As a lower middle class American citizen, I did not qualify for government assistance for hospital expenses, food, nor housing. I was responsible for my bills and lived within my means which meant that I had the amount of children that I could take care of. Two kids, and it was a struggle at that.
You want a reason why people aren't having children at least in the UK? 8 times joint salary to afford a small flat or house is a big reason as is lack of Social Housing and extortionate rents in some areas.
@@scottwhat3362 the birthrate has been declining more steeply since 1979 when neoliberal economics became the political orthodoxy and house prices began to rise above 3 x salary.
@@briankendall2290 Birthrates started to decline before that in the '60s, House prices did begin to rise in the late 70s, yes, but it was the late nineties when they really shot up.... When something ....hmmm, I wonder what happened? Immigration rates and house prices perfectly correlate. Much more than any specific Economic direction.
This is the real story that you won't hear anyone talk about. It's no mystery that effective and accessible ways of preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy will lower birth rates.
Birth control was not legal in Japan until the 1990s and they went below replacement rate in the early 1970s. In the US we’ve had BC since 1965, but our birth rate has dropped a half child per woman (from 2.12 to 1.62) since 2007. BC is not the entire story.
It would help a lot if people were taxed as a couple and not individually. Single income houses are punished by the current tax regime. Children need a lot of attention in the first 3 years of life. Ideally a baby should be exclusively breat fed for the first year. No matter how hard the corporate feminists try to sell it, career and having young children do not mix except at a great cost to the mother and the children.
@@friedawells6860 So you're saying punish double income couples who get married? Switzerland does that at the moment and they want to get rid of the "marriage penalty".
@liopleurodon155 I was thinking more along the lines of single income householdsbeing able to spread their income across both partners. Rather than the bread winner of a family being taxed practically the same as a single person.
The African projections are wrong. They are constantly revised down because they continually overestimate. Also, the birth rate is falling rapidly. There are some countries already near the replacement rate (which is higher than 2.1 in Africa because there is a higher death rate. it's probably around 2.3 or 2.5). Africa will not hit the numbers she is stating. Now I can't speak for the whole continent ( Africa is huge there are 54 countries and you can even break them down further as a lot of nations were formed based on factors outside of Africa which causes problems to this day.) But at least in West Africa she is right that a pro-family culture is promoted. It is seen as a good thing to have a big family (as it would have been across the world throughout most of history). The problem is rampant individualism. You have an economic model that is all about GDP at the expense of family and community because it encourages individuals to prioritise money. This leads to people focusing on careers, entertainment, travel, and education , which are hampered by having children. So the opportunity cost of having children is high. There are also problems with people leaving it too late to partner up, the average age in the UK for a woman to get married is 33. Yet women's fertility takes a nose dive after 35, how on earth will late family formation (if it even occurs marriage is at an all time low) lead to having children?
Women’s fertility does not nosedive. You are as likely to get pregnant at 40 or 45 as at 30; the figures this nonsense is based on are from the eighteenth century.
Women struggle to conceive because men’s sperm loses quality - most women conceive with men who are older than they are. Older mothers are also not to blame for things like Down syndrome. Almost all birth defects come from the AGING fathers - which slightly older woman will be partnering with.
Businesses determined to double their potential work force, crush wages as a result and pass the costs of child care (for those who do have them) on to the tax payer.
Then when that isn't enough, they buy open borders politicians to further inflate the supply of labor. Say shit and you'll be cancelled for being a xenophobe and racist.
@@evolassunglasses4673 In the UK, it was Blair and NuLabour that was the single specific policy driver for returning more women to the workforce. Arguably, education and self-sufficiency were prior motivations for women entering the workplace in ever bigger numbers, since the preceding 2-3 decades had experienced increasing rates of divorce (and single-mother households). I'm not sure how capitalism plays into this; but I'd always welcome your PoV (as I do on so many other subjects I follow your comments regarding) ATB 🤝🇮🇪
It's housing that's one of the main problem in the UK. Look at amount of couples stuck in limbo saving for their first home until their 30's. Young people are just carrying to much debt and finding that having children is more and more expensive.
That is the case indeed, however people can still have many kids and jam into a unit with them, they essentially dont have to own house ever. Its more or less a status problem they wrestle with and their insecure baby boomer parents would shame them regarding it, so their not willing to do it. At the root of it is the replacing of Christianity with materialism, something they have not done in Africa.
@@billwalton4571 you can't you'd have social services called on you, its interesting I see people from other cultures living in squalid overcrowded conditions with next to no furniture or toys and social services don't dare knock on their doors, I've had to deal with SS myself, my flat had a fire I had to stay at my relatives council place while the landlord fixed mine, she had been downsized by the council so had no spare room. me and my kid were sharing my disabled sisters single bed, she slept in it during the day and we slept in it at night, my kid made the mistake of mentioning this at school, they called SS and they demanded to do a home visit, my sister told them to get stuffed we were guests in her flat and she wasn't having SS snooping round her home she thought they had a cheek, they were very angry at this and gave me 2 weeks to get back in my flat or they would put my child into care until I was back home, thankfully my flat looked ok so I lied and said we were back in it, the electricity still wasn't working but they didn't know that and they did the home visit on a sunny day so didn't notice and left happy, my kid learned to keep their mouth shut in school after that they were terrified.
not quite - industralisation is strongly correlated with high housing costs, which is the real root cause of low birth rates. Cultural influence through the western media, making women believe that they still have time even in late thirties also contributes to postponing having a family until its too late.
@@bigbarry8343 Korea had the highest marriage and birth rates on earth for hundreds of years. It was a cultural mandate, you were considered a failure and a shame to your family if you weren't married by 25. They have no housing problem in South Korea, it is cheap even in urban areas like Seoul. The country splitting and their economic miracle destroyed what was left of the cultural mandate for marriage, it doesn't really exist anymore
Korea is the origin place of the 4B Movement. The men there have pushed it all too far and the same thing is happening in West Africa and here in the U.S. right now. Women are sick of men and their violence. 4B Forever!
@@__loafy__ "They have no housing problem in South Korea, it is cheap even in urban areas like Seoul." Literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard in years😄 I live in Seoul and I know for a fact that dire housing crisis is actually one of the main reasons why the birth rate in South Korea has plummeted in recent years.
Neoliberal economics that requires women to be wage slaves along with men is to blame. Feminism is entirely a side issue. A consumer society that constantly reduces spending power of wage and salary earners to the extent that one earner cannot support a family provides the inheremt disincentive to produce more slaves to work in a degrading economic system. It is totally sensible and environmentally responsible to go into a depopulation mode. The only people wringing their hands are those who need slaves and consumers. It is also interesting that the wonderful invisible hand of the market has decided to reduce the populations of so called developed economies. The neoliberals in power world wide should stick to their own dogma and let this natural response to the market play out. Or are they now telling us that markets are not the answer to everything. Pick one or get out of the way for a post capitalist society that values stable populations.
China has lower rates. Western birthdates were fine for centuries under free markets. There’s some truth to your statement. But it is not a necessary companion of free markets.
Well, the people taken advantage of are wringing their hands too. It's just that we have had centuries of propaganda defining as mere losers and malcontents, if not "commies," dismissing their problems on the one hand and threatening their social status on the other should they dare to speak up. After all, if we live in a perfect world, the only awful thing, by that reckoning, there there COULD be WOULD be YOU.
2 children doesn’t even replace 2 parents. When you get older, you appreciate children especially when you have 1 or 2 children and they move far enough away that you don’t know the 1 or 2 grandchildren they may or may not give you. Big families are a blessing.
@@BlueInk912 It requires A total reeducation on eating (Back to cooking beans instead of the toxic foods they push on us),entertainment and a lot of sacrificing (no one is willing to do).
@@whitneyanders5945 How many women do you know that are very happy moving from man to man and abortion to abortion? Pretty lonely life in later years. Beauty is fleeting, with no real accomplishments to talk about.
Need a more in-depth discussion about the meaning of "1957." Explain why graduating from HS, going to college, having a good job, getting married and having kids and raising kids -- all before 30th birthday -- is a bad thing. In 1957 women were not excluded from college, or work. The zeitgeist at that time was that men and women had different spheres of influence, of responsibility, not that women were "excluded." I was born in 1952. Three of my aunts had careers. It was not unusual for women to work, but women today are taught that, back then in the dark old days, women didn't "have access to educational opportunities" and "couldn't work." They had those opportunities, but most women wanted to pursue a path prioritizing children, home-making and community.
Even in the early 80s, a woman could find themselves facing an old school employer who might ask them if they had their husband's permission to work. That's in the UK. All the women in our family pursued as much education as possible and always worked. The majority of women we knew worked, but there was a sense that, in an ideal world, they shouldn't have to or shouldn't even want to work. Most women who had serious careers never married. That was a huge problem in politics because women in politics didn't represent or weren't particularly interested in the difficulties for women with children. Work was supposed to keep families out of poverty, but ironically plenty of women in poorer families were taking outwork (piece work carried out in the home) with no attention paid to their working conditions. This work was poorly paid, preserving the dignity of the man's status as breadwinner, on the understanding that the family were only using the money as "pin money for luxuries" like school uniform or holidays. The poorest families were forced to pretend that they didn't need the money! Yes, I agree that there's nothing wrong with backing up younger people starting families, but that means flexibilty at work for maternity leave and continuing education.
@@GlasPthalocyanine It was the same here in the U.S. I had appalling experiences in offices and women had limited opportunities and limited pay. Here in the U.S., way more women have their own businesses than me because women are still not treated fairly despite laws that are supposed to ensure equality in employment and equality under the law. It's all just window dressing. Reality is very different. Where I live, which is very backward and men will just flat tell you, "I don't hire women," women earn 30% of men's wages according to the last census. So, yes, there are problems--lots of problems. Until the 1970s, women were denied banking, education, participation in sports, public restrooms, sometimes even entry to restaurants if alone, etc., and, of course, then, as now, there are the personal safety issues---thanks to violent men.
@@wolfpowers2867 I'd forgotten about women needing their husband's permission to have a bank account. These rules are so surreal, we sometimes think we dreamt it. Women running their own businesses was the only route to independence in our family. My Grandmother was forced out of teaching when she married. So she had a shop. Women were always kept "in their place" with the threat of violence from men, even without domestic violence . I don't think that's changed much when we see how the news reports attacks on women and girls outside the home. It's very difficult to judge the real risk versus perceived risk, if you need to travel to work. And, of course, those risks can be exaggerated by insecure husbands and fathers who simply need to see women as less than them.
@@dunkyg Possibly true, but at that time, things were changing so that couples were jointly liable. It's never been the case that women have to consent to their husband to take on debt, and these days, it's more usual for a husband and wife to both be asked to sign. My Grandmother, in the 1930s, took my Grandfather back after leaving him 10 years previously. That was solely for the purposes of getting a mortgage to give the children the security of a permanent home. She raised the deposit and made all the payments. It was still legally his house.
Plantation owners had the same problem. Over exploitation of your slaves is not good on the long run and they know it but is very difficult to achieve when on your next arrival at Devos you need to go there with the latest Gulfstream or your yacht has to be the biggest thing ever.
