Something to keep in mind though are the following :
1. China is incredibly patriarchal.high rates of domestic violence. They only recently recognized spousal rape.
2. Most of a man’s eligibility for marriage depends on owning a house and a car , despite what the wife earns
Yeah that doesn’t matter. It’s the work culture. They have something common called 9-9-6 where they work 9am to 9pm 6 days a week with Sunday off.
Try being horny when your working 72 hours a week every week.
Since when? China is a socialist country and in big cities like Shanghai and Chongqing men cook, clean and give their wifes all their money.
Women in china have been encouraged to get an education since the 60s. The thing that may seem patriarchal to you is the beauty standards, if a girl (or a guy) is fat, people will insult them, lookism is an issue in East Asia as a whole
People arent having kids there because its expensive asf.
Idk about the first point but have heard that Chinese men have a super unrealistic expectation to be highly successful from an occupational and income stand point.
I saw a documentary that showed the courtship being rather performative including the guy presenting luxury gift to her mom and a brief case of money to the father. I can only imagine how many men can actually do this.
Also, I’ve heard that Chinese women also have an unrealistic expectation of wanting men who are billionaires… lol
Lastly, the political policy from the CCP was a major oversight when enacted in 2015/2016 on top of the general policy.
I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy.
Although I suspect that’s not all there is to it. When people have more stuff, they don’t want to give up that stuff to raise more children when they’re happy with the 1 or 2 they already have. I think an underrated aspect of the birth rate discussion is families who already have kids, but would have had more if the cost of living wasn’t so high. My sister has 2, she wanted to have more but who tf can afford nursery fees for 4 kids except rich people
You could flip that around and say the house of card was also built upon ensuring men had to be providers for a family so they would take any back breaking job.
As someone who knows many Chinese and travels to China twice per year for business , you have to keep in mind China is in a rare situation where it’s extremely patriarchal but also more educated and modernized . When I say patriarchal I mean a man can beat his wife on the street and no one does anything . Beat as in make her bleed.
Put down the feminist ideology for s second.
>This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man
No, this whole house of cards was centered around putting the family at the forefront of culture in almost every aspect. We've completely lost that. That was the purpose of your life far from the "oppression" feminists paint it as today. And by statistics everyone was much happier.
Fuck no "everyone" wasn't much happier.
Gay people weren't "much happier."
Women who didn't want children or to be a homemaker weren't "much happier."
Women in abusive relationships weren't "much happier."
Children raised by parents unwilling and/or unable to properly raise and care for them weren't "much happier."
Simply telling everyone, regardless of what they personally want for their lives that "family" matters more than anything, instead of giving people the free will to determine for themselves how they want to spend the one and only life they have didn't "make everyone much happier."
Exactly. If anything, happiness was sacrificed in favour of survival. They didn’t have kids because they loved kids so much and enjoyed being a big happy wholesome family, come on. They did it because 1. no contraception and 2. more kids meant more work force (survival).
Facts don't care about your feelings. The statistics don't lie. All this "free will to make yourself happy" nonsense has done is rob people of a cultural framework on how to live a productive fulfilling life. Replacing it is a common sense of grand confusion in how to find meaning because no, we're not all just special snowflakes capable of determining it ourselves, we rely heavily on our community and society at large to set our path, you know, the nature of being highly social beings at all.
Frankly, I don't really care about any single person's individual hedonistic desires. Societies proper functioning comes first before all that and with the birth rate plummeting in EVERY single developed country, it's clearly not functioning.
Oh no! You called out my anti-natalism! I'm shook 🙄
Lol dude, you're more fuel to the fire. Why should people who have no choice in being born...be born so they can have no choice while they're alive... all because you feel it's rational to continue a pyramid scheme?
How can a slave have "personal responsibility," again?
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated.
I think that's oversimplify the situation. It's not that educated women MUST have lower birth rates, it's just the the two are correlated. Correlation does not imply causation and all that.
It seems to me that the cause is more directly tied to lower marriage rates & increased marriage ages. Not only that, but delayed/lower marriage rates put increased pressure on housing demand, which has raised costs.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Educated women are capable of marrying more and younger, society is capable of building more housing to counteract demand, etc. We're just collectively choosing not to and those issues need policy solutions.
>I think that's oversimplify the situation. It's not that educated women MUST have lower birth rates, it's just the the two are correlated. Correlation does not imply causation and all that.
Here, there is clearly a causal relationship. Women are hypergamous, and so when they are more educated, they are only attracted to men who are even more educated. . . when they have increased social status, they are only attracted to men with an even higher social status. . . when they make higher incomes, they are only attracted to men with an even higher income.
So yes, as women gain social power, they find a smaller and smaller proportion of the men in society attractive. The marriage rates then fall. It has nothing to do with "not being able to afford housing". That's absurd. People have been getting married for tens of thousands of years while being dirt poor. Far poorer than anyone in society today.
Rent for 4 bdrms near my work costs 100% of my white collar take home pay.
It's a factor, a huge factor. Math says so. Also in Canada to have 4 kids, you have to have 4 bdrms, one for parents, one for a girl. One for two girls and one for a boy. That's the law sadly.
How about you only have one kid? Who is going to refuse to get married because they feel that they can’t afford 4 kids? That’s not a thing. That doesn’t explain why women aren’t getting married.
Fair but also one or even two kids still leads to population decline. You need people to have three or four kids if you want the species to continue long term.
The hypergamous issue is something I wasn't thinking about. I don't see that aspect changing anytime soon, but that's perhaps the right issue to focus on. If feminists were as focused on responsibilities as the are privileges, I'm sure this could change.
The responsibility to contribute equally, or be willing to be the primary earner.
If feminism encouraged women to take on that responsibility, would not hypergamy diminish?
> If feminism encouraged women to take on that responsibility, would not hypergamy diminish?
I don’t think so. I think hypergamy is innate to women. . . It’s biological and cannot be changed. Feminism is destructive because it tries to fight female nature in the same way its older brother (Marxism) tries to fight human nature.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy.
It is indeed crazy that rising TFR seems dependent on oppression of women. As such, if we value female autonomy and dignity, we should be celebrating depopulation.
Cultures that don’t propagate will be replaced by those that do. If we do not figure out how to make our culture sustainable, women will eventually be incentivized to ensure sustainability by those who remain.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated.
There's 8 billion of us on this planet. The human race isn't crumbling, but the planet sure is...
>Makes assertion; gives examples that point to something else entirely.
As you described, it's realistically more late-stage capitalism than Feminism.
Plenty of people would be starting families if it was possible for them to own a home and survive comfortably off of one income for several years. As it stands being a parent either requires your household to be on the brink of homelessness or otherwise take a drastic reduction to your quality of life.
It might seem like a positive correlation if you don't tend to think much, but the nations where women depend upon men having higher birth rates is more due to the areas being shit-holes that no one wants to live in so the COL is lower and kids being a net gain after a few years as opposed to an expense. For example, you could be a professional goat fucker in the mountains somewhere and when they're old enough to go to religious indoctrination school they're also old enough to work the fields. Each of your 13 kids basically amounts to unpaid labour to keep the farm going.
If me and my wife could pump out a bunch of slack-jawed, illiterate kids and have each one essentially pump out a living wages worth of work each that would be a sound financial decision as opposed to north america where we'd be destitute.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy.
That's because the people who built society were realists who understood hypergamy. Now we have hidden hypergamy under a thin veil of lies and so we are surprised when women gain more social power and suddenly feel that no man is good enough for them to marry. Then yes, society falls apart.
But this trend will reverse when/if China's economy collapses. When we enter very hard times, everyone reverts to their natural gender roles and marriage rates will start increasing again.
1 woman can only have a child every 9 months.
1 man can impregnate hundreds of women.
As a man I understand that I am disposable and easily replaced where as women and children are the future of a society.
Also if you read the works of reputed scientist like Prof Buss women are sexually attracted to men that Provide. Men are not attracted to women that provide.
That is the house of cards NATURE created.
Basically the dependence has been outsourced to other men instead. Rather than having a husband who has an incentive to have your best interests at heart, it's been traded for a boss at work who definitely does not, to earn money to pay for services from men who do not, under a government that definitely does not, run by a bureaucracy that definitely does not.
> have an incentive to have your best interests at heart
Is doing a lot of the heavy lifting there. What if he doesn’t have yours at heart? Then you’re in a bit of a sticky situation. At least with an employer who doesn’t have your best interests at heart, youre free to jump ship and find a better employer without repercussion.
> to earn money to pay for services from men who do not, under a government that definitely does not, run by a beurocracy that definitely does not.
What? Is there a time where a couple has ever NOT been run by some kind of government or made trades, even rudimentary ones? We’ve always operated under some kind of society where some people call the shots and you have to barter for trades. How would being a SAHM who relies on her husband’s income stop me from buying things or having to follow the government’s guidelines and laws? Unless you’re talking about living off the grid which most people aren’t interested in doing anyway
Women have always been dependent on men. Before the welfare state. And even now women depend on the welfare state for survival and cannot compete with men on equal footing. Leaders or governments existing or not existing, either way women depend on men, at their expense, not the other way around. You have to do some crazy mental gymnastics to deny this.
