive to most males(hypergamy) . The marriage on the past only work due to culture and religion(limited mating choice, particularly women's).
What we are seeing in modernity entails as females get more options.
There is more to this topic, bust let's just say pushing for marriage to happen is not really the solution. I don't think we should force females to Iike, or even commit themselves the mostly unattractive men.
It's interesting though u mention about helping men to get more attractive such as the housing incentive. But I don't think that's how the taxes work. I don't thk the gov is interested to catering to uplift the average dude.
As a man in my early 30s, women are not my number 1 priority. Focusing on my self is. Working out, eating healthy, making money and doing what I enjoy gives me the ultimate peace.
Cope. You guys need to be honest with yourself. You just aren’t a commodity to them.
What's the point of all that if you aren't passing on your genetics? Serious question
@@JohnJourdan88 cope? I’m a pretty decent looking guy. I can have a woman if I wanted to. But women cost money and stress. I enjoy being able to live freely. I don’t have to answer to anyone.
@@daalmightpanda as a woman, I get your view. Relationships are super high maintenance and cost a lot of energy. I’m also focusing more on myself and on my family. Being an introvert could explain this as well
I think there are plenty of guys like you and I understand why. It's scary out there, and social media made it worse. It goes both ways too. Men think women are dispensable or just not worth it, and women think the same about men. Different times from when I was that age. So many horror stories in relationships now.
Wait, how is the government transferring resources from men to women good for society?
1 million per women!! Only way i can understand it is politicans wanted to put women into the workforce. Higher supply of workers to drive down wages. Maybe boost GDP after the war years? But it costs men 1 million per woman in Denmark!!
I can't understand it myself, it's insane. And I'm freaking Norwegian!!
It pays for the lawyers’ children. That’s about all it does.
They need to value all that work of women caring in the home.
@@Victoria-Enzula If a woman is married to a man and she stays home usually he would go out and work to pay for both of them. It's a voluntary exchange of services consented to by both parties, the government doesn't need to be involved. Or do you mean single women need to be compensated by the government just for taking care of themselves and their own home like a responsible adult?
Maybe if we didn't punish women for having children, economically and socially, there wouldn't be this problem. And no, one day a year doesn't cut it. Societies will have to be organized to centre the needs of mother/child. Or we will perish.
Well, there are a lot of couples who are deciding to not have kids too. The cost of having children is quite high now. Blame the economy instead of men or women specifically.
it's proven many times that money doesn't really play a role, most often the poorest families have the most children and the more wealthy people have none.
people aren't poorer
they just buy shittier quality
@@JugglernautNr9 That would imply that money does affect things - just not in the way that would be expected.
Increase the quality of life -> decrease birth rates. People become egocentric.
When everything is absurdly expensive it makes me not even want to try and possibly just leave the country at some point. Enough is enough.
Stop blaming everything on money. Switzerland is wealthy yet has below replacement level fertility. Thailand is very poor and even lower.
I agree with the other comment. Money is an issue but t not THAT big. I say government could be handing out houses to everyone and it would not make a real difference when it comes to birthrates. The issue goes much deeper.
America is a gulag slave state. I did leave over 10 years ago and life is better overseas for sure. Better women too.
I just don't understand how billions of people throughout human history have done it with much less and almost no resources...why it can't be done today?
@@emilyk.5664 The capitalist system, the modern economy, is a machine engineered to take human babies and extract maximum resources from them. American property taxes are insanely high and FORCE productivity, not to mention most people have a mortgage....a big one.
When I was a young woman, married with a 4 year old child, I so desired a second child. When I got pregnant my father said to me: "You had a choice and you still wanted another child?" He was coming from generations of people who kept having babies each year and who obviously resented their circumstances. When I desired a third child my husband said to me: "Fine, but you are the one that will get stuck with it." This was by then in the 1980's. We did not have a third child. And sure enough he eventually left, leaving me to raise the children on my own. He found family life very limiting of lifestyle. He did not see himself as a family man and to this day does not acknowledge his grand children or great grand children.