Subsidized childcare is the worst solution for low birthrates. No one wants to have a child to abandon them immediately in a daycare and go back to the grind. We need to normalize having women taking several years off from career for raising kids. We need to support single income households. Lower taxes for thise who have large familes and a dependent spouse.
You also have to ensure that women do not suffer from having been mothers, and taking time out of the workforce to do it. Mothers must be protected from divorce in middle age. Couples are wealthier than single people.
I didn't want kids because I wanted to work, I wanted education a career friends social life, a life I wanted to live, I had one late and the father was not supportive at all, he was the one who wanted kids, he made all my fears come true and reasons why I waited until my 30s, I grew up on a council estate full of single mothers struggling, and I sweared I'd never be like them, but I did end up like them, I do not trust men it doesn't matter how many years you live with one they will turn on you in a heartbeat and swan off, and I advise all women to be independent to get a career under their belt and don't let it go no matter what, hang on to your financial security because you can not trust anyone else to support you.
That was my reason for not wanting kids. Divorced parents and an absent father. My mum taught me to get a career and not rely on a man. Before I met my wonderful partner at 28, I dated awful guys who just used me, so I didn't trust men at all. We both had issues with trust (he'd been cheated on and had a deadbeat dad who never paid child support for his 3 kids), so we weren't ready for kids until our 40s. I had a high stress career in the NHS with poor part-time working opportunities (how the hell could I work full-time and care for a child), he was in a unsecure profession with constant threat of redundancy and we had no family locally to help with childcare (not that we expected it). We had to establish a reliable joint income and feel like we wouldn't screw our kid up. We have one child.
Taking several years off from a career or any job is dangerous. We have to ensure that parents, male or female, are never disadvantaged by having children and caring for them.
@@chriswatson1698 its a poverty sentence, I'm still unemployed its been 9 years, it doesnt help my kid is SEN so the school is shorter hours so I can only apply for work that matches the hours of the school and normal school hours are bad enough none of them match expected work hours in 2024.
Feminism has something to do with it, but most gender equal societies in Europe are not on the forefront of this decline. Thatcherian/Reagan style neoliberalism is much more to blame and constant boom/bust cycles
It’s a number of things.. including the sexual revolution that allowed men to move from woman to woman, never having to commit. Feminism made women so independent they wouldn’t settle for less than what they wanted… etc etc. We also lost the ability to differentiate between the sexes and therefore constantly misunderstand each other, causing unrealistic expectations. Then there’s two incomes needed for a house and kids…
I would not like to be a young man attempting to find a female partner for life these days - there are so many grifters out there and unfortunately TV programmes and the behaviour of our so called 'celebrities' encourage this behaviour. Young women filming themselves being 'allegedly ogled' in the gym is a big warning sign.
There doesn't seem to be much problem with men's willingness to make babies, though. And men use social media that encourages them to hate women and avoid responsibility for their own children.
The exception is not just Africa. Among Western nations, there are only two groups with above replacemwnt fertility rates; Orthodox Jews and the Amish. So yes, it's feminism, but it's also something more, a loss of some sort of belief in a transcendent drive.
@@vivienneb6199 why western women deny facts yeah it is women empowerement and we understand why you defend it muslims southasians and africans and religious people deny your claims
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🌍 Global concern over declining fertility rates, especially in developed countries.* 01:47 *🌍 Africa's population expected to surge, raising concerns about migration pressures on Europe.* 04:21 *🌍 Demographic shifts categorized into premodern, modern, and postmodern phases, impacting population growth.* 05:57 *💼 Economic implications of declining fertility rates, including labor shortages and dependency on immigration.* 09:45 *💡 Government natalist policies may have limited effectiveness without cultural shifts valuing larger families.* 14:01 *💡 Cultural attitudes towards family and fertility significantly influence population growth.* 15:22 *💡 Shifts in feminism towards supporting women's career aspirations while acknowledging the importance of family and fertility.* 19:31 *💡 Concerns about declining sperm counts raise future fertility challenges, but current fertility rates remain viable.* Made with HARPA AI
We need family friendly images in the media. Stories about happy mothers and fathers, sharing their life with their children. Men and women acting together and not competing against each other. Feminism should be about protecting and enabling mothers not promoting women to become men. There are not many media and film industries in the western world ready to change their message: sex is also about having children.
Using propaganda to trick people into doing what you want is unethical and immoral. Feminism is about the human rights of women. If people have to be coerced or forced into doing something--like giving birth--then it's probably not in their pest interests. It's also unethical and immoral.
I feel like she is using out of date data on a woman's ability to conceive. This age of thirty has been around since the seventies as a cut off for an ability to conceive. I do believe that women can in fact have children into their forties. This was happening 200+ years ago when women had 6-8 pregnancies, the last of these often being when the mothers were into their forties. Any examination of a census from say 1860 would confirm this, Additionally, the cost of shelter, at least in Canada< is so high that having a large family is not a possibility.
@roblancs I see your point, but the usage of the phrase, "toxic feminism" in this context is far too simplistic for such a wide-ranging problem. I thought this episode illustrated the extent of the issue well! Calling something "toxic"often ends debate and smacks of cancelling out opinions we disagree wtih.
Bottom line is I never liked life enough to give it to someone else. Who knows, I may have felt different had I met a man who cherished me as much as I did him and married me but it never happened and without that MUTUAL base kids were never an option.
Feminism is actually thriving in South korea and India. Africa is the last bastion of non feminism left. Any place that feminism hits, greed and the me culture usually follows.
Urbanisation is the cause. In essence, the moment a civilization is established, its inescapable demise is set in motion. So long as you want to keep the cities running, you need a source of humans. Before you had to source them from the countryside. Now you have to import them from abroad. The only thing you could do about immigration is to influence foreign populations before their arrival in your country, to adopt your way of life. In this area the US has a massive advantage.
Absolutely. During the Industrial Revolution most branches of my family did not simply move to the cities. They lived as extended families between the city and the country. They had access to better food, support from their families with childcare, side hustles on seasonal work and selling their own produce. They were also able to bring up their children wherever the kids had the best chance of getting an education or learning a trade. The branches of my family that were struggling most were immigrants from Ireland and Finland. They didn't have any support network, were trapped in the worst housing and were often totally dependent on a single income from an exploitative employer. I should also point out the benefits of stable cohesive communities to the welfare of families. The presence of Grandparents and Greatgrandparents in the lives of children. Aswell as people who give some attention to their spiritual lives and values. The biggest uplift in our family tree has been from the Quakers, and women who were active in the temperance movement.
My Grandmother (b. 1902) was a teacher, but in the UK married women were not permitted to teach. So they ran a shop after marriage. I think she knew about contraception. She certainly believed in having less children and taking better care of them. She had two children 15 years apart and she focused completely on their individual education to get them into University. She was born into a family of 22 surviving children. My Grandfather was one of 8 children, 6 survived to adulthood.
@@skylinefever To an extent, that is happening, but I'd argue it's less that people with "never wanted kids to begin with" genes are going extinct and more that people who don't prioritize having kids are going extinct. A big issue now and into the future is unplanned childlessness, wherein people who wanted to have kids end up not having them. They wait too long.
@@cheecheneg I do think about how some people live their fertile years never hearing the biological clock tick. Then it can finally be heard when time runs out.
My friends all has their kids around 35; I don't thintk they felt financially stable before then. I know others put off marriage and kids by seeing plenty of older blokes at work who worked all their lives only to be fiancially wiped out by divorce
Very interesting discussion! I too, am one of the „guilty“ parties, being a woman of 62, having a career and no kids. It‘s important to look at a bigger picture, such as the fertility crisis and mass migration. It reminds us, we are all connected in a very tangible and sometimes more immediate way than we might imagine.
@@Christian___ I answered that question in the chat. I definitely do not regret it. I would encourage younger people to have children if they truly want them and are ready to give them a loving home. It is a very personal decision. Not for me to decide for others.
@@Jen-mf9rm Yes, I've noticed a lot of Boomer women are brave enough to admit that they think they should have done it in retrospect. There are people of course who don't regret anything because c'est la vie, which is not quite the same thing. A lot of Gen X women though in particular (e.g. Chelsea Handler) seem to want to encourage younger women who can have children not to, like a kind of pied piper leading people into the same pits they fall into. OP of course didn't do that, she just said you should make your own mind up.
@@etch-a-sketch Truly wanting them and feeling ready to have them are two pretty big qualifications though--does anyone really get there before they have kids? I feel like at some point you need to be brave and make a leap of faith even if you're not 100% confident. The people who are the least worried that they are ready may be the ones who are most conscientious and will do the best job? I dunno...
Yes. The current challenges we face seem inevitable when women began entering the workforce in significant numbers. Consequently, the prime childbearing years for women are often dedicated to career development, leading to a trend of having fewer or no children. This results in a majority of men and women without children depending on those who did have children for support in their own old age, including pensions and government assistance. The taxes contributed by the working population fund government expenditures. It can be argued that many who opt not to have children, as opposed to those who are unable to, are acting out of self-interest.
I’m Italian American and my male cousins in Italy do not work. They are in their 40”s and do not work. They have engineering degrees etc. but choose to stay with the family. Then I read this is a trend.
Motherhood is a crummy deal. If you want women to have babies, it will be necessary to give women more security and freedom. No more than men have in peace time.
It's flexibilty that women need. I married and had my first child at 18, and was then able to get into University in my early 20s. I had my other children later when life was a bit more stable. That's in the UK, when higher education was free. It's also very lonely bringing up children. I'm not saying people can't learn to cope but nobody tells women to prepare for that. So, yes it's a combination of security, and freedom that's needed, but also access to public spaces. A civilised society should be able to figure out that we're all better off if children aren't brought up in poverty, social isolation and ignorance.
To me, the solution seems to be for society (starting with government, media, social media algorithms, etc.) to start promoting the idea of women having children BEFORE starting college/careers in their mid-to-late-twenties/early-thirties when the children are old enough for school. Women live longer than men already, so getting a later start in their career makes sense. That way, women get to have it all...a good-sized, loving family and a successful career (if they want it). Right now, we're doing exactly the opposite, women are going to college and graduate school and wasting their most fertile/energetic years.
Problem is women are at the most attractive when they are young and want to explore their options. Having kids alone is not enough. They have to be raised in normal families.
@@tehehe5929, agreed, but that when they're young, they're most likely to attract the best man they can get to father their children and raise them. There are legions of older, lonely women who explored their options only to be extremely disappointed by the experience.
As a woman, good luck convincing young women to give up their most youthful years to become mothers and then spend their older years trying to join the workforce when they just want a slower paced life and retire..
@@yellowmellow7748 You really have your kids for yourself only for about 7 first years of their life - then school takes over and their friends start to feel more important for them than you. You can have kids by 20-23 by 27-30 you can go to college which to me is actually an amazing privilege. Most 19 year olds have no idea what do do with their choice of college and pick poorly. By 30 your choice should be a lot better and you will treat it a lot more seriously than just extended childhood with a lot of party time.