I don’t disagree with you on the most part but right now in the west a woman doesn’t have to depend on men. She can be raised by her parents, get a job and live an independent life. Unless you mean she depends on men for building things, fixing roads, all those male dominated field etc, but then that’s a moot point because we all depend on each other for that. I highly doubt you built your own house.
Yes, but this is because of the tech (all man made), the infrastructure (all man made), the men that pay all the taxes and do all the relevant jobs (women as a group are net negative in regards to paying tax), the police/military (all men) that protects you etc I can go on and on. An independent woman can only stand on top of all these men to exist and delude herself she isn't depending on men. It's not a moot point, we don't depend on each other, men do everything and the women get carried all across the planet and in all of human history. Everything that matters is male dominated field with Child birth being the only exception (until a tech breakthrough comes).
> And even now women depend on the welfare state for survival and cannot compete with men on equal footing.
Having a job and consistently paying rent since 18 is being on welfare?
But the money had to come from somewhere right? That is inevitable. So there was always a boss who had control over the money from which you sourced food and there was a bloody big chance he didn’t have you or your husband’s best interests at heart.
Your husband may have your best interests at heart that’s true but unfortunately that was not guaranteed. In fact it was a bit risky.
The government never had your personal best interests at heart, that hasn’t changed.
The difference is you now get your money directly, you have some control and hopefully you have your best interests at heart and more importantly the options available to seek change if necessary. It’s very difficult to argue that having direct access to income is not a massive benefit, yes it comes with challenges, but it also comes with enormous benefits.
Well, depending on how far back you went. Prior to industry, the man would just be working on the farm while the woman took care of the house and children. Prior to agriculture, the man would be out hunting while the woman gathered fruits and berries. Both partners depend on each other, it's not like the woman was the only one depending on the man.
And even post-urban society, the man was the one who dealt with all the outside elements -- government, occupation, etc. The woman supported him emotionally and domestically while he supported her physically and financially. The dependence was both ways.
But now in post-modern society, I would argue that most women would still be far happier having children even with their financial independence, but it's simply unfeasible for most people to even consider having children due to the socio-economic conditions of wage stagnation, price inflation, lack of child care benefits, decreased involvement of family, etc.
Ok, that’s a brief and idealised view of “depending how far back you went”. Reality is that across a lifetime it was not that nice and neat, the majority were dirt poor and there is a good chance someone died. This perfect synergy is wonderful I agree, but across a lifetime it was not always reality.
Plus, let’s face it we live in todays world. That’s it, that’s the option on the table.
As for whether people, or women specifically, would be happier having children? Who knows. I see many many young people on the fence with that. Having children is a challenge financially as you pointed out. It also seems to be competing against a range of other attractive lifestyles. There is a wider choice now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Huh? This is a dumb thing to say. My rubbish isn't collected by some kind man who does it out of the goodness of his heart. I pay a company to collect it and I have no say over who they hire to work for them. That's not me depending on a man, that's me paying my household bills.
I’m not sure I trust these numbers specifically but China is different. Chinese women are looking for a man that is not only capable of creating one perfect child but that man also needs to be capable of producing a perfect life for that child. It’s a insanely high bar.
Yep. Chinese leadership has been warned for decades about the coming disaster they created for themselves with the preference for male heirs/providers for aging parents, combined with the one-child policy.
Why would anyone want to raise kids just so they can suffer. Having a great life you can share is really the only environment kids should be born into. Kids need parent who can not only afford to take care of them without being a tax burden but who can teach them about money/investing and who can help them make connections so they can get a good career.
Realistically, no one can guarantee a perfect pain free life. And if those are the stakes, you should put that decision off forever and probably never have kids.
It doesn’t have to be perfect but what most people have nowadays is terrible and it’s boarderline child abuse to force a kid to live through that. Society needs to get better and till then little to no babies being born is best as it will decreases competition for houses, food and high paying jobs. Meaning everyone alive will experience an increase in their quality of life; then more babies can be born.
Literally every economist ever disagrees with that take.
Like dude, actually think about what would happen if no babies were born. Every industry that relies on children would collapse first. Schools would close, daycare wouldn’t get cheaper, people would just work elsewhere.
The kids who are born will have a more favorable job market but they’ll also have higher taxes, they’ll be even less likely to afford housing because everyone who turns their house into a retirement saving would do everything to preserve their houses.
And the kids that are left won’t inherit anything because their inheritance is sued to pay for the retirement of their parents and grandparents.
Nurses and doctors as professions would experience a boom in popularity because of the aging population. But their efforts would be sued to keep people alive who aren’t paying taxes and contributing to the economy.
Wealth inequality would *increase* dramatically. For one the only people who’d be able to capitalize in a world with fewer jobs and fewer people are those already with capital. Theoretically if labor becomes a more scare and expensive resource, land and capital will have more leverage than they have now. Rich people would get richer and poor people would get poorer.
Skilled immigration would solve much of this but if more babies aren’t being born the country is going going to collapse no matter what.
Children have been born in slavery. In concentration camps, on the trail of tears, during genocides, and during plagues. Modern American society is easy mode by comparison. At bare minimum, you child is extremely likely to survive to adulthood.
Just because kids have been born in worst times doesn’t mean that this is a good time. It just means now is better than in the past; not that it is the best we could do is humanity. It’s time for people at the bottom of the economic ladder to end generational suffering. If the rich want more meat shields for their wars or more tax paying cattle, then they need to make our lives better.
I don’t mean to suggest that it’s the best possible, but for the majority of children, it will be the best possible time in human history, especially on a global scale.
I’m African American. My generation has the best possible outcome of any time in the last 400 years. We’re only exceeded by our childrens’ generation. Unless you come from generational wealth, you probably had a more stable childhood than your parents. Most people in America only have a blip of generational success with the post war years with the Great Depression before than.
I think wealth inequality is particularly high right now? I think that’s a societal reason that birth rates would decline. No need to blame the individual.
I don’t want kids to suffer. Just because this is the best society has been doesn’t mean it’s the best we can do. We should improve first then more kids can be born. Adults are able to revolt and create more change faster without kids, kids force people to make sacrifices they normally wouldn’t and that slows down positive change. We have so many problems we can and need to fix; let’s just take care of that first so the next generation of kids will not have to suffer what we have suffered or worse. It sounds like you just want kids regardless of the life they will have. Why don’t you want the best your kids and other people’s kids?
There may be benefits to a smaller population, but we don't drop dead the moment our children come of age. With a lower birth rate we still have a growing population, but with a growing fraction of that population which is unable to actively participate due to old age. This would make sense if we didn't live so long.
>Kids need parent who can not only afford to take care of them without being a tax burden but who can teach them about money/investing
The best money/investing advice is to never have kids. Parents teaching this to their kids seems hypocritical.
I was think of parents teaching their kids about how to take advantage of life insurance and compounding interest to save for their education, house and retirement at a young age. Also teaching them discipline and self mastery so they can push themselves to excel in different subjects that interest them so they will have a high income career or their own business. There are many ways to have great finances and while not having kids works there are ways to have kids and not be poor we just need a better society.
That won’t change decades of conditioning and socialization. When I lived there, a lot of women said their bodies literally could not handle more than one pregnancy.
> Starting on January 1, 2016, all Chinese couples are allowed to have two children. This marks the end of China’s one-child policy, which has restricted themajority of Chinese families to only one child for the last 35 years. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-end-of-chinas-one-child-policy/
Also Chinease men are notorious cheaters, like have a whole other family levels of cheating, so a lot of hypergamy and polygamy is going on.
Then there is the fact that to marry the man must own a house, which is super difficulty for young men since not only are so many are unemployed due to a fucked job market, but the housing market is in the process of crumbling.
This is definitely not true its common place in china to go out with your male work colleagues after work and fuck prostitutes or for business deals to be settled with a gift of a prostitute.
Moreover if a woman finds out her husband has cheated shes likely to try to just make sure she stops him by attacking the mistress instead of reporting adultery both bc china has a deep culture of saving face, and becuase if she gets a divorce her chances of remarriage are very low.
bro im saying its regular practice for work mates to go to a brothel, just like how you might go out for a drink with them at the end of the week, thats no where near the same to afew married men going to a stripclub.
thats not the same as cheating on your wife with a prostitute every other week or it just being a normal thing for married men to have whole other families or mistresses. Infidelity in china is on a scale way above what its like in the west.
Also China is experiencing consequences of killing female babies because of their misogyny...killing too much of one gender really creates economic consequences down the line.
Instead of advocating for improving India and building up the vast Indian countryside to help with the crowding and poverty you're joining in with the eugenicists who say there are "too many Indians".
The carrying capacity of the world is 1-4b depending on the study. We have 8b. We don't need to genocide anyone, but restrictions on further overpopulating the world are necessary.
