Is the role feminsm has played in the low birth rate in the west ultimately self-defeating?

[Sixgunsound]

By this I mean will there come a point when the consensus in society changes from 'you do you, be lonely and childless in your 40's' to 'having kids is no longer optional' a la Handmaid's tale? Will arranged marriages, a constant throughout history in nearly every society at some point in its development, return in the modern west? Will governments and social systems eventually believe and restructure policy based on the studies which show female happiness declines in conditions like the modern west? I'm looking for a conversation not an argument, if that is the limit of your capabilities please seek another thread to troll.

Updates

+1 y

I ask this out of worry for my daughters' futures.

[Msputiton]

It ain't that serious.

Most people realize marriage ain't a priority it is just symbolic gesture that changes nothing about a relationship as for kids not everyone wants to over populate or have tons of kids

[Sixgunsound]

Marriage is the basis of every successful civilization, pretty much ever. The paper doesn't matter the committment and stability does. We aren't having an overpopulation issue, we are having an underpopulation issue. The overpopulation myth is just another political lie to coerce people to embrace its agenda. The reason we are looking at so much conflict now is the baby hating policies of the boomers are coming home to roost, and the depopulation bomb is forcing aggressive empires to make war now while they still have the troops to do it, I. e. Russia and China. Governments tend to get violent when they lose tax revenues, and a drop in the number of taxpayers is a sure way to decrease revenues. This is one of the reasons the US government is incentivizing the taxpayers of other countries to move here and pay them instead. The US government burned down a family home, executed the wife, a neighbor and the family dog when the husband refused to pay some tax stamps for firearm parts in the 1990's. Before that, in a much earlier period, the US president personally led the federal army to a town which wasn't paying a whiskey tax and butchered a sizable portion of the male inhabitants as an example of what they would do to anyone else who didn't pay.

[Msputiton]

Marriage is a piece of paper. Nothing else. You know how many people who have lived together happily unmarried. It is a piece of paper. We are not having an underpoplation problem. We just ain't having as many children. We are doing just fine. If we were underpopulated, why are most place overcroweded, and we are extending the amount of housing, so places are running out of places to build.
We have job shortages, not too many jobs, with not enough people to fill them.

[Sixgunsound]

Immigration is an oversimplified answer, but it does play a role. World governments need a tax base, and since we are having less children we need to import other countries populations to make up those tax receipt shortfalls. Government WILL NOT allow itself to shrink voluntarily, so the next best thing is lure people in from overseas. The rugged individualist mindset of the US requires children to leave and establish their own household, unlike most of the rest of the world where multiple generations are *gasp* NOT unjustifiably enriching mega-banks' real estate or mortgage portfolios by living together and saving lots of money and space. But that doesn't increase profits for the connected and politically powerful, so presto change-o the culture was shifted in a way that suddenly requires more taxable land to be entered onto government lists and construction of real property to bind economically productive people to conveniently labeled locations where armed government thugs know where to find and terrorize them if they dont pay what they 'owe' people who did nothing to earn ot but have a monopoly on legalized violence and the prison industrial complex. LA is just a rough land mass to develop overall, for various climate and environmental factors that have nothing to do with politics or talking points. This understandably effects how much housing can be located where, and give the impression of overcrowding/scarcity as more people move into or are sent into the state.

[SaoirseS]

I'd be happy to enter a civil discussion here, but with all the questions you pose in the narrative I don't know what it is you really want to discuss, and I don't know what "feminism" has to do with it.

[Sixgunsound]

Is the premise Handmaids Tale operates on plausible, and has feminism played a role in the declining birth rate to its own detriment.

[Sixgunsound]

Valid as in plausible not as in ideal or favorable.

[SaoirseS]

No to both questions. I think one man on here said it best, Atwood’s dystopian tale is oppression porn primarily aimed at women. It’s far-fetched fiction, although some view it as a cautionary tale based on recent events (that is not my opinion). With the exception of a few spikes during the baby boom years, the birth rate has been subtly declining for decades long before feminism. If feminism has anything to do with it, the influence isn’t significant. A lot more people are living together without marriage, and having large families just isn’t affordable for most people.

[Sixgunsound]

Thank you for answering the question without the online equivalent of screaming. That is also becoming rare.

[OlderAndWiser]

You are asking: Will the hostile bitches of man-hating extreme feminism become extinct by virtue of their inability to lure men into the bed of procreation?

[Sixgunsound]

Not in as many words, I was more looking for a civil dialogue in the hopes of raising awareness and reaching out to people.

[Lliam]

You would have to define feminism. One definition is "women's rights". I have no problem women pursuing whatever paths the choose. It's what men have always done.

If by feminism, you are referring to bitter misandrists, who cares about them? They were a pain in the ass in every generation. It's not like they are having an influence over normal, healthy, heterosexual women.

I don't understand why some men are butt hurt over the fact that women are no longer dependent on men both legally and financially. Women can now choose men who earn their respect and who respect them.

Other factors that are causing drastic drops in population are 1) the LGBTifying or grooming of children from a very young age, and 2) even more drastically, the numbers of miscarriages, still births, toxic breast milk, and sterilization of women over the past two years from the eugenics jab. The newly revealed Pfizer documents reveal that this was one of the main goals. They knew about it in their preliminary tests and the government knew about it in early 2021.

[Sixgunsound]

I define feminism by its products not its protective smokescreen. The killshot mandate is responsible for more death than the 'virus' which you still cannot order control sample cartridges for to conduct lab analysis.

[Berethor]

Feminists choose career over family and go extinct, and they are dragging us all to oblivion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/03/japan-low-births-population-decline-2021/

[TrueConfection]

I don't think arranged marriages will return to the west. There is a war on "The nuclear family" and young people are being taught that "studies" show traditional home life is psychologically harmful for children. If a lack of population becomes a concern, we'll see "lab grown" babies. It's already happening.

[Sixgunsound]

They will just open the floodgates wider and declare we need to become one borderless world government.

[TrueConfection]

I think that happened in 2015/2016.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Everything you mentioned is part of an internet sub culture, it's not present in most of the populace. Finding a woman who doesn't want kids or a housewife or trophy wife life is VERY hard, I've tried... A career oriented woman who wants to stay childless but still marry is rare.

[Anonymous]

I think we women have been lied to when we were told we could have it all.

[bamesjond0069]

True. But it's not something that can go backwards. Women need to learn from the jump the right things. To fail and then learn and try to do it right later does not work. This is because men need extreme incentives to accept a woman who makes lots of bad choices and currently men are actually given incentives to not accept these women at all.

[Sixgunsound]

Women have been lied to in order to weaponize resentment when the lies fail the test of real life. @bamesjond0069 western society currently gives young men no incentive whatsoever to participate in traditional economic, civic, or family life. The powers which have stated their goal is the destruction of the old society with nothing proposed as a substitute are effecting that destruction horrifyingly quickly, and the young men of the era who realized there was nothing in it for them to fight to defend Rome are in a similar situation now with the young men of the modern era who have nothing in it for them to defend the modern west. It didn't go well for the populations Rome used to protect when there was something it for its defenders to do so, for several centuries. Something for modern 'burn it all down but then what' types.

[slatyb]

"In the West?" Do you mean "in developed countries?" Because it is also low in South Korea, Japan, China, southern India.

[Sixgunsound]

The anti-male feminist movement is a lot more powerful in the US and parts of Europe, that is what I was confining my question to. You raise a valid point though.

[slatyb]

It's not "the feminist movement" -- it's the education of girls.

[Sixgunsound]

Aka the feminist movement. Modern western schools are feminist indoctrination camps.

[Oatmeal2]

I don't believe this is happening.