Paul Morland says in regard to feminism, "I don't want to take the world back to the 1950s". But isn't this the problem? In the 1950s there was NO birth rate decline to worry about. Is it possible that societal attitudes in the 1950s deserve a little more credit than they are getting? And is it also possible that UNLESS YOU ARE prepared to take the world back to the 1950s at some significant level you are missing the point. Or to use Mr Morland's phrase, 'standing on the deck of the ship and discussing the possibility of the ship hitting an iceberg while the ship is already sinking'?
Distributist Dave frequently hears the argument of bringing back the past. He argues that if you do, the end of that era will come back for the same reason. It would be like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again.
For decades now women have been told that, "you can have it all", the career, marriage, kids etc. It is implied that because women now have more opportunity, they have more freedom of choice. Having more opportunity means that you need to think more critically about your priorities and choices - if you want a career, go for it! If you want to be a mother and raise children, follow that path. It becomes difficult when a woman wants both at the expense of the other as Lionel Shriver says. If you spend time focussing on a career then likely having children will be on the back burner for some period of time (whether the woman intends it to be or not). When a woman does decide to have children, her career, income and future earning power will be compromised - for better or worse, that's how our system has been formed up to this point. I'm not sure how or if that imbalace can be changed but in the meantime, women need to be aware of this and think critically about what they want in the long run. It is a hard decision and one only a woman can make, but the idea that you can devote an equal 50% to both a career and children without sacrifice to either needs to be discussed more. We also need to consider where men fit into this discussion but as I'm not a man, I'll leave it to them to think about...
Women can have it all but not at same time. Also not do it alone. When women have children below 5 years old and want to pursue career she need someone who take care her children. The safest place is her parents or her sisters who help her take care her children while she work
For a small part feminism is to blame, but most of all the cost of living imo. I have two wonderfull children but it costs the price of a home each to raise to raise them propper the time they live ar home. They also stay home longer ( wich i dont mind ).
Divorce, men who leave women to raise children alone, economic realities - three big reasons. Necessity of working and raising children - all falls on women. How much are men helping? Many girls see the writing on the wall and opt out, to protect themselves from poverty, abuse and being overworked for the rest of their lives.
I don't think 'feminism' has had much influence on falling fertility rates - housing costs, education costs (including debt for higher education), childcare costs, inability to take enough maternity leave to bond with the baby/adjust to motherhood... and - men dont want to be dads. Not too many women want to be single mums.
Divorce rates + 70-90% initiated by women will strongly disagree that women dont want to be single mothers. Take away divorce incentives and the ability to divorce for no justified reason.
modern life has taught men that there is an extreme risk of the mother of their children choosing to divorce them, taking their children, their home, their happiness and their security. And you're surprised that a lot of men don't want to be dads any longer?
Depends on the culture and neighborhoods and status of the welfare state. We've got neighborhoods full of single mothers here in the U.S. They used to be concentrated, but now single motherhood is very common.
western women deny the most logical factor of birth decline it is without a doubt women empowerement since women who bring babies and unlike western spoiled women muslims and african and south asians have high fertility rate
We've created a society where the people who make the worst decisions receive the best outcomes. Have 5 kids and don't bother getting a job? The government will help you out with everything. Live within your means and get a good job? No help for you, last in the queue for everything.
My grandparent's generation did not have many children, and that was in the forties and fifties. Only one of my great-aunts had a large family. She had about a dozen. About half did not have any children at all. It is not about access to modern contraception. It might not even be entirely down to feminism.
Look at the UAE they are a muslim country, they have a lower birthrate then the UK they also happen to be a very very very expensive place to live, coincidence?
@@GreatSageSunWukong UAE has foreigner workers and they dont give nationality and foreigners represent 80% of the population mostly workers men that's why the fertility rate is low, but among the original arabic tribe it is higher than western one
@@spipo1903 hmm but if they don't have nationality would they count towards the figures for how many births per woman which is what I was citing?, if 80% of the population are not counted as UAE nationals then they shouldn't be in the figures it should just be looking at the 20% of citizens so the point still stands of low birthrate per woman at less then 1 child where as the average in muslim countries is 6 children per woman.
In the U.S., having kids is a sucker's game, responsibility without power. Parents have to pay all the bills, but the State has the ultimate power over the child. Schooling is mandatory for 12+ years, and public schooling is little more than brainwashing. Why can't the kid be with his parents all day instead of in an indoctrination center? In Africa when you have a kid, the kid is yours and can help you in your business and household--- the kid belongs to YOU and not to the State. This is not so in the U.S. and Europe, which is probably why birth rates are high in Africa and low in the West.
The cost goes to the parent, the benefit goes to one of the megacorps. Incentives drive behaviour, and critics pretend not to see the lack of incentive.
but long before it can shrink that way, even a small percentage of Africans fleeing their continent for any other will be a sociological disaster for their chosen destinations.
I had always thought it was because in a rural society, having a baby gives a woman something to do and the vhildren can quickly be useful for work. In the west or non-rural societies children are a drain - pure and simple - on a couples financial resources and in a world where homes arent built fast enough and people cant even afford a place of their own - on two slaries - having a child is a luxury. Yeah you can have one but four!? And then to cap it off, theres pretty much no financial benefit to the individual once the child is grown up. Sure they might still be in touch but they might not. And their tax money will be spent on supporting old people whether or not those old people had children of their own. Its all about the incentives. Having kids in a cramped urban environment doesnt really make rational sense.
Slightly off topic but relevant, what I find missing from dropping population discussions is mention of the 'demand side'. Yes robots might replace workers, but robots don't buy houses. That little cafe where you dream of reading your books in retirement no longer exists. Too few customers long ago.
And yet, young couples will commonly have a dog. It’s as though they crave the responsibility, love, expense and tie of caring for something, but a child somehow doesn’t fit the lifestyle
Because once a child is involved you are tied to that person for life and too often that means a life sentence for one or other party because both can be completely toxic and the law is cripplingly inept
Dogs are easier to spay and neuter, so of course we'll encourage that! UK leads the way in legally anthropomorphizing our pets... in seeking to create more government to see how laws affect them as sentient beings?!!? How much money is spent on that program?
_The Camp of the Saints_ was about this topic. Dismissed at the time as "racist". As for solutions: the right propaganda will do it in a decade if enough people in the right places are on board.
Hey! I'm enthrawled with my new audio copy of 'No One Left'. Interesting rebuttal to the environmentalist's moral objections over bringing a child into the world. Thank you team for pointing me to the book.
Yes. Yes it is! It’s also the reason why having children appears so unaffordable. Luxury beliefs held by influential women from wealthy backgrounds have been very bad for less well off women. Driving almost all women into the workforce did nothing but push down wages and send house prices and inflation through the roof. Maybe the most ‘elite’ 10-15% of women got to have ‘careers’…..but statistically the other 85% or so hate their jobs but have to keep going to them and then shell out most of their income on childcare! For most families, Dad working whilst Mum stays home and looks after the children is an almost impossible pipe dream! And so people are having less kids.
Agreed. We've built a society that is so expensive to survive in that both parents have to work to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Removal of the 'married man's allowance' in the income tax system made it worse, by penalising families where one parent stayed at home to be the home-maker, the carer. The personal allowance should be transferable between a married couple (and only a married couple, because marriage is the key to stability and needs encouragement). It is possible to exist on one income - I've done it all my working life - but if I was having to support a spouse and family it would be impossible.
Is it a luxury belief to say that masses of people popped out kids they hated due to societal expectations, and that had it's own negative effect? Or are luxury beliefs only leftist dumb ideas? Trickle down Reaganomics sounds like a very luxurious belief.
Paul has never seen local fish population collapse in South America. He’s a climate change type activist peddling a different type of alarmism. Biodiversity is suffering from overpopulation. I’d like to see the global population stabilise at around 5 billion.
I somewhat disagree with the male guest. Women do not "need to participate in the workforce." Certainly not during the part of their life where they would have young children at home. Women should have all the same opportunities to participate in work as men (and we do!! Women have more opportunities than men now, and men are actively discriminated against to favour women. Many young men right now in despair and totally failing to achieve success, and society does seem to give 2 sh!ts about them!) This idea that women "need to" be having a challenging career has been manufactured by feminism. However, it ironically makes women very unhappy because many want to focus on having a family but are dogged with guilt for betraying the unrealistic expectations of our femisist society!
Women have always worked, it's just that a lot of that work was in and around the home (men weren't that far away either). It is only after the industrial revolution that the work women did was taken, which in turn led to them having to work away from home as well. This only a SAHM thing only happened in a short period and is now no longer viable for the majority of people. Also it is interesting that people want more children so that there are people available to do the jobs required but at the same time suggesting (not by you) that half the adult population should be removed from it. Not sure how you square that circle.
@@winterskiU the SAHM rubbish was the preserve of the middle classes and above, as always its the rich that write history ignoring the plight of the many. women were considered property, they were worked to the bone both in and outside the home and their wages given to their fathers or husbands, they had no say in anything and no control of their lives, be controlled by the father or husband or join the workhouse and be graped by the male staff, be homeless and forced into prostitution. short brutal lives as property to be used. women were and still are in many parts of the world the first slaves, the half of the human race deemed not really human, it could be argued that if men didn't dehumanise women from the start would they have been able to mentally justify enslaving other men later?, the seed was already there from dehumanizing women to look down on others to justify using them as property too. I know of no woman in my family that was a SAHM they all worked, I know what my grandmothers and great grandmothers did so thats into the 1800s, mainly farming and factory work.
No of course not...the blame rests in all of our decision over the course of 80 years...moving off the farm and into suburbs and eventually into the city where children are loud and expensive and you dont have so many of them because adults aren't dumb. I actually don't mind feminism so much and never did...if women want to be proud to be women that is fine but it does have its limits as does anything
I disagree the claim that we need more children. We really no not have a problem with "too few people" on this planet, nor in Europe. The effect of overpopulation cannot be underestimated as a factor for all the various environmental problems we see today. We increased from about 2 G people in 1932 to over 8 G people today. There are times when the population has gone down, and that has lead to many advantages for people. The Black Death, reduced the population with some 30% to 60% in Europe and it lead to the abolishment of serfdom, the creation of the middle class etc. The ones that suffered after this was the rich who suddenly had to pay workers what they were worth. I see that as a positive.
We don't need more children IF we are willing to totally give up on having a welfare state and pension system. Sadly, a welfare state is a pyramid scheme that depends on a growing population where the number of working adults is greater than the number of elderly. The ballooning government deficits we see today are already a result of failing demographics. So, if you want to keep things like pensions and welfare, we do need stable demographics. Also, having children is important for not being conquered by other nations. No young men = no standing army.
We need children. As humanity has progressed, every social stratum has gained an abundance of goods, services, and wealth. That's why even normies like you and me can communicate through the internet. Only humans can uphold and safeguard this entire infrastructure we've built; otherwise, everything will fall apart.
@@KevTheImpaler south korea is a pit of misogyny and the women of that country have had enough of it and going on strike on mass refusing to give birth or date men. they have the right idea. the awful government is just doubling down making more anti-woman legislation because they don't learn.
@@vivienneb6199 So what? You think the world would be better if children born into poverty were never born at all? Almost all of the comfort you enjoy in your modern life was invented, built and maintained by people born into poverty.