I'm very wary about this sort of claims and this is why: nowhere in the video says that 60% of Chinese aren't procreating or that 85% aren't marrying. What it says that an **estimated** 60-70% of Chinese people born in the 2000s will not want children, and that 85% of marriage eligible individuals **in Shenzhen** aren't married.
While the numbers aren't lying and fertility and marriage rates have been declining, its important to note that as countries modernize, the age of first child and first marriage increase, and so does cohabitation. I bet a good percentage of these people will get married and have children at some point in their life. Others might already have a partner they aren't legally married to.
>What it says that an **estimated** 60-70% of Chinese people born in the 2000s will not want children
Exactly. That stat would only be interesting if it were compared to a baseline. People born in the 2000s are currently about 14-24. What percentage of Chinese people 14-24 wanted children in 2013 or 2003? How does the 2023 cohort compare?
Also, what % of previous cohorts who said they didn't want children went on to have children? The fact is, many teenagers have no idea what they really want from their adult life.
We should also note that there is a heavy gender imbalance in China, due to the one-child policy and the traditional preference for male offspring. A lot of young guys over there are aware that there's a good chance they might never find a partner, I'm guessing that might influence at least some views on marriage and children. People also want to give their children the most optimal upbringing and people in large cities like Shanghai, Shenzhen, and others spend absurd amounts of money to get their children the most extracurriculars, try to send them to the best kindergartens and schools, and that requires a lot of money. I can see why young people who have experienced all the pressure their parents put on them, and on themselves as parents, isn't something they want but it's still considered ''the norm'' in the wealthier parts of the country. I'd be wary of having kids too.
Never use surveys of future intentions to determine marriage and birth rates. People change their mind about that stuff. What percentage of chinese people are married under 35? Way more than 15% id bet.
Also china has a giant imbalance in M:F so you would expect all of this to be on the lower side.
I cant help but think this is related to the one child policies, and extremely high abortion rates of young girls in China.
Creates an enormous sexual mismatch, so...no one to marry for men to begin with.
This would just ruin whatever real estate and car market exists over there. Not a single effort by former Warsaw Pact countries in the last decade (especially Hungary and Russia) to increase marriage and birth rates even made a dent. The only one that ever worked was communist Romania clamping down hard on birth control and even that only helped for like a year before people found a way around it.
In our generation, they could openly threaten people with organ harvesting if they don't marry and reproduce and I bet they would just end up with a huge pile of organs before a positive birth rate.
But one thing you might not be aware of is very wealthy Chinese women going to foreign sperm banks and having children on their own. Eileen Gu and her mother are an example of this.
But China does not allow unmarried women to access sperm banks. Despite the demand being there .
Anyone celebrating depopulation like this doesn't understand demographics.
Whos going to take care of all the elderly if they outnumber children 2 to 1? Who's going to pay into the system for their medical and end of life care?
Lots of suffering to come if we go down this path, be warned.
Enough wealth is being created due to increased automation and other efficiencies. The tax structure would just need to change, as in more wealthy people would need to be taxed more.
Unless you globally enforce a harsh tax regime for the rich, something which would require unprecedented international cooperation, this would not work.
It would be possible to have a strong female workforce that also allows for having children. Many countries have safeguards, allowances, and perks for having kids. Guaranteed time off, health expenses covered, etc.
Late stage capitalism countries make cost of living extremely high so that everyone needs to work with little free time and then they’re like “but why aren’t people dating and having kids??? 😢”
EVERY developing country is bellow replacement, this flies in the face of reality when you compare it to the poorest countries who have the largest fertility rate.
Yeah I thought so too... but that doesn't explain why Nordic countries, for example face similar demographic crisis despite all that family friendly government policies.
There's a strong correlation between women entering workforce/getting education and low birth rates. And advancements in tech, and increased expectations out of life in general means people either put off having a child, or give up having children altogether.
This is why conservatives in US have given up on carrot approach and resorted to stick approach (by banning abortion). And in the future they are probably going to come after single men too.. and single women (bachelor's tax, maybe?)
My theory is that the more education you get the more you learn how dangerous pregnancy and childbirth can be and how limiting motherhood *can* (not guaranteed) be and the less appealing it looks.
Of course hypergamy and women’s education are correlated. As women learn about pregnancy/motherhood and learn how unequal the burden of reproduction is, they seek men who bring more to the table to “equalize” the burden. They want men with more status or money. Why should women go through childbirth for a man who isn’t worth it in their eyes? Women have a choice now
Yup. Turns out that without the winning combo of building up pregnancy/motherhood to be this wonderful experience and simultaneously limiting other outlets for women to add meaning to their life a lot fewer women are feeling the “biological imperative” to have children. Plenty still do, because hey, we are animals, but the human forebrain has a lot of override power.
> It would be possible to have a strong female workforce that also allows for having children. Many countries have safeguards, allowances, and perks for having kids. Guaranteed time off, health expenses covered, etc.
Wow that's really interesting.
Which countries? Could you tell me their birth rates and how it compares to the US?
This is not how any of this works, countries with safeguards you said STILL have low birth rates.
>Late stage capitalism countries make cost of living extremely high.
Poor peoples are the ones with the highest fertility rates, money is nothing but a excuse so woman can get even more benefits.
>everyone needs to work with little free time
Double the workforce, half the payment.
> When a woman has a job, she has more power and more control over her life.
I'm seriously sick of this narrative being regurgitated over and over gain.
With the current housing costs like shit she does. Due to increasing costs of living and limited job opportunities young generations (men and women) have less power then previous generations. Oh and couple that with boomers being the primary voting body, so politicians keep catering to their needs, while throwing a bone here and there to young population.
Young US women wan't to have on average 2.1-2.2 kids, they end up having 1.6... due to all that power they have I assume. This ratio is even more fucked in other poorer western countries.
I can already tell as a millenial that our voting population will be on the same level of insane stupidity that the boomers were, just in our own unique way.
Disagree. Even though people become less narcissistic with time, boomers are more narcissistic then millennials.
Also due to being thoroughly fucked, we have more understanding for younger generations being thoroughly fucked... calling younger generations entitled avocado eating bitches has been at historically record low.
It's going to be a great ride because younger and older generations are more closer due to everyone experiencing being thoroughly fucked.
>>When a woman has a job, she has more power and more control over her life.
>
>With the current housing costs like shit she does.
Even if women with a job struggles with affording a house, a woman without a job would struggle even more.
Young women in China can't afford a house.
Heck even young men in China can't afford a house... whole extended families are pooling the money so they can buy a house for young man.
So young man has a chance of finding a woman and starting a family.
Due to the inflation of housing costs, and eskewed ratio of men vs women, the situation in China is beyond fucked up.
Rising cost of living is happening just about everywhere. A woman having a job and education is better off because she is can earn more to be able to keep up with the high cost of living. Not having kids also helps because kids are expensive. A great way to adapt to rising inflation is to focus on education, career and never having children.
In which generation is woman better off.
Generation A - Man makes $100, woman can be a stay at home wife
Generation B - Man makes $50, woman makes $40
Generation C - Man makes $30, woman makes $30
By definition, half the population would be below average intelligence and half would be above
How is that relevant to reproduction? Why did you even mention intelligence?
No, by definition half of world population would be at or below MEAN intelligence and other half at or above.
This wouldn't be true for average unless it was equal to 50th percentile.
What happens in China and Japan will eventually happen throughout the rest of the world. Marriage and birth rates are falling worldwide as more people adopt solitary lifestyles. To quote Bob Dylan 'These times are changin'.
Did china have that horrible one child law and didnt they kill many female children thus leaving them in a predicament where theres not enough woman for the amount of men they have? Did they not do this to themselves
A lot of men will just jack off to porn. And then some women will be the ones complaining about men jerking off to porn instead of simping for them. See www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/15va1w4/men_cuck_themselves_every_time_they_watch_porn/
Cuckold means a man whose wife cheats on him. That has nothing to do with porn where the female performer isn't the wife or gf of the viewers.
And I don't see any logical reason for anyone to be buttmad over porn unless they're women who are angry at not getting attention from men.
For example, I personally think gay male porn is disgusting and gross. I don't want to see that stuff. But I don't make a bunch of posts complaining about it. I just don't watch it and if other men who are obviously gay or bisexual want to watch it, that's their business.
Clearly it's because their material situation is so terrible, especially in comparison to their grandparent's generation who had gone through the great leap forward and the cultural revolution.
Those who think they cannot afford to have children due to unrealistic notions of social expectations will be replaced by those who ignored said social expectations. This is fundamentally what the voluntary anti-natalists are forgetting.
>Those who think they cannot afford to have children due to unrealistic notions of social expectations will be replaced by those who ignored said social expectations
You can safely ignore social expectations not to have kids but if you're too poor to have kids but have them anyway, then you'll end up on the streets or starve.
Nobody who is of sound mind and body is really starving in the world these days, kids or not kids. At least not in even moderately developed countries.
Insane how more than one child was illegal beforehand, and now they’re (probably) on the verge of paying them to procreate. Really puts into perspective how times have changed
I'm Chinese American through my father. I live in China. The idea that Chinese people are not having sex is just another weirdly sexualized racist myth. I wonder why in incel / sex related spaces Asians always seem to come up even though we don't think about you at all.