His loss...make your own family
Sounds like you married your father pretty much.
I court reported many divorces for decades. Typical divorce, there's a 2 year old kid (more often female since men want a son) and the guy is exiting, wants to free his money from the family expense. They succeeded too: child support did not even cover the extra bedroom the female needed for the kid. And not paying this child support was common, and excused. (Fuck that.)
God forbid anyone ever ask a woman to be held accountable
They wonder why every society on the planet places restrictions on them, and ones that don't collapse quickly.
Historical precedent don't matter in their eyes, look at everything after 1960, ignore hundreds of thousands even million of hominid history.
For what? You arent owed a woman.
@@ReneeDeane The problem is women will only ever date up, which is fine. But with women being pushed into high positions in the workforce, they have taken over the economic spots of the men they would have wanted to marry. Now she is a high earner herself, she expects a man who makes even more. Statistically, this is impossible.
It is hard time finding a man who wants a serious relationship at a young age. I would date someone for at least 4 years before having children to make sure that the partner would not leave me once I am pregnant. I would not settle for being treated like garbage either.
You sound like a single mother to me
The relationship is half over after 4 years.😂
Never settle for being treated badly, nobody should
It is gonna get worse. Im 34 and most of my friends, myself included, definately won't be having children. The rest have an average of 2 kids (both have with multiple women which means visitation and custody battles) which they can barely afford. My family name and my mothers family name will probably completely gone within my life time. I dont have many male cousins, seeing as how we lost one to drug OD/ suicide. My grandpa came from a family of 7, my father came from a family of 6, myself from a family of 4 and then "Kerplunk!" 0 for me so yah. Not lookin good. I cant afford kids or the 2-3 divorces required to get a keeper these days.
Isn't it worth risking a divorce or out of wedlock birth to keep your family line going? I come from a completely different setting than you, so I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this resignation.
Go the passport bro route.
@@julius43461 How? My job is in Europe. I can't just fly over to the east for a few months in the hope of picking someone up.
@@tarquin161234 Start working remotely, or just chat with someone till you can take a 2-3 week vacation.
I know, not ideal, but I'm just throwing some suggestions out there.
Just think of all those many thousands or hundreds of thousands of ancestors we have that had children that led to us and so many of those lines end right now or with the next generation.
Two things:
A. Women are not interested in men.
B. Even less interested in having children.
I know not why all the dancing around the subject. It's blatantly obvious to me.
👏🏾 yep and know we wait
@flemutter7211 I would not go even that far.
What we are experiencing is not a case of women hating men.
Simply put, they Do Not Care.
Three little words, that's it, mystery solved.
If a man doesn’t trust/love me enough to marry me I’m not giving him children. Very simple equation for me personally. I spent many years caring for men to no avail, now I mainly feel indifferent towards them and find I am much happier being single. I never craved motherhood at all so born in another time I might well have been a nun.
@@LadyMarigoldWithersmarriage laws suck so fix that and more men will want to get married.
For good reason
Universities and an academic education are no longer indicative of future career success. Most years at university are lost.
There's no fertlity crisis. There's a hopeless economic crisis as seen in all the other indicators also getting worse like depression, salary, and housing & rent prices. Even married ppl are not having children bc it's very expensive today and there's no hope for the future, plus both ppl have to work and childcare costs as much as rent. Maybe the Scandinavian doesn't understand this, which is he is hyper-focused on "mating practices".
Years ago one man wage could run a house. leaving the woman to be be a mum. Now both the man and woman need to work to have at least a half decent lifestyle. Women are working and men are increasingly expected to help atound the house more. Believe you me that leaves little time for kids. I have two and am at my limit.
I can't imagine having a demanding job, wife and kids at the same time, I was at my limit with just a job alone. Hats off to you, sir.
Then boomers entered the workforce and ruined it forever.
In Norway as well, any man with an attractive income and capital will pay half of it in taxes (I’m not joking), which goes to unproductive men, single women, and third world migrants.