I know many women who always wanted to have children but weren't able to find a man to father them. Women who were kept on a string through their prime child bearing years or broken up with in their 30s & not able to find a new partner in time. I also know many single mothers, for various reasons, me included, & life as a single mother is hard but I'd still choose it over wanting children but not having them. I second all the comments about economic factors but there are also issues in moderm relationships & how we approach them. Men have to respect the finite nature of women's fertility & take the time they take from women they are with seriously. If they don't feel seriously about a woman, man up & break up. And men need to stop being man babies, scared of commitment.
Making blanket statements like men should respect womens time and get over being scared of commitment completely ignores mens problems in the first place, but i guess in your eyes men arent allowed problems, we just got to take the bullet head on and be greatful for it. In short, everything that is happening is mens fault and women should avoid accountability at all cost, get a grip. What if women are simply looking for hookups? Should men respect her time then and say no? What about women stop giving out s3x so freely and date with intention? No s3x until marriage? That should also help build commitments and save women alot of time. What about changing the marriage contract so its not so easy to break so men can marry without being scared they want get divorce graped? Plenty of things to address the problems but because it goes against women i suppose you would consider this oppression and misogynistic right?
@@h8h215 calm down dear, I obviously am not saying that this is a universal issue for all men or that men are one homogenous blob. I am saying this is one social issue of many.
men don't care they all think they are studs who can start families when ever they like, even when they hit 70 they think they can find a 20 something to date them and many don't want to date women their own age no matter how big the age gap, in the past there was expectations on the men that they look after their family for life and thats gone, they can swan off with no damage to their careers or social statues, leaving single mothers to cope, they just pay their monthly child support treating fatherhood like paying installments on a car. they also don't understand that their fatality and the quality of their sperm declines with age too, leading to more mutations, which in tern leads to more fathers leaving thei mother to cope with a disabled child because they can't be bothered with the hassle and they simply can walk away with their career and image intact far more easily then women can whom are shamed, disregarded and trapped in poverty by being left as single mothers.
@@GreatSageSunWukong and yet women are the ones filing for divorce, if you deincentivize divorce you will find a decrease in single mothers and an increase in marriage.
Look, I hate modern feminism as much as anybody, but the original aims of first and second wave feminism - the right to suffrage, and the right for equal pay and workplace protections - were good. Third wave feminism is a pile of flaming garbage, but we'll put that aside for the moment. The problem isn't women working, it's a political and economic system that has worked actively to suppress wages and drive house prices up for the benefit of the crony capitalists. I know few women who actively *want* to be working full time - they *want* to be at home with their kids - but that choice has been taken away from them now because the system now requires two wages per household. The puppetmasters love to divide and conquer, but don't let them try to pit men and women against each other...we're *all* being exploited by the system.
It was cancer from the beginning. the right to vote was supposed to come with serious responsibilities like military service. Where do you think the third wave cancer came from... it came from the second wave.
While I agree with most of that and think women, when they have them, definitely want to be with their kids. But what about when they go to school? What's the reason then not to work?
Totally agree with you. One of my sisters who has 2 children told me that when her daughters started school, she took up a part-time job which allowed her to be home when the girls came home from school. In the beginning, her paycheck went straight into a savings account used for paying for luxuries if need be, for she and her husband didn't need that money; her husband's salary was more than enough for the upkeep of the family and the home. Then came salary freezing, food prices going up which meant that she was obligated to start working full time not to pay for luxuries but without her pay they wouldn't have been able to maintain their normal standard of living, like paying the mortgage, the bills, the food, the clothing. Having kids is great if you can afford them and not have to end up being totally dependent on government handouts I wonder how many families would have 6 kids if there was no family allowance.
@EVALLOYD I mean, the 'parents' that require government assistance to have children aren't fit to be parents by definition, so the wrong families are being enabled...
FATHERS. HAVE NO PARENTAL RIGHTS IN THE USA. Mothers are allowed to take the children hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the father. Fathers are obligated to pay the ransom “ child support”, to compensate for the state’s money that mothers are receiving in social benefits guaranteed. There is no fault divorce either, therefore women are not being held accountable after being pregnant. And there is NOT equal child custody. The divorce courts are biased against the fathers, and the majority of the time favored women. There is absolutely no benefit for a man to get married and have children, because you never know when the woman is going to change her mind. For women, the system ( feminism ) told to them marriage is a financial security and women always are Hypergamous. Socialism for women, slavery for men..
Yes, it is. But also, social media is warping people's expectations, and meetoo hysteria has created a society that is hostile to men approaching the few Western women that are still desirable.
The 1970s society was already hostile to men. 50 years of derision has a lot to answer for on both sides. But one of the biggest problems we have is that people don't touch any more. People need to touch for good mental health and touching has been taboo for a long time now. Also there's too many chemicals in our food that are making us infertile. Probably making us mental too but definitely barren.
@Dont_Be_Ridiculous it’s the chemicals that we don’t have control over that terrify me. We’re not just breathing them in, and slathering them all over our skins, we’re eating and drinking the things. They ridicule earlier generations for using the likes of lead and arsenic for health, vanity and diet. Yet, even knowing the science behind some of them, they happily permit the inclusion of known and unknown poisons in our modern preparations and foodstuffs.
It's not poverty, the irony is that the poorer people are the more children they have. Also, people keep forgetting that birth rates have been below replacement since 1970 in the UK. It is not because of housing. This is a global problem, and it requires looking at the incentive structure of modern civilisation itself.
The same subsidies went and is going to big box MART and anazon where sales tax was nit collected and state and local governments give a tax abatement when they open warehouse s and put out of business smaller retailers selling mostly domestic products while politicians subsidize 50000 Chinese direct sellers while big box sells 90 % offshore paying substandard wages while the US Has to support those low wafe workers abd while the middle class sinks below 50 % of the population and the bottom 50 % of anerica owns TWO PER CENT OF THE TOTAL WEALTH AND TH E TOP 10 % OWNS 90 $ OF THE TOTAL WEALTH
Of course Feminism in the anglosphere is extremely virulent and anti-natal. In non -Anglo Western countries the Feminism is less virulent. In China, it is famous for the 1 child policy, this restructured the household economy accordingly. Now that policy has been relaxed, adapting the economy back to more babies has proved hard, people's attitudes and expectations have changed and less willing to make the real sacrifices involved. Korea is unique and Japan less so, but has different reasons for their very low replacement rates. More to the point, the WEF want infinite immigration from 3rd world countries to the West. In Australia and Canada the political class are overtly saying the high immigration rates (and dilution of sovereign national identity) are to compensate for the now long established Feminist anti-natal outcomes, so therefore it's all for the good for a bright sunshiney multicultural new world.
Why has it ‘bubbled up’? Rather a stupid question. You have decided to discuss it. It didn’t bubble up. It didn’t ‘emerge’ or any other ridiculous euphemism that means ‘ ‘let’s ease it into the discussion gently when nobody’s looking” because they’re getting suspicious that nobody is mentioning that birth rates have reduced at the rate we’d expect at the time of a catastrophic world event. Anyway, the data shows clearly that although declining in general past twenty years, after the mandatory injections, the situation dramatically worsened.
As a lower middle class American citizen, I did not qualify for government assistance for hospital expenses, food, nor housing. I was responsible for my bills and lived within my means which meant that I had the amount of children that I could take care of. Two kids, and it was a struggle at that.
You want a reason why people aren't having children at least in the UK? 8 times joint salary to afford a small flat or house is a big reason as is lack of Social Housing and extortionate rents in some areas.
The birth rate was low before that occurred.
@@scottwhat3362 the birthrate has been declining more steeply since 1979 when neoliberal economics became the political orthodoxy and house prices began to rise above 3 x salary.
nah, being dirt poor didnt stop my grandparents from having 7 kids.
@@briankendall2290 Birthrates started to decline before that in the '60s, House prices did begin to rise in the late 70s, yes, but it was the late nineties when they really shot up.... When something ....hmmm, I wonder what happened? Immigration rates and house prices perfectly correlate. Much more than any specific Economic direction.
You can probably thank your government for that as can we in the US.
Who would figure birth control would control birth rates
This is the real story that you won't hear anyone talk about. It's no mystery that effective and accessible ways of preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy will lower birth rates.
It makes me wonder how many unwanted children exist.
"Control"? The birth rates are crashing.
Demography is destiny. We are fucked. Godlike AI(Satan) or civilizational collapse.
Birth control was not legal in Japan until the 1990s and they went below replacement rate in the early 1970s. In the US we’ve had BC since 1965, but our birth rate has dropped a half child per woman (from 2.12 to 1.62) since 2007. BC is not the entire story.
It would help a lot if people were taxed as a couple and not individually. Single income houses are punished by the current tax regime.
Children need a lot of attention in the first 3 years of life. Ideally a baby should be exclusively breat fed for the first year. No matter how hard the corporate feminists try to sell it, career and having young children do not mix except at a great cost to the mother and the children.
@@friedawells6860 So you're saying punish double income couples who get married? Switzerland does that at the moment and they want to get rid of the "marriage penalty".
@liopleurodon155 I was thinking more along the lines of single income householdsbeing able to spread their income across both partners. Rather than the bread winner of a family being taxed practically the same as a single person.
The African projections are wrong. They are constantly revised down because they continually overestimate. Also, the birth rate is falling rapidly. There are some countries already near the replacement rate (which is higher than 2.1 in Africa because there is a higher death rate. it's probably around 2.3 or 2.5). Africa will not hit the numbers she is stating.
Now I can't speak for the whole continent ( Africa is huge there are 54 countries and you can even break them down further as a lot of nations were formed based on factors outside of Africa which causes problems to this day.) But at least in West Africa she is right that a pro-family culture is promoted. It is seen as a good thing to have a big family (as it would have been across the world throughout most of history).
The problem is rampant individualism. You have an economic model that is all about GDP at the expense of family and community because it encourages individuals to prioritise money. This leads to people focusing on careers, entertainment, travel, and education , which are hampered by having children. So the opportunity cost of having children is high. There are also problems with people leaving it too late to partner up, the average age in the UK for a woman to get married is 33. Yet women's fertility takes a nose dive after 35, how on earth will late family formation (if it even occurs marriage is at an all time low) lead to having children?
Women’s fertility does not nosedive. You are as likely to get pregnant at 40 or 45 as at 30; the figures this nonsense is based on are from the eighteenth century.
Women struggle to conceive because men’s sperm loses quality - most women conceive with men who are older than they are. Older mothers are also not to blame for things like Down syndrome. Almost all birth defects come from the AGING fathers - which slightly older woman will be partnering with.
Businesses determined to double their potential work force, crush wages as a result and pass the costs of child care (for those who do have them) on to the tax payer.
Then when that isn't enough, they buy open borders politicians to further inflate the supply of labor. Say shit and you'll be cancelled for being a xenophobe and racist.
Yes! Nothing good can come from more people
Simple answer: yes
long answer: yes
And Capitalism has been its driver.
It wants both sexes/ parents working full-time
'Right wing' anti-Capitalists have been sidelined for almost a century...& here we are.
Excellent 😂
@@evolassunglasses4673Indeed but of course Socialism would have treated her as a slave.