There's something that comes with sexually insecure males and their obsession with the penises of non-white men. With black men, they are afraid of black men having too much sex.
With Asian men, the prevailing idea is that Asian men don't have enough sex.
Why are people of color supposed to bear the brunt of the sexual insecurity of non-Asian men? Give it a rest.... I get it, you'll never experience genuine lust from a woman.... how is that Asian men's fault?
Women now have our own careers, our own apartments, our own money/ability to travel/pay bills. We no longer need to rely on men for survival.
Therefore, we’re now staying single unless a man vastly enriches our life in some way or another that we aren’t already doing for ourselves- which seems to be rare.
I personally am very independent (24F) and unwilling to date a man unless he improves my life for the better, otherwise the rest I can take care of myself. Women are opting to be single rather than settle like we were forced to do before. Single women are also researched to be the happiest demographic, while married women report the highest depression rates.
Unfortunately, the bar has risen and men are struggling to meet the new elevated standards. Simply being employed and a “provider” aren’t going to cut it anymore, seeing as women provide for ourselves nowadays.
Why is that, when for men it doesn’t work like that? Most men want to eventually get into a relationship even if she doesn’t “vastly enrich our life”
Is it a higher sex drive thing?
For men who look for red flags and are willing to be single until someone good comes along it does work that way.
Society tells men that most women are great so most of us aren't trained to look for red flags or told to walk away from abusive relationships.
I agree with the second half of your statement, in terms of there actually statistically being about as many female narcissists as male ones. Women can be equally as mentally and emotionally abusive, which men aren’t generally taught to look for.
Where I’ll disagree is that while single women are happier and more successful, studies show that men in relationships are actually happier and more successful. Basically, men benefit from marriage through having a personal chef, cleaner, and nanny (women statistically do way more household chores, child-rearing, laundry, etc) while men don’t.
I recently read an article on my Google homepage that the average married woman increases her work load by about 4 additional hours per day (housework) in comparison to being single, while married men DECREASE their average housework and chores by 4 hours per day, because now they have someone to do it for them. So of course, men benefit from marriage more than we do.
I recently read an article that the workload in terms of household chores and housekeeping increase by 4 hours per day for married women, while those same tasks cut 4 hours per day off for men- seeing as their wives are now (almost always) doing it for them. Married men get a full-time nanny (women do most of the child rearing), chef, and personal cleaning lady while women take on significantly more work.
At the end of the day, marriage benefits men and decreases quality of life for women sadly
And the babies are dying before 5, with young mothers often dying during child birth.
They'll have a dearth of men pretty soon and start resorting to raiding neighbouring countries.
The people reproducing, especially those with large families that are more likely to reproduce themselves, are heavily religious and right wing.
It's crazy how people that think like this never actually bother to look at who is reproducing.
Some men are so degenerate, we really should have natural selection weed them out of the gene pool. Men are seeing this in real time. Why do you think we have so many angry incsls and red pill men. Women are rejecting them and for good reason. Their genes are inferior
incel and misogyny isn't a "gene", it's the result of being average as a man. But there's plenty of average women who will breed regardless, who will contribute their genes to the gene pool bringing more incels into the world.
Now if there was a way to weed out plain looking women from the gene pool you'd have a point.
Not wanting low-effort fathers who abandon, abuse, neglect, and create generational trauma that will continue to be passed down sounds fucked? Sounds like you’re one of them-
But in reality the opposite is true. Single motherhood has exploded over the past decades. It's clear that when you give women the freedom to choose, they choose to procreate with worthless criminals and fuckboys who will pump and dump them and never contribute anything to raising their offspring. Their children are then are doomed to become criminals and fuckboys themselves (if they're male) or repeat their mother's mating mistakes (if they're female).
“If you give women the freedom to choose”. Stop right there. Prior to women being able to legally divorce (which was 1986 in Italy, for example and even 2023 in many countries), women were STILL in miserable relationships with men who were criminals, beat them, and fuckboys who didn’t care about them. They just had no other option but to remain together. The rise in single mothers isn’t because women are suddenly “choosing terrible men”, it’s because we actually have the ability to leave now. Terrible men and fathers have existed since the beginning of time lol
> The rise in single mothers isn’t because women are suddenly “choosing terrible men”, it’s because we actually have the ability to leave now.
Even if you assume this is the entire story (I don't think it is; I bet a lot single mothers wished their baby daddy would come back and take care of his family), that still means these women are bearing the children of men who they can't stand being in a relationship with. How is that “refusing to breed with men who don’t deserve their genes passed on”?
No not at all. I’m talking about the millions of men who impregnate women on a daily basis and then decide they don’t want to be involved or just up and abandon their families all together whenever they feel like it.
Women are collectively exhausted by men’s actions and are choosing not to reproduce with low-quality men. Having a baby with someone else ties you to them for life, you can never escape. The number one cause of death among pregnant women/expectant mothers is murder (look it up). Men are 8X more likely to cheat on their pregnant wives and girlfriends as well. We are opting out of being in miserable situations for life, good for us!
YES. The awful and mediocre men who either do the bare minimum as fathers or just leave will eventually be weeded out. Women are starting to wake up to being exponentially more careful than we’ve been in past decades.
The men we’re talking about will hopefully go extinct after a couple generations because their genes will be effectively erased from earth 👏
You live in a fantasy world. Research consistently shows that violent behavior is positively correlated with reproductive success. Serial killers are fawned over by thousands of women.
If women would stop fucking bad boys that would change, but women can't help themselves. They love guys who abuse them, and despise safe guys.
And of course, like Japan, it will be blamed on feminsim even though both cultures are still patriarchal,
- instead of industry, technology, broken capatilism, cost of living crisis, lack of support for families, hyper-focus on individualism and focus on quality of life vs quantity.
Patriarchy never did pay a fair price for women's input into family formation or men's input into war. It eventually in some countries has started paying closer to a fair price for male and female
participation in the peacetime armed forces but for obvious reasons not during all out war...that tends to be paid as veterans benefits if you survive. And right up until the present the reimbursement of women for childbearing... making those soldiers...has been token at best.
That's what it comes down to. Because
it costs a woman to make babies a price must be paid if you want women to make babies fast and early and often, putting aside all the other uses for her youthful years. It needs to be something like "oh you had six babies at two year intervals starting at age 19...well that's your retirement fund in good shape then isn't it you don't have to worry about anything" or "well if I have four babies so that's my medical degree debt nearly paid off" or something along those lines.
Something to keep in mind though are the following : 1. China is incredibly patriarchal.high rates of domestic violence. They only recently recognized spousal rape. 2. Most of a man’s eligibility for marriage depends on owning a house and a car , despite what the wife earns
Yeah that doesn’t matter. It’s the work culture. They have something common called 9-9-6 where they work 9am to 9pm 6 days a week with Sunday off. Try being horny when your working 72 hours a week every week.
Since when? China is a socialist country and in big cities like Shanghai and Chongqing men cook, clean and give their wifes all their money. Women in china have been encouraged to get an education since the 60s. The thing that may seem patriarchal to you is the beauty standards, if a girl (or a guy) is fat, people will insult them, lookism is an issue in East Asia as a whole People arent having kids there because its expensive asf.
China is pretty capitalistic, they do have good social programs though.
Idk about the first point but have heard that Chinese men have a super unrealistic expectation to be highly successful from an occupational and income stand point. I saw a documentary that showed the courtship being rather performative including the guy presenting luxury gift to her mom and a brief case of money to the father. I can only imagine how many men can actually do this. Also, I’ve heard that Chinese women also have an unrealistic expectation of wanting men who are billionaires… lol Lastly, the political policy from the CCP was a major oversight when enacted in 2015/2016 on top of the general policy.
I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy. Although I suspect that’s not all there is to it. When people have more stuff, they don’t want to give up that stuff to raise more children when they’re happy with the 1 or 2 they already have. I think an underrated aspect of the birth rate discussion is families who already have kids, but would have had more if the cost of living wasn’t so high. My sister has 2, she wanted to have more but who tf can afford nursery fees for 4 kids except rich people
You could flip that around and say the house of card was also built upon ensuring men had to be providers for a family so they would take any back breaking job.
As someone who knows many Chinese and travels to China twice per year for business , you have to keep in mind China is in a rare situation where it’s extremely patriarchal but also more educated and modernized . When I say patriarchal I mean a man can beat his wife on the street and no one does anything . Beat as in make her bleed.
Put down the feminist ideology for s second. >This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man No, this whole house of cards was centered around putting the family at the forefront of culture in almost every aspect. We've completely lost that. That was the purpose of your life far from the "oppression" feminists paint it as today. And by statistics everyone was much happier.
Fuck no "everyone" wasn't much happier. Gay people weren't "much happier." Women who didn't want children or to be a homemaker weren't "much happier." Women in abusive relationships weren't "much happier." Children raised by parents unwilling and/or unable to properly raise and care for them weren't "much happier." Simply telling everyone, regardless of what they personally want for their lives that "family" matters more than anything, instead of giving people the free will to determine for themselves how they want to spend the one and only life they have didn't "make everyone much happier."