So the men who women want children with become closer to just average, and the losers women don’t want children with become well also just average.
Socialism is so evil because it warps all of our natural incentives
That "one wage" was with hell of a lot of overtime. People forget that.
Many Baby Boomers hardly saw their fathers growing up. When they rebelled, it was overwhelmingly against the values that their fathers treasured, and no generation before or since ever had such a favorable view of their mothers.
Your guest hit the nail on the head at 56mins. Too much gov, lack of agency for men.
Women have pair bonded with the state.
Brides of the State
The state and *Chads*
_Unwin also stated "In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy (para. 168). _*_In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate._*_ Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended. Sexual desires could then be satisfied in a direct or perverted manner... _*_So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared."_*_ He points out that "No society has yet to succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a Way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period." - _*_and thus all societies have collapsed._*
- J. D. Unwin, _Sex and Culture_ circa 1930s 💊
With the state, university profs, feminism, and each other. It's a mess.
Yo, that resonates clearly.
No subject is taught as poorly as family building. Then time runs out.
As long as native populations are not replaced with migration, this problem fixes itself. Natural selection increases the frequency of traits (cultural and genetic) that makes both men and women want and make children in the current environment. It also makes it easier as goods such as housing become more abundant and thus cheaper as the population decreases.
They don't become cheaper if govt let's millions of foreigners into the country
It’s amazing how many people gave me shit for having five children, but like painting the walls in my kitchen, black and living happily in a positive coparenting relationship with my ex-husband-I am ahead of the curve. Fuck off haters.
What did they say?
The judgement is real.
The most important work is more difficult than they know.
Love black walls.
Solidarity ❤
I raised four and was made to feel selfish, told I was irresponsible, many awful comments over the years. We are middle class with regular ups and downs. But the only way through tough times is with family.
@@JohnJourdan88lots of comments about how I’m wasting my education, they (the kids) will be a burden on the “system” (likely from someone who doesn’t realize that the “system” they’re so worried about is dependent on more income-earners to keep it operational). LOTS of negative feedback from strangers in public spaces about my apparent lack of either self-control, understanding of the mechanisms of reproduction, or hobbies. Some folks suggested that I might be having babies bc I need to feel needed or loved, or maybe I’m too competitive and was having kids for spiteful reasons.
Countless “you should get a tv in your bedroom ha ha ha” comments, which I looked forward to because I had the sassy comeback of “We do! It’s great to watch porn on the big screen.” 😂😂😂
@@sarahahmad9891Black walls are great. Now I’m painting my LR ceiling a deep purple, aubergine. The room feels so cozy and inviting now. The perfect spot to have good conversations. I Highly recommended painting ceilings something other than flat white if possible
I think everyone needs to have a growth mindset. Let me explain. With regard to the conversation about women having too high standards. I think the problem is not women's standards. The problem is a fixed mindset. With a fixed mindset, you see what a person offers right now as a potential partner. In the age range, when people traditionally got married, very few men have anything to offer. With a growth mindset, you look for how you can build a life together. He might not have much now, but you can see how you two together can make something wonderful. If you build each other up, you can accomplish amazing things. If you only look at what people offer you now, you will end up with nothing.
Conversely, if a woman pairbonds with a man and has a baby with a man based on romantic love (which we all agree is made up) or because he has the “potential” to be a good partner- she has put herself at high risk of living in poverty and or single parenthood with limited resources. It’s simply not worth the gamble for many women. And who can blame them? Mama’s baby and daddy’s maybe. 🤔
When my husband and I got married, we were quite poor. We each brought a car and maybe a couple thousand dollars into our marriage. But what I could tell about him was that he was a hard worker, intelligent, and valued family. He now does quite well and can support our large family. I have noticed a few young family members who seem to expect men to already have built wealth or have an attractive income. Ironically, if a young woman waits for that, he will suddenly be a hotter commodity and a girl's odds of catching his interest shrinks.