@@evolassunglasses4673 In the UK, it was Blair and NuLabour that was the single specific policy driver for returning more women to the workforce. Arguably, education and self-sufficiency were prior motivations for women entering the workplace in ever bigger numbers, since the preceding 2-3 decades had experienced increasing rates of divorce (and single-mother households). I'm not sure how capitalism plays into this; but I'd always welcome your PoV (as I do on so many other subjects I follow your comments regarding) ATB 🤝🇮🇪
It's housing that's one of the main problem in the UK. Look at amount of couples stuck in limbo saving for their first home until their 30's. Young people are just carrying to much debt and finding that having children is more and more expensive.
That is the case indeed, however people can still have many kids and jam into a unit with them, they essentially dont have to own house ever. Its more or less a status problem they wrestle with and their insecure baby boomer parents would shame them regarding it, so their not willing to do it. At the root of it is the replacing of Christianity with materialism, something they have not done in Africa.
@@billwalton4571 you can't you'd have social services called on you, its interesting I see people from other cultures living in squalid overcrowded conditions with next to no furniture or toys and social services don't dare knock on their doors, I've had to deal with SS myself, my flat had a fire I had to stay at my relatives council place while the landlord fixed mine, she had been downsized by the council so had no spare room. me and my kid were sharing my disabled sisters single bed, she slept in it during the day and we slept in it at night, my kid made the mistake of mentioning this at school, they called SS and they demanded to do a home visit, my sister told them to get stuffed we were guests in her flat and she wasn't having SS snooping round her home she thought they had a cheek, they were very angry at this and gave me 2 weeks to get back in my flat or they would put my child into care until I was back home, thankfully my flat looked ok so I lied and said we were back in it, the electricity still wasn't working but they didn't know that and they did the home visit on a sunny day so didn't notice and left happy, my kid learned to keep their mouth shut in school after that they were terrified.
It definitely doesn’t help. But birthdates were low before house prices rose.
Birth rates have been sub replacement in the UK since 1971. It is not housing that is the issue.
Overpopulation is the problem!
Stop stealing people’s money via extreme taxation.
South Korea has even lower birth rate. Industrialization naturally leads to lower rates.
Well they also have an extremist feminist cult there that somehow puts even ours to shame.
not quite - industralisation is strongly correlated with high housing costs, which is the real root cause of low birth rates. Cultural influence through the western media, making women believe that they still have time even in late thirties also contributes to postponing having a family until its too late.
@@bigbarry8343 Korea had the highest marriage and birth rates on earth for hundreds of years. It was a cultural mandate, you were considered a failure and a shame to your family if you weren't married by 25. They have no housing problem in South Korea, it is cheap even in urban areas like Seoul. The country splitting and their economic miracle destroyed what was left of the cultural mandate for marriage, it doesn't really exist anymore
Korea is the origin place of the 4B Movement. The men there have pushed it all too far and the same thing is happening in West Africa and here in the U.S. right now. Women are sick of men and their violence. 4B Forever!
@@__loafy__ "They have no housing problem in South Korea, it is cheap even in urban areas like Seoul."
Literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard in years😄
I live in Seoul and I know for a fact that dire housing crisis is actually one of the main reasons why the birth rate in South Korea has plummeted in recent years.
Neoliberal economics that requires women to be wage slaves along with men is to blame. Feminism is entirely a side issue. A consumer society that constantly reduces spending power of wage and salary earners to the extent that one earner cannot support a family provides the inheremt disincentive to produce more slaves to work in a degrading economic system. It is totally sensible and environmentally responsible to go into a depopulation mode. The only people wringing their hands are those who need slaves and consumers. It is also interesting that the wonderful invisible hand of the market has decided to reduce the populations of so called developed economies. The neoliberals in power world wide should stick to their own dogma and let this natural response to the market play out. Or are they now telling us that markets are not the answer to everything. Pick one or get out of the way for a post capitalist society that values stable populations.
Boom
I love saying that the people who complain the most are the ones on the top of the pyramid scheme.
China has lower rates. Western birthdates were fine for centuries under free markets. There’s some truth to your statement. But it is not a necessary companion of free markets.
@@scottwhat3362 late stage Capitalism has created very high asset prices/ houses.
Well, the people taken advantage of are wringing their hands too. It's just that we have had centuries of propaganda defining as mere losers and malcontents, if not "commies," dismissing their problems on the one hand and threatening their social status on the other should they dare to speak up. After all, if we live in a perfect world, the only awful thing, by that reckoning, there there COULD be WOULD be YOU.
No. It's conservative economic policies that have left working people poor and unable to afford anywhere to live.
2 children doesn’t even replace 2 parents. When you get older, you appreciate children especially when you have 1 or 2 children and they move far enough away that you don’t know the 1 or 2 grandchildren they may or may not give you. Big families are a blessing.
How does one afford raising a large family?
@@BlueInk912 It requires A total reeducation on eating
(Back to cooking beans instead of the toxic foods they push on us),entertainment and a lot of sacrificing (no one is willing to do).
Women are not brood mates. Move on from this thinking
@@whitneyanders5945 How many women do you know that are very happy moving from man to man and abortion to abortion? Pretty lonely life in later years. Beauty is fleeting, with no real accomplishments to talk about.
@@kathycarpenitoSo, if you could just make them do as you demand, then they’d be happy?
Need a more in-depth discussion about the meaning of "1957." Explain why graduating from HS, going to college, having a good job, getting married and having kids and raising kids -- all before 30th birthday -- is a bad thing. In 1957 women were not excluded from college, or work. The zeitgeist at that time was that men and women had different spheres of influence, of responsibility, not that women were "excluded." I was born in 1952. Three of my aunts had careers. It was not unusual for women to work, but women today are taught that, back then in the dark old days, women didn't "have access to educational opportunities" and "couldn't work." They had those opportunities, but most women wanted to pursue a path prioritizing children, home-making and community.
Even in the early 80s, a woman could find themselves facing an old school employer who might ask them if they had their husband's permission to work. That's in the UK. All the women in our family pursued as much education as possible and always worked. The majority of women we knew worked, but there was a sense that, in an ideal world, they shouldn't have to or shouldn't even want to work. Most women who had serious careers never married. That was a huge problem in politics because women in politics didn't represent or weren't particularly interested in the difficulties for women with children. Work was supposed to keep families out of poverty, but ironically plenty of women in poorer families were taking outwork (piece work carried out in the home) with no attention paid to their working conditions. This work was poorly paid, preserving the dignity of the man's status as breadwinner, on the understanding that the family were only using the money as "pin money for luxuries" like school uniform or holidays. The poorest families were forced to pretend that they didn't need the money! Yes, I agree that there's nothing wrong with backing up younger people starting families, but that means flexibilty at work for maternity leave and continuing education.
@@GlasPthalocyanine It was the same here in the U.S. I had appalling experiences in offices and women had limited opportunities and limited pay. Here in the U.S., way more women have their own businesses than me because women are still not treated fairly despite laws that are supposed to ensure equality in employment and equality under the law. It's all just window dressing. Reality is very different. Where I live, which is very backward and men will just flat tell you, "I don't hire women," women earn 30% of men's wages according to the last census. So, yes, there are problems--lots of problems. Until the 1970s, women were denied banking, education, participation in sports, public restrooms, sometimes even entry to restaurants if alone, etc., and, of course, then, as now, there are the personal safety issues---thanks to violent men.
@@wolfpowers2867 I'd forgotten about women needing their husband's permission to have a bank account. These rules are so surreal, we sometimes think we dreamt it. Women running their own businesses was the only route to independence in our family. My Grandmother was forced out of teaching when she married. So she had a shop. Women were always kept "in their place" with the threat of violence from men, even without domestic violence . I don't think that's changed much when we see how the news reports attacks on women and girls outside the home. It's very difficult to judge the real risk versus perceived risk, if you need to travel to work. And, of course, those risks can be exaggerated by insecure husbands and fathers who simply need to see women as less than them.
@@GlasPthalocyanine it was because men were responsible for the debt.
@@dunkyg Possibly true, but at that time, things were changing so that couples were jointly liable. It's never been the case that women have to consent to their husband to take on debt, and these days, it's more usual for a husband and wife to both be asked to sign. My Grandmother, in the 1930s, took my Grandfather back after leaving him 10 years previously. That was solely for the purposes of getting a mortgage to give the children the security of a permanent home. She raised the deposit and made all the payments. It was still legally his house.
Plantation owners had the same problem. Over exploitation of your slaves is not good on the long run and they know it but is very difficult to achieve when on your next arrival at Devos you need to go there with the latest Gulfstream or your yacht has to be the biggest thing ever.
Feminism and high fertility rates will never be compatible, but if you want to sell books..
People now recognise the costs, time, and labour involved in raising kids and choose not to burden themselves!
Subsidized childcare is the worst solution for low birthrates. No one wants to have a child to abandon them immediately in a daycare and go back to the grind. We need to normalize having women taking several years off from career for raising kids. We need to support single income households. Lower taxes for thise who have large familes and a dependent spouse.
You also have to ensure that women do not suffer from having been mothers, and taking time out of the workforce to do it. Mothers must be protected from divorce in middle age. Couples are wealthier than single people.
I didn't want kids because I wanted to work, I wanted education a career friends social life, a life I wanted to live, I had one late and the father was not supportive at all, he was the one who wanted kids, he made all my fears come true and reasons why I waited until my 30s, I grew up on a council estate full of single mothers struggling, and I sweared I'd never be like them, but I did end up like them, I do not trust men it doesn't matter how many years you live with one they will turn on you in a heartbeat and swan off, and I advise all women to be independent to get a career under their belt and don't let it go no matter what, hang on to your financial security because you can not trust anyone else to support you.
That was my reason for not wanting kids. Divorced parents and an absent father. My mum taught me to get a career and not rely on a man. Before I met my wonderful partner at 28, I dated awful guys who just used me, so I didn't trust men at all. We both had issues with trust (he'd been cheated on and had a deadbeat dad who never paid child support for his 3 kids), so we weren't ready for kids until our 40s. I had a high stress career in the NHS with poor part-time working opportunities (how the hell could I work full-time and care for a child), he was in a unsecure profession with constant threat of redundancy and we had no family locally to help with childcare (not that we expected it). We had to establish a reliable joint income and feel like we wouldn't screw our kid up. We have one child.
Taking several years off from a career or any job is dangerous. We have to ensure that parents, male or female, are never disadvantaged by having children and caring for them.
@@chriswatson1698 its a poverty sentence, I'm still unemployed its been 9 years, it doesnt help my kid is SEN so the school is shorter hours so I can only apply for work that matches the hours of the school and normal school hours are bad enough none of them match expected work hours in 2024.
Feminism has something to do with it, but most gender equal societies in Europe are not on the forefront of this decline. Thatcherian/Reagan style neoliberalism is much more to blame and constant boom/bust cycles
It’s a number of things.. including the sexual revolution that allowed men to move from woman to woman, never having to commit. Feminism made women so independent they wouldn’t settle for less than what they wanted… etc etc. We also lost the ability to differentiate between the sexes and therefore constantly misunderstand each other, causing unrealistic expectations. Then there’s two incomes needed for a house and kids…
I would not like to be a young man attempting to find a female partner for life these days - there are so many grifters out there and unfortunately TV programmes and the behaviour of our so called 'celebrities' encourage this behaviour. Young women filming themselves being 'allegedly ogled' in the gym is a big warning sign.