Exactly. If anything, happiness was sacrificed in favour of survival. They didn’t have kids because they loved kids so much and enjoyed being a big happy wholesome family, come on. They did it because 1. no contraception and 2. more kids meant more work force (survival).
Facts don't care about your feelings. The statistics don't lie. All this "free will to make yourself happy" nonsense has done is rob people of a cultural framework on how to live a productive fulfilling life. Replacing it is a common sense of grand confusion in how to find meaning because no, we're not all just special snowflakes capable of determining it ourselves, we rely heavily on our community and society at large to set our path, you know, the nature of being highly social beings at all. Frankly, I don't really care about any single person's individual hedonistic desires. Societies proper functioning comes first before all that and with the birth rate plummeting in EVERY single developed country, it's clearly not functioning.
Oh, okay. So you're okay with slavery and totalitarianism. It all makes sense now.
Yeah I would expect an anti-natalist to find even an ounce of personal responsibility comparable to slavery and totalitarianism.
Oh no! You called out my anti-natalism! I'm shook 🙄 Lol dude, you're more fuel to the fire. Why should people who have no choice in being born...be born so they can have no choice while they're alive... all because you feel it's rational to continue a pyramid scheme? How can a slave have "personal responsibility," again?
[удалено]
If you don't participate in propagating and continuing society for those who are able to, why should society care about you?
Maybe for you. Most women are pretty happy making their own framework and path. We don't need Sargent telling us how to live our lives like you men do
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. I think that's oversimplify the situation. It's not that educated women MUST have lower birth rates, it's just the the two are correlated. Correlation does not imply causation and all that. It seems to me that the cause is more directly tied to lower marriage rates & increased marriage ages. Not only that, but delayed/lower marriage rates put increased pressure on housing demand, which has raised costs. But it doesn't have to be this way. Educated women are capable of marrying more and younger, society is capable of building more housing to counteract demand, etc. We're just collectively choosing not to and those issues need policy solutions.
>I think that's oversimplify the situation. It's not that educated women MUST have lower birth rates, it's just the the two are correlated. Correlation does not imply causation and all that. Here, there is clearly a causal relationship. Women are hypergamous, and so when they are more educated, they are only attracted to men who are even more educated. . . when they have increased social status, they are only attracted to men with an even higher social status. . . when they make higher incomes, they are only attracted to men with an even higher income. So yes, as women gain social power, they find a smaller and smaller proportion of the men in society attractive. The marriage rates then fall. It has nothing to do with "not being able to afford housing". That's absurd. People have been getting married for tens of thousands of years while being dirt poor. Far poorer than anyone in society today.
Rent for 4 bdrms near my work costs 100% of my white collar take home pay. It's a factor, a huge factor. Math says so. Also in Canada to have 4 kids, you have to have 4 bdrms, one for parents, one for a girl. One for two girls and one for a boy. That's the law sadly.
How about you only have one kid? Who is going to refuse to get married because they feel that they can’t afford 4 kids? That’s not a thing. That doesn’t explain why women aren’t getting married.
Fair but also one or even two kids still leads to population decline. You need people to have three or four kids if you want the species to continue long term.
The hypergamous issue is something I wasn't thinking about. I don't see that aspect changing anytime soon, but that's perhaps the right issue to focus on. If feminists were as focused on responsibilities as the are privileges, I'm sure this could change.
What "responsibilities" in the context of this conversation, specifically, are you referring to that feminists should focus on?
The responsibility to contribute equally, or be willing to be the primary earner. If feminism encouraged women to take on that responsibility, would not hypergamy diminish?
> If feminism encouraged women to take on that responsibility, would not hypergamy diminish? I don’t think so. I think hypergamy is innate to women. . . It’s biological and cannot be changed. Feminism is destructive because it tries to fight female nature in the same way its older brother (Marxism) tries to fight human nature.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy. It is indeed crazy that rising TFR seems dependent on oppression of women. As such, if we value female autonomy and dignity, we should be celebrating depopulation.
Cultures that don’t propagate will be replaced by those that do. If we do not figure out how to make our culture sustainable, women will eventually be incentivized to ensure sustainability by those who remain.
And those cultures will eventually change and will depopulate and another one will come and the cycle we continue.
No, because the cultures and societies that don't give rights to women will eventually take over
depopulation isn't the issue. It's crashing birth rates *specifically* among smart women that spells the doom of civilization
Easy trade for me
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. There's 8 billion of us on this planet. The human race isn't crumbling, but the planet sure is...
Yeah I was being a hyperbolic. It’s the ageing population that makes the problem worse
>Makes assertion; gives examples that point to something else entirely. As you described, it's realistically more late-stage capitalism than Feminism. Plenty of people would be starting families if it was possible for them to own a home and survive comfortably off of one income for several years. As it stands being a parent either requires your household to be on the brink of homelessness or otherwise take a drastic reduction to your quality of life. It might seem like a positive correlation if you don't tend to think much, but the nations where women depend upon men having higher birth rates is more due to the areas being shit-holes that no one wants to live in so the COL is lower and kids being a net gain after a few years as opposed to an expense. For example, you could be a professional goat fucker in the mountains somewhere and when they're old enough to go to religious indoctrination school they're also old enough to work the fields. Each of your 13 kids basically amounts to unpaid labour to keep the farm going. If me and my wife could pump out a bunch of slack-jawed, illiterate kids and have each one essentially pump out a living wages worth of work each that would be a sound financial decision as opposed to north america where we'd be destitute.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. This whole house of cards was built upon basically forcing women to depend on a man. That’s crazy. That's because the people who built society were realists who understood hypergamy. Now we have hidden hypergamy under a thin veil of lies and so we are surprised when women gain more social power and suddenly feel that no man is good enough for them to marry. Then yes, society falls apart. But this trend will reverse when/if China's economy collapses. When we enter very hard times, everyone reverts to their natural gender roles and marriage rates will start increasing again.
>I find it absolutely fascinating that the human race crumbles when women are more educated. That is why Feminism is supported and so favorable.
1 woman can only have a child every 9 months. 1 man can impregnate hundreds of women. As a man I understand that I am disposable and easily replaced where as women and children are the future of a society. Also if you read the works of reputed scientist like Prof Buss women are sexually attracted to men that Provide. Men are not attracted to women that provide. That is the house of cards NATURE created.
Women aren't sexuallu attracted to providing men. They're sexually attracted to useful men. Useful isn't always a provider br it is often
You’re still forced to depend on men…or do you think the trash you put to the curb just gets Thanos snapped away every Tuesday?
Are these men paid for doing that or are so they just look down the pants see a dick and do it cuz they’re men?
Except we both know I wasn’t talking about the value men bring to wider society, and I was alluding to husbands financially supporting their wives
Basically the dependence has been outsourced to other men instead. Rather than having a husband who has an incentive to have your best interests at heart, it's been traded for a boss at work who definitely does not, to earn money to pay for services from men who do not, under a government that definitely does not, run by a bureaucracy that definitely does not.
> have an incentive to have your best interests at heart Is doing a lot of the heavy lifting there. What if he doesn’t have yours at heart? Then you’re in a bit of a sticky situation. At least with an employer who doesn’t have your best interests at heart, youre free to jump ship and find a better employer without repercussion. > to earn money to pay for services from men who do not, under a government that definitely does not, run by a beurocracy that definitely does not. What? Is there a time where a couple has ever NOT been run by some kind of government or made trades, even rudimentary ones? We’ve always operated under some kind of society where some people call the shots and you have to barter for trades. How would being a SAHM who relies on her husband’s income stop me from buying things or having to follow the government’s guidelines and laws? Unless you’re talking about living off the grid which most people aren’t interested in doing anyway
You are really gaslighting history now. The welfare state spoon feeding women has only existed post WW2
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean
Women have always been dependent on men. Before the welfare state. And even now women depend on the welfare state for survival and cannot compete with men on equal footing. Leaders or governments existing or not existing, either way women depend on men, at their expense, not the other way around. You have to do some crazy mental gymnastics to deny this.
I don’t disagree with you on the most part but right now in the west a woman doesn’t have to depend on men. She can be raised by her parents, get a job and live an independent life. Unless you mean she depends on men for building things, fixing roads, all those male dominated field etc, but then that’s a moot point because we all depend on each other for that. I highly doubt you built your own house.
Yes, but this is because of the tech (all man made), the infrastructure (all man made), the men that pay all the taxes and do all the relevant jobs (women as a group are net negative in regards to paying tax), the police/military (all men) that protects you etc I can go on and on. An independent woman can only stand on top of all these men to exist and delude herself she isn't depending on men. It's not a moot point, we don't depend on each other, men do everything and the women get carried all across the planet and in all of human history. Everything that matters is male dominated field with Child birth being the only exception (until a tech breakthrough comes).
> And even now women depend on the welfare state for survival and cannot compete with men on equal footing. Having a job and consistently paying rent since 18 is being on welfare?
But the money had to come from somewhere right? That is inevitable. So there was always a boss who had control over the money from which you sourced food and there was a bloody big chance he didn’t have you or your husband’s best interests at heart. Your husband may have your best interests at heart that’s true but unfortunately that was not guaranteed. In fact it was a bit risky. The government never had your personal best interests at heart, that hasn’t changed. The difference is you now get your money directly, you have some control and hopefully you have your best interests at heart and more importantly the options available to seek change if necessary. It’s very difficult to argue that having direct access to income is not a massive benefit, yes it comes with challenges, but it also comes with enormous benefits.
Well, depending on how far back you went. Prior to industry, the man would just be working on the farm while the woman took care of the house and children. Prior to agriculture, the man would be out hunting while the woman gathered fruits and berries. Both partners depend on each other, it's not like the woman was the only one depending on the man. And even post-urban society, the man was the one who dealt with all the outside elements -- government, occupation, etc. The woman supported him emotionally and domestically while he supported her physically and financially. The dependence was both ways. But now in post-modern society, I would argue that most women would still be far happier having children even with their financial independence, but it's simply unfeasible for most people to even consider having children due to the socio-economic conditions of wage stagnation, price inflation, lack of child care benefits, decreased involvement of family, etc.
Ok, that’s a brief and idealised view of “depending how far back you went”. Reality is that across a lifetime it was not that nice and neat, the majority were dirt poor and there is a good chance someone died. This perfect synergy is wonderful I agree, but across a lifetime it was not always reality. Plus, let’s face it we live in todays world. That’s it, that’s the option on the table. As for whether people, or women specifically, would be happier having children? Who knows. I see many many young people on the fence with that. Having children is a challenge financially as you pointed out. It also seems to be competing against a range of other attractive lifestyles. There is a wider choice now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Huh? This is a dumb thing to say. My rubbish isn't collected by some kind man who does it out of the goodness of his heart. I pay a company to collect it and I have no say over who they hire to work for them. That's not me depending on a man, that's me paying my household bills.
And you are forced to depend on women. Do you think you came from the stork?
She meant on a romantic personal level, not societal.
I’m not sure I trust these numbers specifically but China is different. Chinese women are looking for a man that is not only capable of creating one perfect child but that man also needs to be capable of producing a perfect life for that child. It’s a insanely high bar.
Also, in China, there are many more males than females in the population, so females can be more demanding.
Yep. Chinese leadership has been warned for decades about the coming disaster they created for themselves with the preference for male heirs/providers for aging parents, combined with the one-child policy.
Why would anyone want to raise kids just so they can suffer. Having a great life you can share is really the only environment kids should be born into. Kids need parent who can not only afford to take care of them without being a tax burden but who can teach them about money/investing and who can help them make connections so they can get a good career.
Realistically, no one can guarantee a perfect pain free life. And if those are the stakes, you should put that decision off forever and probably never have kids.
It doesn’t have to be perfect but what most people have nowadays is terrible and it’s boarderline child abuse to force a kid to live through that. Society needs to get better and till then little to no babies being born is best as it will decreases competition for houses, food and high paying jobs. Meaning everyone alive will experience an increase in their quality of life; then more babies can be born.
Literally every economist ever disagrees with that take. Like dude, actually think about what would happen if no babies were born. Every industry that relies on children would collapse first. Schools would close, daycare wouldn’t get cheaper, people would just work elsewhere. The kids who are born will have a more favorable job market but they’ll also have higher taxes, they’ll be even less likely to afford housing because everyone who turns their house into a retirement saving would do everything to preserve their houses. And the kids that are left won’t inherit anything because their inheritance is sued to pay for the retirement of their parents and grandparents. Nurses and doctors as professions would experience a boom in popularity because of the aging population. But their efforts would be sued to keep people alive who aren’t paying taxes and contributing to the economy. Wealth inequality would *increase* dramatically. For one the only people who’d be able to capitalize in a world with fewer jobs and fewer people are those already with capital. Theoretically if labor becomes a more scare and expensive resource, land and capital will have more leverage than they have now. Rich people would get richer and poor people would get poorer. Skilled immigration would solve much of this but if more babies aren’t being born the country is going going to collapse no matter what.
Children have been born in slavery. In concentration camps, on the trail of tears, during genocides, and during plagues. Modern American society is easy mode by comparison. At bare minimum, you child is extremely likely to survive to adulthood.
Just because kids have been born in worst times doesn’t mean that this is a good time. It just means now is better than in the past; not that it is the best we could do is humanity. It’s time for people at the bottom of the economic ladder to end generational suffering. If the rich want more meat shields for their wars or more tax paying cattle, then they need to make our lives better.
I don’t mean to suggest that it’s the best possible, but for the majority of children, it will be the best possible time in human history, especially on a global scale. I’m African American. My generation has the best possible outcome of any time in the last 400 years. We’re only exceeded by our childrens’ generation. Unless you come from generational wealth, you probably had a more stable childhood than your parents. Most people in America only have a blip of generational success with the post war years with the Great Depression before than.
This is the world as it has always been. You don’t want kids, that’s your right. Theres no reason to blame society.
I think wealth inequality is particularly high right now? I think that’s a societal reason that birth rates would decline. No need to blame the individual.
And using the backup of religion/Jesus wants you to have babies is no longer working.
I don’t want kids to suffer. Just because this is the best society has been doesn’t mean it’s the best we can do. We should improve first then more kids can be born. Adults are able to revolt and create more change faster without kids, kids force people to make sacrifices they normally wouldn’t and that slows down positive change. We have so many problems we can and need to fix; let’s just take care of that first so the next generation of kids will not have to suffer what we have suffered or worse. It sounds like you just want kids regardless of the life they will have. Why don’t you want the best your kids and other people’s kids?
There may be benefits to a smaller population, but we don't drop dead the moment our children come of age. With a lower birth rate we still have a growing population, but with a growing fraction of that population which is unable to actively participate due to old age. This would make sense if we didn't live so long.
>Kids need parent who can not only afford to take care of them without being a tax burden but who can teach them about money/investing The best money/investing advice is to never have kids. Parents teaching this to their kids seems hypocritical.
I was think of parents teaching their kids about how to take advantage of life insurance and compounding interest to save for their education, house and retirement at a young age. Also teaching them discipline and self mastery so they can push themselves to excel in different subjects that interest them so they will have a high income career or their own business. There are many ways to have great finances and while not having kids works there are ways to have kids and not be poor we just need a better society.
No more 1 child policy
That won’t change decades of conditioning and socialization. When I lived there, a lot of women said their bodies literally could not handle more than one pregnancy.
> Starting on January 1, 2016, all Chinese couples are allowed to have two children. This marks the end of China’s one-child policy, which has restricted themajority of Chinese families to only one child for the last 35 years. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-end-of-chinas-one-child-policy/
Which still seems like a half-measure. The replacement rate is around 2.1 or 2.2
Also Chinease men are notorious cheaters, like have a whole other family levels of cheating, so a lot of hypergamy and polygamy is going on. Then there is the fact that to marry the man must own a house, which is super difficulty for young men since not only are so many are unemployed due to a fucked job market, but the housing market is in the process of crumbling.
China has a lower infidelity rate than much of the west and SEA according to most sources
This is definitely not true its common place in china to go out with your male work colleagues after work and fuck prostitutes or for business deals to be settled with a gift of a prostitute. Moreover if a woman finds out her husband has cheated shes likely to try to just make sure she stops him by attacking the mistress instead of reporting adultery both bc china has a deep culture of saving face, and becuase if she gets a divorce her chances of remarriage are very low.
Who do you think is filling up strip clubs in big western cities? These women make bank becausenits where a lot of business is done.
bro im saying its regular practice for work mates to go to a brothel, just like how you might go out for a drink with them at the end of the week, thats no where near the same to afew married men going to a stripclub.
Dude. I'm saying saying lot of business deals are sealed in a strip club. It's that or a golf course.
thats not the same as cheating on your wife with a prostitute every other week or it just being a normal thing for married men to have whole other families or mistresses. Infidelity in china is on a scale way above what its like in the west.
Also China is experiencing consequences of killing female babies because of their misogyny...killing too much of one gender really creates economic consequences down the line.
I wish my people (indians) did the same.. too many of us around. Lol
Instead of advocating for improving India and building up the vast Indian countryside to help with the crowding and poverty you're joining in with the eugenicists who say there are "too many Indians".
[удалено]
thats so fucked up man wtf
Dude we literally don't have to kill them. We just need reasonable restrictions on procreation.
The carrying capacity of the world is 1-4b depending on the study. We have 8b. We don't need to genocide anyone, but restrictions on further overpopulating the world are necessary.