Social media has a lot to answer for 😤
Legion of Men covers this - says female social media usage is a big red flag
There doesn't seem to be much problem with men's willingness to make babies, though.
And men use social media that encourages them to hate women and avoid responsibility for their own children.
The exception is not just Africa. Among Western nations, there are only two groups with above replacemwnt fertility rates; Orthodox Jews and the Amish.
So yes, it's feminism, but it's also something more, a loss of some sort of belief in a transcendent drive.
@@vivienneb6199 why western women deny facts
yeah it is women empowerement and we understand why you defend it
muslims southasians and africans and religious people deny your claims
@@vivienneb6199 yeah untill society collapse and no one pays your pension
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🌍 Global concern over declining fertility rates, especially in developed countries.*
01:47 *🌍 Africa's population expected to surge, raising concerns about migration pressures on Europe.*
04:21 *🌍 Demographic shifts categorized into premodern, modern, and postmodern phases, impacting population growth.*
05:57 *💼 Economic implications of declining fertility rates, including labor shortages and dependency on immigration.*
09:45 *💡 Government natalist policies may have limited effectiveness without cultural shifts valuing larger families.*
14:01 *💡 Cultural attitudes towards family and fertility significantly influence population growth.*
15:22 *💡 Shifts in feminism towards supporting women's career aspirations while acknowledging the importance of family and fertility.*
19:31 *💡 Concerns about declining sperm counts raise future fertility challenges, but current fertility rates remain viable.*
Made with HARPA AI
We need family friendly images in the media.
Stories about happy mothers and fathers, sharing their life with their children.
Men and women acting together and not competing against each other.
Feminism should be about protecting and enabling mothers not promoting women to become men.
There are not many media and film industries in the western world ready to change their message:
sex is also about having children.
If it was all the west, KPop and JAV would be all about popping out kids.
Using propaganda to trick people into doing what you want is unethical and immoral. Feminism is about the human rights of women. If people have to be coerced or forced into doing something--like giving birth--then it's probably not in their pest interests. It's also unethical and immoral.
I feel like she is using out of date data on a woman's ability to conceive. This age of thirty has been around since the seventies as a cut off for an ability to conceive. I do believe that women can in fact have children into their forties. This was happening 200+ years ago when women had 6-8 pregnancies, the last of these often being when the mothers were into their forties. Any examination of a census from say 1860 would confirm this, Additionally, the cost of shelter, at least in Canada< is so high that having a large family is not a possibility.
Toxic feminism is to blame for so, so much. Rotten to the core.
Said the misogynist!
@roblancs I see your point, but the usage of the phrase, "toxic feminism" in this context is far too simplistic for such a wide-ranging problem. I thought this episode illustrated the extent of the issue well! Calling something "toxic"often ends debate and smacks of cancelling out opinions we disagree wtih.
@roblancs Having said the above, I do not regret not having had children in the least. 🙂
Tory's hate women , when mummy sent you away at 4 to a buggery school, its not surprising.
@@etch-a-sketch The term toxic feminism is redundant.
Bottom line is I never liked life enough to give it to someone else. Who knows, I may have felt different had I met a man who cherished me as much as I did him and married me but it never happened and without that MUTUAL base kids were never an option.
Birth rates are plummeting in most countries. And lots of the other countries, such as India, are not bastions of feminism.
Actually they are for example South Korea has more feminist ideology than America India is starting to be like this as well.
@@Joshua-eo5hryou have to ask why though. Both South Korea & India are brutal for women (in different ways). They really need feminism.
Feminism is actually thriving in South korea and India. Africa is the last bastion of non feminism left. Any place that feminism hits, greed and the me culture usually follows.
Women have also realised that being a mother is boring.
Better to become a wage slave for a corporation
@@evolassunglasses4673 no sir! Just no!! Let the women make the decision for them. You do you. Everyone is free to choose.
Inability to afford housing and poor prospects for any children one does have are the reason not feminism.
Urbanisation is the cause.
In essence, the moment a civilization is established, its inescapable demise is set in motion.
So long as you want to keep the cities running, you need a source of humans. Before you had to source them from the countryside. Now you have to import them from abroad. The only thing you could do about immigration is to influence foreign populations before their arrival in your country, to adopt your way of life. In this area the US has a massive advantage.
Absolutely. During the Industrial Revolution most branches of my family did not simply move to the cities. They lived as extended families between the city and the country. They had access to better food, support from their families with childcare, side hustles on seasonal work and selling their own produce. They were also able to bring up their children wherever the kids had the best chance of getting an education or learning a trade.
The branches of my family that were struggling most were immigrants from Ireland and Finland. They didn't have any support network, were trapped in the worst housing and were often totally dependent on a single income from an exploitative employer.
I should also point out the benefits of stable cohesive communities to the welfare of families. The presence of Grandparents and Greatgrandparents in the lives of children. Aswell as people who give some attention to their spiritual lives and values. The biggest uplift in our family tree has been from the Quakers, and women who were active in the temperance movement.
my mother was a product of the Weimar era , was a 'Bohemian' yet she she had 4 children and a husband and taught her whole life.
It's about options. I argue that if contraceptive mastery exists for a while, the"never really wanted kids to begin with" genes go extinct.
My Grandmother (b. 1902) was a teacher, but in the UK married women were not permitted to teach. So they ran a shop after marriage. I think she knew about contraception. She certainly believed in having less children and taking better care of them. She had two children 15 years apart and she focused completely on their individual education to get them into University. She was born into a family of 22 surviving children. My Grandfather was one of 8 children, 6 survived to adulthood.
@@skylinefever To an extent, that is happening, but I'd argue it's less that people with "never wanted kids to begin with" genes are going extinct and more that people who don't prioritize having kids are going extinct. A big issue now and into the future is unplanned childlessness, wherein people who wanted to have kids end up not having them. They wait too long.
@@cheecheneg I do think about how some people live their fertile years never hearing the biological clock tick. Then it can finally be heard when time runs out.
It’s not just feminism - a lot of men also just don’t want to get married and have children
My friends all has their kids around 35; I don't thintk they felt financially stable before then. I know others put off marriage and kids by seeing plenty of older blokes at work who worked all their lives only to be fiancially wiped out by divorce
Being generous to women and children would be a good start!
Also making society deem it acceptable to have large families would be useful.
Very interesting discussion! I too, am one of the „guilty“ parties, being a woman of 62, having a career and no kids. It‘s important to look at a bigger picture, such as the fertility crisis and mass migration. It reminds us, we are all connected in a very tangible and sometimes more immediate way than we might imagine.
Is not having kids one of your regrets? Would you encourage younger people to do it?
@@Christian___ I answered that question in the chat. I definitely do not regret it. I would encourage younger people to have children if they truly want them and are ready to give them a loving home. It is a very personal decision. Not for me to decide for others.
@@Christian___ many women cannot or will not answer this question honestly.
For me, I regret not having more children.
@@Jen-mf9rm Yes, I've noticed a lot of Boomer women are brave enough to admit that they think they should have done it in retrospect. There are people of course who don't regret anything because c'est la vie, which is not quite the same thing. A lot of Gen X women though in particular (e.g. Chelsea Handler) seem to want to encourage younger women who can have children not to, like a kind of pied piper leading people into the same pits they fall into. OP of course didn't do that, she just said you should make your own mind up.
@@etch-a-sketch Truly wanting them and feeling ready to have them are two pretty big qualifications though--does anyone really get there before they have kids? I feel like at some point you need to be brave and make a leap of faith even if you're not 100% confident. The people who are the least worried that they are ready may be the ones who are most conscientious and will do the best job? I dunno...
Yes. The current challenges we face seem inevitable when women began entering the workforce in significant numbers. Consequently, the prime childbearing years for women are often dedicated to career development, leading to a trend of having fewer or no children. This results in a majority of men and women without children depending on those who did have children for support in their own old age, including pensions and government assistance. The taxes contributed by the working population fund government expenditures. It can be argued that many who opt not to have children, as opposed to those who are unable to, are acting out of self-interest.
I’m Italian American and my male cousins in Italy do not work. They are in their 40”s and do not work. They have engineering degrees etc. but choose to stay with the family. Then I read this is a trend.
Motherhood is a crummy deal. If you want women to have babies, it will be necessary to give women more security and freedom. No more than men have in peace time.
More freedom the countries that limit women's freedom have more babies 😅
It's flexibilty that women need. I married and had my first child at 18, and was then able to get into University in my early 20s. I had my other children later when life was a bit more stable. That's in the UK, when higher education was free. It's also very lonely bringing up children. I'm not saying people can't learn to cope but nobody tells women to prepare for that. So, yes it's a combination of security, and freedom that's needed, but also access to public spaces. A civilised society should be able to figure out that we're all better off if children aren't brought up in poverty, social isolation and ignorance.
@@Joshua-eo5hr Treating women as baby making slaves is evil.
@@chriswatson1698 I don't see a problem that's literally what they're made to do
more security and freedom to women > worsen birthrate decline kkkkkkkk
To me, the solution seems to be for society (starting with government, media, social media algorithms, etc.) to start promoting the idea of women having children BEFORE starting college/careers in their mid-to-late-twenties/early-thirties when the children are old enough for school. Women live longer than men already, so getting a later start in their career makes sense. That way, women get to have it all...a good-sized, loving family and a successful career (if they want it). Right now, we're doing exactly the opposite, women are going to college and graduate school and wasting their most fertile/energetic years.
Problem is women are at the most attractive when they are young and want to explore their options. Having kids alone is not enough. They have to be raised in normal families.
@@tehehe5929, agreed, but that when they're young, they're most likely to attract the best man they can get to father their children and raise them. There are legions of older, lonely women who explored their options only to be extremely disappointed by the experience.
@@DoctorHemi I'm not defending young women. In fact quite the opposite. I think egalitarianism and feminism are a disaster to human race.
As a woman, good luck convincing young women to give up their most youthful years to become mothers and then spend their older years trying to join the workforce when they just want a slower paced life and retire..
@@yellowmellow7748 You really have your kids for yourself only for about 7 first years of their life - then school takes over and their friends start to feel more important for them than you. You can have kids by 20-23 by 27-30 you can go to college which to me is actually an amazing privilege. Most 19 year olds have no idea what do do with their choice of college and pick poorly. By 30 your choice should be a lot better and you will treat it a lot more seriously than just extended childhood with a lot of party time.
Paul Morland says in regard to feminism, "I don't want to take the world back to the 1950s". But isn't this the problem? In the 1950s there was NO birth rate decline to worry about. Is it possible that societal attitudes in the 1950s deserve a little more credit than they are getting? And is it also possible that UNLESS YOU ARE prepared to take the world back to the 1950s at some significant level you are missing the point. Or to use Mr Morland's phrase, 'standing on the deck of the ship and discussing the possibility of the ship hitting an iceberg while the ship is already sinking'?
Distributist Dave frequently hears the argument of bringing back the past. He argues that if you do, the end of that era will come back for the same reason.
It would be like Sisyfus rolling the rock uphill again.
Makes a nonsense of the claim that people don't have children because they can't afford to.