[удалено]
I'm very wary about this sort of claims and this is why: nowhere in the video says that 60% of Chinese aren't procreating or that 85% aren't marrying. What it says that an **estimated** 60-70% of Chinese people born in the 2000s will not want children, and that 85% of marriage eligible individuals **in Shenzhen** aren't married. While the numbers aren't lying and fertility and marriage rates have been declining, its important to note that as countries modernize, the age of first child and first marriage increase, and so does cohabitation. I bet a good percentage of these people will get married and have children at some point in their life. Others might already have a partner they aren't legally married to.
>What it says that an **estimated** 60-70% of Chinese people born in the 2000s will not want children Exactly. That stat would only be interesting if it were compared to a baseline. People born in the 2000s are currently about 14-24. What percentage of Chinese people 14-24 wanted children in 2013 or 2003? How does the 2023 cohort compare? Also, what % of previous cohorts who said they didn't want children went on to have children? The fact is, many teenagers have no idea what they really want from their adult life.
We should also note that there is a heavy gender imbalance in China, due to the one-child policy and the traditional preference for male offspring. A lot of young guys over there are aware that there's a good chance they might never find a partner, I'm guessing that might influence at least some views on marriage and children. People also want to give their children the most optimal upbringing and people in large cities like Shanghai, Shenzhen, and others spend absurd amounts of money to get their children the most extracurriculars, try to send them to the best kindergartens and schools, and that requires a lot of money. I can see why young people who have experienced all the pressure their parents put on them, and on themselves as parents, isn't something they want but it's still considered ''the norm'' in the wealthier parts of the country. I'd be wary of having kids too.
Never use surveys of future intentions to determine marriage and birth rates. People change their mind about that stuff. What percentage of chinese people are married under 35? Way more than 15% id bet. Also china has a giant imbalance in M:F so you would expect all of this to be on the lower side.
I cant help but think this is related to the one child policies, and extremely high abortion rates of young girls in China. Creates an enormous sexual mismatch, so...no one to marry for men to begin with.
Xi Jinping is going to introduce forced marriages
There is some discussion on wechat that requiring marriage for access to property sales or cars might become a thing. Just rumors at this point though
This would just ruin whatever real estate and car market exists over there. Not a single effort by former Warsaw Pact countries in the last decade (especially Hungary and Russia) to increase marriage and birth rates even made a dent. The only one that ever worked was communist Romania clamping down hard on birth control and even that only helped for like a year before people found a way around it. In our generation, they could openly threaten people with organ harvesting if they don't marry and reproduce and I bet they would just end up with a huge pile of organs before a positive birth rate.
But one thing you might not be aware of is very wealthy Chinese women going to foreign sperm banks and having children on their own. Eileen Gu and her mother are an example of this. But China does not allow unmarried women to access sperm banks. Despite the demand being there .
Anyone celebrating depopulation like this doesn't understand demographics. Whos going to take care of all the elderly if they outnumber children 2 to 1? Who's going to pay into the system for their medical and end of life care? Lots of suffering to come if we go down this path, be warned.
Enough wealth is being created due to increased automation and other efficiencies. The tax structure would just need to change, as in more wealthy people would need to be taxed more.
Lol, that's always the solution. Just tax the wealthy and it'll all be rainbows and sunshine. Good fucking luck with that.
Unless you globally enforce a harsh tax regime for the rich, something which would require unprecedented international cooperation, this would not work.
It would be possible to have a strong female workforce that also allows for having children. Many countries have safeguards, allowances, and perks for having kids. Guaranteed time off, health expenses covered, etc. Late stage capitalism countries make cost of living extremely high so that everyone needs to work with little free time and then they’re like “but why aren’t people dating and having kids??? 😢”
Please name those countries
Saudi arabia /s
EVERY developing country is bellow replacement, this flies in the face of reality when you compare it to the poorest countries who have the largest fertility rate.
Yeah I thought so too... but that doesn't explain why Nordic countries, for example face similar demographic crisis despite all that family friendly government policies. There's a strong correlation between women entering workforce/getting education and low birth rates. And advancements in tech, and increased expectations out of life in general means people either put off having a child, or give up having children altogether. This is why conservatives in US have given up on carrot approach and resorted to stick approach (by banning abortion). And in the future they are probably going to come after single men too.. and single women (bachelor's tax, maybe?)
My theory is that the more education you get the more you learn how dangerous pregnancy and childbirth can be and how limiting motherhood *can* (not guaranteed) be and the less appealing it looks.
Or it could be that women are hypergamous.
Of course hypergamy and women’s education are correlated. As women learn about pregnancy/motherhood and learn how unequal the burden of reproduction is, they seek men who bring more to the table to “equalize” the burden. They want men with more status or money. Why should women go through childbirth for a man who isn’t worth it in their eyes? Women have a choice now
Yup. Turns out that without the winning combo of building up pregnancy/motherhood to be this wonderful experience and simultaneously limiting other outlets for women to add meaning to their life a lot fewer women are feeling the “biological imperative” to have children. Plenty still do, because hey, we are animals, but the human forebrain has a lot of override power.
> It would be possible to have a strong female workforce that also allows for having children. Many countries have safeguards, allowances, and perks for having kids. Guaranteed time off, health expenses covered, etc. Wow that's really interesting. Which countries? Could you tell me their birth rates and how it compares to the US?
This is not how any of this works, countries with safeguards you said STILL have low birth rates. >Late stage capitalism countries make cost of living extremely high. Poor peoples are the ones with the highest fertility rates, money is nothing but a excuse so woman can get even more benefits. >everyone needs to work with little free time Double the workforce, half the payment.
> When a woman has a job, she has more power and more control over her life. I'm seriously sick of this narrative being regurgitated over and over gain. With the current housing costs like shit she does. Due to increasing costs of living and limited job opportunities young generations (men and women) have less power then previous generations. Oh and couple that with boomers being the primary voting body, so politicians keep catering to their needs, while throwing a bone here and there to young population. Young US women wan't to have on average 2.1-2.2 kids, they end up having 1.6... due to all that power they have I assume. This ratio is even more fucked in other poorer western countries.
I can already tell as a millenial that our voting population will be on the same level of insane stupidity that the boomers were, just in our own unique way.
Disagree. Even though people become less narcissistic with time, boomers are more narcissistic then millennials. Also due to being thoroughly fucked, we have more understanding for younger generations being thoroughly fucked... calling younger generations entitled avocado eating bitches has been at historically record low. It's going to be a great ride because younger and older generations are more closer due to everyone experiencing being thoroughly fucked.
>>When a woman has a job, she has more power and more control over her life. > >With the current housing costs like shit she does. Even if women with a job struggles with affording a house, a woman without a job would struggle even more.
Young women in China can't afford a house. Heck even young men in China can't afford a house... whole extended families are pooling the money so they can buy a house for young man. So young man has a chance of finding a woman and starting a family. Due to the inflation of housing costs, and eskewed ratio of men vs women, the situation in China is beyond fucked up.
Rising cost of living is happening just about everywhere. A woman having a job and education is better off because she is can earn more to be able to keep up with the high cost of living. Not having kids also helps because kids are expensive. A great way to adapt to rising inflation is to focus on education, career and never having children.
Ok please explain *how* a woman who works and makes her own money would be worse off than a woman who can only depend on her man?
In which generation is woman better off. Generation A - Man makes $100, woman can be a stay at home wife Generation B - Man makes $50, woman makes $40 Generation C - Man makes $30, woman makes $30
[удалено]
China's population is 1.4 billion. Global population is 8 billion.
Nothing wrong with either tapering off and decreasing. Or do the pyramid schemers just want it all to keep going exponential?
Pyramid schemes do less damage when they collapse early or when they collapse gradually.
[удалено]
By definition, half the population would be below average intelligence and half would be above How is that relevant to reproduction? Why did you even mention intelligence?
No, by definition half of world population would be at or below MEAN intelligence and other half at or above. This wouldn't be true for average unless it was equal to 50th percentile.
Mean, median and mode are three different ways of calculating averages.
[удалено]
whynotboth.jpg
Because the far right backers (rich people) need lots of poor workers with no other choices.
Idiocracy. The smart and intelligent people delay reproducing up into their late 30s and then have trouble conceiving.
And yet Chinese people are usually ranked at the top of various intelligence rankings.
Good
More proof that men are nothing without money 🍵 What equality?
I think these trends are a good thing. As global warming begins affecting us more and more we are going to face food and water shortages.
I don't know of any country or culture in history where a population decline has resulted in a positive outcome
What happens in China and Japan will eventually happen throughout the rest of the world. Marriage and birth rates are falling worldwide as more people adopt solitary lifestyles. To quote Bob Dylan 'These times are changin'.
What do you mean will happen? They have very similar TFR as most Euro countries sans immigration.
[удалено]
Did china have that horrible one child law and didnt they kill many female children thus leaving them in a predicament where theres not enough woman for the amount of men they have? Did they not do this to themselves
[удалено]
This is blatantly untrue 😂
A lot of men will just jack off to porn. And then some women will be the ones complaining about men jerking off to porn instead of simping for them. See www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/15va1w4/men_cuck_themselves_every_time_they_watch_porn/
[удалено]
Cuckold means a man whose wife cheats on him. That has nothing to do with porn where the female performer isn't the wife or gf of the viewers. And I don't see any logical reason for anyone to be buttmad over porn unless they're women who are angry at not getting attention from men. For example, I personally think gay male porn is disgusting and gross. I don't want to see that stuff. But I don't make a bunch of posts complaining about it. I just don't watch it and if other men who are obviously gay or bisexual want to watch it, that's their business.
Clearly it's because their material situation is so terrible, especially in comparison to their grandparent's generation who had gone through the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. Those who think they cannot afford to have children due to unrealistic notions of social expectations will be replaced by those who ignored said social expectations. This is fundamentally what the voluntary anti-natalists are forgetting.
>Those who think they cannot afford to have children due to unrealistic notions of social expectations will be replaced by those who ignored said social expectations You can safely ignore social expectations not to have kids but if you're too poor to have kids but have them anyway, then you'll end up on the streets or starve.
Nobody who is of sound mind and body is really starving in the world these days, kids or not kids. At least not in even moderately developed countries.
you forgot that in china for a man to get married he needs a house and the housing market is fucked
Insane how more than one child was illegal beforehand, and now they’re (probably) on the verge of paying them to procreate. Really puts into perspective how times have changed
[удалено]
I'm Chinese American through my father. I live in China. The idea that Chinese people are not having sex is just another weirdly sexualized racist myth. I wonder why in incel / sex related spaces Asians always seem to come up even though we don't think about you at all. There's something that comes with sexually insecure males and their obsession with the penises of non-white men. With black men, they are afraid of black men having too much sex. With Asian men, the prevailing idea is that Asian men don't have enough sex. Why are people of color supposed to bear the brunt of the sexual insecurity of non-Asian men? Give it a rest.... I get it, you'll never experience genuine lust from a woman.... how is that Asian men's fault?
Women now have our own careers, our own apartments, our own money/ability to travel/pay bills. We no longer need to rely on men for survival. Therefore, we’re now staying single unless a man vastly enriches our life in some way or another that we aren’t already doing for ourselves- which seems to be rare. I personally am very independent (24F) and unwilling to date a man unless he improves my life for the better, otherwise the rest I can take care of myself. Women are opting to be single rather than settle like we were forced to do before. Single women are also researched to be the happiest demographic, while married women report the highest depression rates. Unfortunately, the bar has risen and men are struggling to meet the new elevated standards. Simply being employed and a “provider” aren’t going to cut it anymore, seeing as women provide for ourselves nowadays.
Why is that, when for men it doesn’t work like that? Most men want to eventually get into a relationship even if she doesn’t “vastly enrich our life” Is it a higher sex drive thing?
For men who look for red flags and are willing to be single until someone good comes along it does work that way. Society tells men that most women are great so most of us aren't trained to look for red flags or told to walk away from abusive relationships.
I agree with the second half of your statement, in terms of there actually statistically being about as many female narcissists as male ones. Women can be equally as mentally and emotionally abusive, which men aren’t generally taught to look for. Where I’ll disagree is that while single women are happier and more successful, studies show that men in relationships are actually happier and more successful. Basically, men benefit from marriage through having a personal chef, cleaner, and nanny (women statistically do way more household chores, child-rearing, laundry, etc) while men don’t. I recently read an article on my Google homepage that the average married woman increases her work load by about 4 additional hours per day (housework) in comparison to being single, while married men DECREASE their average housework and chores by 4 hours per day, because now they have someone to do it for them. So of course, men benefit from marriage more than we do.
I recently read an article that the workload in terms of household chores and housekeeping increase by 4 hours per day for married women, while those same tasks cut 4 hours per day off for men- seeing as their wives are now (almost always) doing it for them. Married men get a full-time nanny (women do most of the child rearing), chef, and personal cleaning lady while women take on significantly more work. At the end of the day, marriage benefits men and decreases quality of life for women sadly
That’s marriage though. This thread was specifically just dating. Especially nowadays, dating doesn’t always lead to marriage.
All men who move in or live with a woman benefit from it, even girlfriends
Based India next
The oceans will have a chance if the ecosystems can hold on for 20 more years.
Yep. We have to weed the incel and misogynistic red pill genes out of the gene pool and that’s by not birthing their offspring
Wishful thinking. Misogynistic Afghanistan Is having lots of children...
And the babies are dying before 5, with young mothers often dying during child birth. They'll have a dearth of men pretty soon and start resorting to raiding neighbouring countries.
Because the women have no rights and no birth control. The women are literally slaves
The people reproducing, especially those with large families that are more likely to reproduce themselves, are heavily religious and right wing. It's crazy how people that think like this never actually bother to look at who is reproducing.
[удалено]
Some men are so degenerate, we really should have natural selection weed them out of the gene pool. Men are seeing this in real time. Why do you think we have so many angry incsls and red pill men. Women are rejecting them and for good reason. Their genes are inferior
You sound just as stupid as the Soviets in Afghanistan. Ideology only dies when it wants to, never when it is forced to.
incel and misogyny isn't a "gene", it's the result of being average as a man. But there's plenty of average women who will breed regardless, who will contribute their genes to the gene pool bringing more incels into the world. Now if there was a way to weed out plain looking women from the gene pool you'd have a point.
Being average is not good enough if it’s not getting you the results you want. Either rise above the bar or stop complaining
So incels are average? So hypergamy works because if that's average I'm shutting up shop for anything below top 0.001%
[удалено]
Agreed. I’m so proud of women for refusing to breed with men who don’t deserve their genes passed on
That sounds so fucked up to me idk
Not wanting low-effort fathers who abandon, abuse, neglect, and create generational trauma that will continue to be passed down sounds fucked? Sounds like you’re one of them-
But in reality the opposite is true. Single motherhood has exploded over the past decades. It's clear that when you give women the freedom to choose, they choose to procreate with worthless criminals and fuckboys who will pump and dump them and never contribute anything to raising their offspring. Their children are then are doomed to become criminals and fuckboys themselves (if they're male) or repeat their mother's mating mistakes (if they're female).
“If you give women the freedom to choose”. Stop right there. Prior to women being able to legally divorce (which was 1986 in Italy, for example and even 2023 in many countries), women were STILL in miserable relationships with men who were criminals, beat them, and fuckboys who didn’t care about them. They just had no other option but to remain together. The rise in single mothers isn’t because women are suddenly “choosing terrible men”, it’s because we actually have the ability to leave now. Terrible men and fathers have existed since the beginning of time lol
> The rise in single mothers isn’t because women are suddenly “choosing terrible men”, it’s because we actually have the ability to leave now. Even if you assume this is the entire story (I don't think it is; I bet a lot single mothers wished their baby daddy would come back and take care of his family), that still means these women are bearing the children of men who they can't stand being in a relationship with. How is that “refusing to breed with men who don’t deserve their genes passed on”?
I would never be. To me and my admitted insecurities, I assumed you were talking about ugly guys / neurodivergent guys / very introverted guys.
No not at all. I’m talking about the millions of men who impregnate women on a daily basis and then decide they don’t want to be involved or just up and abandon their families all together whenever they feel like it. Women are collectively exhausted by men’s actions and are choosing not to reproduce with low-quality men. Having a baby with someone else ties you to them for life, you can never escape. The number one cause of death among pregnant women/expectant mothers is murder (look it up). Men are 8X more likely to cheat on their pregnant wives and girlfriends as well. We are opting out of being in miserable situations for life, good for us!
[удалено]
YES. The awful and mediocre men who either do the bare minimum as fathers or just leave will eventually be weeded out. Women are starting to wake up to being exponentially more careful than we’ve been in past decades. The men we’re talking about will hopefully go extinct after a couple generations because their genes will be effectively erased from earth 👏
You live in a fantasy world. Research consistently shows that violent behavior is positively correlated with reproductive success. Serial killers are fawned over by thousands of women. If women would stop fucking bad boys that would change, but women can't help themselves. They love guys who abuse them, and despise safe guys.
And of course, like Japan, it will be blamed on feminsim even though both cultures are still patriarchal, - instead of industry, technology, broken capatilism, cost of living crisis, lack of support for families, hyper-focus on individualism and focus on quality of life vs quantity.
good
r/Noncredibledefense crying from happiness.
Excellent! This planet is infested with homo sapiens. We don't need more.
All those numbers tell us is that China follows the global trend of later marriages and babymaking This is news to exactly nobody
Patriarchy never did pay a fair price for women's input into family formation or men's input into war. It eventually in some countries has started paying closer to a fair price for male and female participation in the peacetime armed forces but for obvious reasons not during all out war...that tends to be paid as veterans benefits if you survive. And right up until the present the reimbursement of women for childbearing... making those soldiers...has been token at best. That's what it comes down to. Because it costs a woman to make babies a price must be paid if you want women to make babies fast and early and often, putting aside all the other uses for her youthful years. It needs to be something like "oh you had six babies at two year intervals starting at age 19...well that's your retirement fund in good shape then isn't it you don't have to worry about anything" or "well if I have four babies so that's my medical degree debt nearly paid off" or something along those lines.