For decades now women have been told that, "you can have it all", the career, marriage, kids etc. It is implied that because women now have more opportunity, they have more freedom of choice. Having more opportunity means that you need to think more critically about your priorities and choices - if you want a career, go for it! If you want to be a mother and raise children, follow that path. It becomes difficult when a woman wants both at the expense of the other as Lionel Shriver says. If you spend time focussing on a career then likely having children will be on the back burner for some period of time (whether the woman intends it to be or not). When a woman does decide to have children, her career, income and future earning power will be compromised - for better or worse, that's how our system has been formed up to this point. I'm not sure how or if that imbalace can be changed but in the meantime, women need to be aware of this and think critically about what they want in the long run. It is a hard decision and one only a woman can make, but the idea that you can devote an equal 50% to both a career and children without sacrifice to either needs to be discussed more. We also need to consider where men fit into this discussion but as I'm not a man, I'll leave it to them to think about...
Women can have it all but not at same time. Also not do it alone. When women have children below 5 years old and want to pursue career she need someone who take care her children. The safest place is her parents or her sisters who help her take care her children while she work
What a great shame, people missing out on the joy of kids and then grandkids. What a lonely life people will lead later in life.
Worry about your life… not others.
@girlboss2427 and there you go. You don't have any empathy. What a shame.
@@paulmartin6249 I have Empathy. Let people live their lives as they please. Enjoy your kids and grandkids.
@@girlboss2427Enjoy your cats and litter boxes.
@@shadrachemmanuel1720 I do lolll that’s not a bad thing. That like saying enjoy your life of being stress free🤦♀️😂😂
For a small part feminism is to blame, but most of all the cost of living imo. I have two wonderfull children but it costs the price of a home each to raise to raise them propper the time they live ar home. They also stay home longer ( wich i dont mind ).
Not blaming birth control for less babies is like saying guns dont shoot people.
Choose :
Modern Civilisation?
Or
Fertility?
You can't have both.
Why does history so often start in the nineteen fifties, particularly when, like Paul, you have a Feminist outlook?
Divorce, men who leave women to raise children alone, economic realities - three big reasons. Necessity of working and raising children - all falls on women. How much are men helping? Many girls see the writing on the wall and opt out, to protect themselves from poverty, abuse and being overworked for the rest of their lives.
I don't think 'feminism' has had much influence on falling fertility rates - housing costs, education costs (including debt for higher education), childcare costs, inability to take enough maternity leave to bond with the baby/adjust to motherhood... and - men dont want to be dads. Not too many women want to be single mums.
Divorce rates + 70-90% initiated by women will strongly disagree that women dont want to be single mothers.
Take away divorce incentives and the ability to divorce for no justified reason.
modern life has taught men that there is an extreme risk of the mother of their children choosing to divorce them, taking their children, their home, their happiness and their security. And you're surprised that a lot of men don't want to be dads any longer?
❤❤❤
Depends on the culture and neighborhoods and status of the welfare state. We've got neighborhoods full of single mothers here in the U.S. They used to be concentrated, but now single motherhood is very common.
western women deny the most logical factor of birth decline
it is without a doubt women empowerement since women who bring babies and unlike western spoiled women muslims and african and south asians have high fertility rate
We've created a society where the people who make the worst decisions receive the best outcomes. Have 5 kids and don't bother getting a job? The government will help you out with everything. Live within your means and get a good job? No help for you, last in the queue for everything.
Feminism, abortion, and more.
they aborted their own children, and bring in migrants to keep the show going ?
And never the men faults??? It’s allllll women. A typical red piller incel.
The Guardian doesnt like men talking about it.
My grandparent's generation did not have many children, and that was in the forties and fifties. Only one of my great-aunts had a large family. She had about a dozen. About half did not have any children at all. It is not about access to modern contraception. It might not even be entirely down to feminism.
The answer is YES.
in any country where feminism becomes strong, fertility goes down hard.
Why is it stronger in Japan and Korea than in the west then?
No. Just look at Italy and Japan. Hardly bastions of feminism.
And China!
yeah, the housing costs are the real problem
Look at the UAE they are a muslim country, they have a lower birthrate then the UK they also happen to be a very very very expensive place to live, coincidence?
@@GreatSageSunWukong UAE has foreigner workers and they dont give nationality and foreigners represent 80% of the population mostly workers men that's why the fertility rate is low, but among the original arabic tribe it is higher than western one
@@spipo1903 hmm but if they don't have nationality would they count towards the figures for how many births per woman which is what I was citing?, if 80% of the population are not counted as UAE nationals then they shouldn't be in the figures it should just be looking at the 20% of citizens so the point still stands of low birthrate per woman at less then 1 child where as the average in muslim countries is 6 children per woman.
How about promoting the idea of fathers taking their full share of responsibility for child care?
When children under 3 years old, mothers, grandmothers and aunts should take care of children.
Read speeches by Barbara specter on europe not any longer "being a monolith
But becoming "multicultural"
I like how South Korea and Japan decided that even if the birth rate sucks, tgey aren't letting in manuly people.
In the U.S., having kids is a sucker's game, responsibility without power. Parents have to pay all the bills, but the State has the ultimate power over the child. Schooling is mandatory for 12+ years, and public schooling is little more than brainwashing. Why can't the kid be with his parents all day instead of in an indoctrination center? In Africa when you have a kid, the kid is yours and can help you in your business and household--- the kid belongs to YOU and not to the State. This is not so in the U.S. and Europe, which is probably why birth rates are high in Africa and low in the West.
The cost goes to the parent, the benefit goes to one of the megacorps. Incentives drive behaviour, and critics pretend not to see the lack of incentive.
And do what all day? Work at the farm for their parents?
With the end to the international trade in medicine, food, fertilizer, and pesticides, the population of Africa is going to shrink considerably.
Thomas Malthus is awesome!
but long before it can shrink that way, even a small percentage of Africans fleeing their continent for any other will be a sociological disaster for their chosen destinations.
@@TheTraveller20081 seal borders. Break the oligarchy of the donor class to do it.
@@TheTraveller20081 the Europeans have got really good at stopping migration. And Oceania and the Western Hemisphere are out of the question.
I had always thought it was because in a rural society, having a baby gives a woman something to do and the vhildren can quickly be useful for work.
In the west or non-rural societies children are a drain - pure and simple - on a couples financial resources and in a world where homes arent built fast enough and people cant even afford a place of their own - on two slaries - having a child is a luxury. Yeah you can have one but four!?
And then to cap it off, theres pretty much no financial benefit to the individual once the child is grown up. Sure they might still be in touch but they might not. And their tax money will be spent on supporting old people whether or not those old people had children of their own.
Its all about the incentives. Having kids in a cramped urban environment doesnt really make rational sense.
Slightly off topic but relevant, what I find missing from dropping population discussions is mention of the 'demand side'. Yes robots might replace workers, but robots don't buy houses. That little cafe where you dream of reading your books in retirement no longer exists. Too few customers long ago.
yes. but many other factors too
It is ruinously expensive to have kids in UK. Even with two parents working in good jobs. You will end up living in poverty in old age.
Government can get out of peoples lives, they’re the problem.
Partly feminism.
But more the new puritan Religion of Nature and Planet worship.
Progress is seen as a Sin.
Guilt is making us antihuman.
#FeminismIsCancer !
👌
And yet, young couples will commonly have a dog. It’s as though they crave the responsibility, love, expense and tie of caring for something, but a child somehow doesn’t fit the lifestyle
Kids are way more expensive and a longer commitment.
Because once a child is involved you are tied to that person for life and too often that means a life sentence for one or other party because both can be completely toxic and the law is cripplingly inept
Dogs are easier to spay and neuter, so of course we'll encourage that! UK leads the way in legally anthropomorphizing our pets... in seeking to create more government to see how laws affect them as sentient beings?!!? How much money is spent on that program?
Dogs dont need to go to college or find a viable career in a difficultt job market.
And dogs are awesome! 🤟🏻
_The Camp of the Saints_ was about this topic. Dismissed at the time as "racist".
As for solutions: the right propaganda will do it in a decade if enough people in the right places are on board.
Hey! I'm enthrawled with my new audio copy of 'No One Left'. Interesting rebuttal to the environmentalist's moral objections over bringing a child into the world. Thank you team for pointing me to the book.
The speech was by Harrison Butker and its on YT.
Harrison Butker Shocks Graduates With Speech
Yes. Yes it is! It’s also the reason why having children appears so unaffordable. Luxury beliefs held by influential women from wealthy backgrounds have been very bad for less well off women. Driving almost all women into the workforce did nothing but push down wages and send house prices and inflation through the roof. Maybe the most ‘elite’ 10-15% of women got to have ‘careers’…..but statistically the other 85% or so hate their jobs but have to keep going to them and then shell out most of their income on childcare! For most families, Dad working whilst Mum stays home and looks after the children is an almost impossible pipe dream! And so people are having less kids.
Agreed. We've built a society that is so expensive to survive in that both parents have to work to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Removal of the 'married man's allowance' in the income tax system made it worse, by penalising families where one parent stayed at home to be the home-maker, the carer. The personal allowance should be transferable between a married couple (and only a married couple, because marriage is the key to stability and needs encouragement). It is possible to exist on one income - I've done it all my working life - but if I was having to support a spouse and family it would be impossible.
Is it a luxury belief to say that masses of people popped out kids they hated due to societal expectations, and that had it's own negative effect?
Or are luxury beliefs only leftist dumb ideas?
Trickle down Reaganomics sounds like a very luxurious belief.
Paul has never seen local fish population collapse in South America. He’s a climate change type activist peddling a different type of alarmism. Biodiversity is suffering from overpopulation. I’d like to see the global population stabilise at around 5 billion.
Feminism isn't to blame, the blame is the fact the world is getting richer.
I somewhat disagree with the male guest. Women do not "need to participate in the workforce." Certainly not during the part of their life where they would have young children at home. Women should have all the same opportunities to participate in work as men (and we do!! Women have more opportunities than men now, and men are actively discriminated against to favour women. Many young men right now in despair and totally failing to achieve success, and society does seem to give 2 sh!ts about them!)
This idea that women "need to" be having a challenging career has been manufactured by feminism. However, it ironically makes women very unhappy because many want to focus on having a family but are dogged with guilt for betraying the unrealistic expectations of our femisist society!
Women have always worked, it's just that a lot of that work was in and around the home (men weren't that far away either). It is only after the industrial revolution that the work women did was taken, which in turn led to them having to work away from home as well. This only a SAHM thing only happened in a short period and is now no longer viable for the majority of people. Also it is interesting that people want more children so that there are people available to do the jobs required but at the same time suggesting (not by you) that half the adult population should be removed from it. Not sure how you square that circle.
@@winterskiU the SAHM rubbish was the preserve of the middle classes and above, as always its the rich that write history ignoring the plight of the many. women were considered property, they were worked to the bone both in and outside the home and their wages given to their fathers or husbands, they had no say in anything and no control of their lives, be controlled by the father or husband or join the workhouse and be graped by the male staff, be homeless and forced into prostitution. short brutal lives as property to be used. women were and still are in many parts of the world the first slaves, the half of the human race deemed not really human, it could be argued that if men didn't dehumanise women from the start would they have been able to mentally justify enslaving other men later?, the seed was already there from dehumanizing women to look down on others to justify using them as property too. I know of no woman in my family that was a SAHM they all worked, I know what my grandmothers and great grandmothers did so thats into the 1800s, mainly farming and factory work.
@@winterskiUthat’s last part is a good point that I didn’t even think about!
Is water wet??
No of course not...the blame rests in all of our decision over the course of 80 years...moving off the farm and into suburbs and eventually into the city where children are loud and expensive and you dont have so many of them because adults aren't dumb. I actually don't mind feminism so much and never did...if women want to be proud to be women that is fine but it does have its limits as does anything
... "where children are loud and expensive" Lol
I disagree the claim that we need more children. We really no not have a problem with "too few people" on this planet, nor in Europe. The effect of overpopulation cannot be underestimated as a factor for all the various environmental problems we see today. We increased from about 2 G people in 1932 to over 8 G people today.
There are times when the population has gone down, and that has lead to many advantages for people. The Black Death, reduced the population with some 30% to 60% in Europe and it lead to the abolishment of serfdom, the creation of the middle class etc. The ones that suffered after this was the rich who suddenly had to pay workers what they were worth. I see that as a positive.
We don't need more children IF we are willing to totally give up on having a welfare state and pension system. Sadly, a welfare state is a pyramid scheme that depends on a growing population where the number of working adults is greater than the number of elderly.
The ballooning government deficits we see today are already a result of failing demographics. So, if you want to keep things like pensions and welfare, we do need stable demographics. Also, having children is important for not being conquered by other nations. No young men = no standing army.
We need children. As humanity has progressed, every social stratum has gained an abundance of goods, services, and wealth. That's why even normies like you and me can communicate through the internet. Only humans can uphold and safeguard this entire infrastructure we've built; otherwise, everything will fall apart.
See how fast you went from criticizing population growth to celebrating mass death? 💀
Education, education, education. Get the kids taught that it's ok to have kids, that it's actually beneficial.
South Korea is top of the PISA education league and lowest in the fertility league. I know correlation does not imply causation. All the same...
@@KevTheImpaler south korea is a pit of misogyny and the women of that country have had enough of it and going on strike on mass refusing to give birth or date men. they have the right idea. the awful government is just doubling down making more anti-woman legislation because they don't learn.
@@vivienneb6199 So what? You think the world would be better if children born into poverty were never born at all? Almost all of the comfort you enjoy in your modern life was invented, built and maintained by people born into poverty.
@@Christian___ I would have been perfectly fine not having being dragged out of nonexistence without my consent.
@@skylinefever If you didn't exist, then how do you propose that your parents should have secured your consent?
Not much said about feminism and its disasters ? Click bait .
Japan birth rate down 30% in nine years.
Japan had lost over 5 million people in a decade.
I know many women who always wanted to have children but weren't able to find a man to father them. Women who were kept on a string through their prime child bearing years or broken up with in their 30s & not able to find a new partner in time.
I also know many single mothers, for various reasons, me included, & life as a single mother is hard but I'd still choose it over wanting children but not having them.
I second all the comments about economic factors but there are also issues in moderm relationships & how we approach them.
Men have to respect the finite nature of women's fertility & take the time they take from women they are with seriously. If they don't feel seriously about a woman, man up & break up.
And men need to stop being man babies, scared of commitment.
Making blanket statements like men should respect womens time and get over being scared of commitment completely ignores mens problems in the first place, but i guess in your eyes men arent allowed problems, we just got to take the bullet head on and be greatful for it.
In short, everything that is happening is mens fault and women should avoid accountability at all cost, get a grip.
What if women are simply looking for hookups? Should men respect her time then and say no?
What about women stop giving out s3x so freely and date with intention? No s3x until marriage? That should also help build commitments and save women alot of time.
What about changing the marriage contract so its not so easy to break so men can marry without being scared they want get divorce graped?
Plenty of things to address the problems but because it goes against women i suppose you would consider this oppression and misogynistic right?
@@h8h215 calm down dear, I obviously am not saying that this is a universal issue for all men or that men are one homogenous blob. I am saying this is one social issue of many.
men don't care they all think they are studs who can start families when ever they like, even when they hit 70 they think they can find a 20 something to date them and many don't want to date women their own age no matter how big the age gap, in the past there was expectations on the men that they look after their family for life and thats gone, they can swan off with no damage to their careers or social statues, leaving single mothers to cope, they just pay their monthly child support treating fatherhood like paying installments on a car. they also don't understand that their fatality and the quality of their sperm declines with age too, leading to more mutations, which in tern leads to more fathers leaving thei mother to cope with a disabled child because they can't be bothered with the hassle and they simply can walk away with their career and image intact far more easily then women can whom are shamed, disregarded and trapped in poverty by being left as single mothers.
@@GreatSageSunWukong and yet women are the ones filing for divorce, if you deincentivize divorce you will find a decrease in single mothers and an increase in marriage.
Look, I hate modern feminism as much as anybody, but the original aims of first and second wave feminism - the right to suffrage, and the right for equal pay and workplace protections - were good. Third wave feminism is a pile of flaming garbage, but we'll put that aside for the moment. The problem isn't women working, it's a political and economic system that has worked actively to suppress wages and drive house prices up for the benefit of the crony capitalists. I know few women who actively *want* to be working full time - they *want* to be at home with their kids - but that choice has been taken away from them now because the system now requires two wages per household. The puppetmasters love to divide and conquer, but don't let them try to pit men and women against each other...we're *all* being exploited by the system.
It was cancer from the beginning.
the right to vote was supposed to come with serious responsibilities like military service.
Where do you think the third wave cancer came from... it came from the second wave.
Equality is a rejection of Nature.
Probably start learning Arabic. They understand this, we don't.
While I agree with most of that and think women, when they have them, definitely want to be with their kids.
But what about when they go to school?
What's the reason then not to work?
Totally agree with you. One of my sisters who has 2 children told me that when her daughters started school, she took up a part-time job which allowed her to be home when the girls came home from school. In the beginning, her paycheck went straight into a savings account used for paying for luxuries if need be, for she and her husband didn't need that money; her husband's salary was more than enough for the upkeep of the family and the home. Then came salary freezing, food prices going up which meant that she was obligated to start working full time not to pay for luxuries but without her pay they wouldn't have been able to maintain their normal standard of living, like paying the mortgage, the bills, the food, the clothing. Having kids is great if you can afford them and not have to end up being totally dependent on government handouts I wonder how many families would have 6 kids if there was no family allowance.
@EVALLOYD
I mean, the 'parents' that require government assistance to have children aren't fit to be parents by definition, so the wrong families are being enabled...
FATHERS. HAVE NO PARENTAL RIGHTS IN THE USA. Mothers are allowed to take the children hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the father. Fathers are obligated to pay the ransom “ child support”, to compensate for the state’s money that mothers are receiving in social benefits guaranteed. There is no fault divorce either, therefore women are not being held accountable after being pregnant. And there is NOT equal child custody. The divorce courts are biased against the fathers, and the majority of the time favored women. There is absolutely no benefit for a man to get married and have children, because you never know when the woman is going to change her mind. For women, the system ( feminism ) told to them marriage is a financial security and women always are Hypergamous. Socialism for women, slavery for men..
Yeah it's not race or feminism... birthrates seem to be inversely proportionate to household economic progress and % of agrarian households.
Yes, it is. But also, social media is warping people's expectations, and meetoo hysteria has created a society that is hostile to men approaching the few Western women that are still desirable.
The 1970s society was already hostile to men. 50 years of derision has a lot to answer for on both sides. But one of the biggest problems we have is that people don't touch any more. People need to touch for good mental health and touching has been taboo for a long time now.
Also there's too many chemicals in our food that are making us infertile. Probably making us mental too but definitely barren.
@@vivienneb6199 what war on women. Women have been leading the charge for the last half century or more 🤦 all they gotta do is cross their legs.
@Dont_Be_Ridiculous it’s the chemicals that we don’t have control over that terrify me. We’re not just breathing them in, and slathering them all over our skins, we’re eating and drinking the things. They ridicule earlier generations for using the likes of lead and arsenic for health, vanity and diet. Yet, even knowing the science behind some of them, they happily permit the inclusion of known and unknown poisons in our modern preparations and foodstuffs.
No it’s poverty and no housing for young people. UK people see no economic future.
It's not poverty, the irony is that the poorer people are the more children they have. Also, people keep forgetting that birth rates have been below replacement since 1970 in the UK. It is not because of housing. This is a global problem, and it requires looking at the incentive structure of modern civilisation itself.
why women are illogical?
Yeah man, I wouldn’t touch one of those things with a 20foot pole with a health inspector on the end
Too many people have read We Need to Talk About Kevin.
Taboo subject : The correlation between intelligence and fertility.
Taboo solution. Offer a big screen TV to stupid people for sterilization.
The same subsidies went and is going to big box MART and anazon where sales tax was nit collected and state and local governments give a tax abatement when they open warehouse s and put out of business smaller retailers selling mostly domestic products while politicians subsidize 50000 Chinese direct sellers while big box sells 90 % offshore paying substandard wages while the US Has to support those low wafe workers abd while the middle class sinks below 50 % of the population and the bottom 50 % of anerica owns TWO PER CENT OF THE TOTAL WEALTH AND TH E TOP 10 % OWNS 90 $ OF THE TOTAL WEALTH
Both men and women can’t settle anymore. Because for young people, settling means not 6ft rich (or some variation of). Which few people are.
By 'young people not settling', you mean 'fertile women'; young men do not have requirements that women be 6ft & rich.
It's not the men.
Look at all the video evidence from Kevin Samuels interviews of the average woman.
Of course Feminism in the anglosphere is extremely virulent and anti-natal. In non -Anglo Western countries the Feminism is less virulent. In China, it is famous for the 1 child policy, this restructured the household economy accordingly. Now that policy has been relaxed, adapting the economy back to more babies has proved hard, people's attitudes and expectations have changed and less willing to make the real sacrifices involved. Korea is unique and Japan less so, but has different reasons for their very low replacement rates. More to the point, the WEF want infinite immigration from 3rd world countries to the West. In Australia and Canada the political class are overtly saying the high immigration rates (and dilution of sovereign national identity) are to compensate for the now long established Feminist anti-natal outcomes, so therefore it's all for the good for a bright sunshiney multicultural new world.
How about people are just generally more selfish and just don't want kids with the emotional and monetary commitment.
A wet dream topic for the Spectators core audience 😅
Yes
Yes, what a shocker... now scroll on
"tunisia is overrun" by whom? this dude is part of the problem.
Why has it ‘bubbled up’? Rather a stupid question. You have decided to discuss it. It didn’t bubble up. It didn’t ‘emerge’ or any other ridiculous euphemism that means ‘ ‘let’s ease it into the discussion gently when nobody’s looking” because they’re getting suspicious that nobody is mentioning that birth rates have reduced at the rate we’d expect at the time of a catastrophic world event. Anyway, the data shows clearly that although declining in general past twenty years, after the mandatory injections, the situation dramatically worsened.
The Elephant in the room is the Pill.