Discussion Low Fertility Rate correlates with Low Marriage Rates, More Women in Higher Education & More Women using Contraception / Abortion

[ResidentHell]

Foid rights = Low fertility is COPE

While you retards are busy creating water threads I've got another TRUTHNUKE for you. There is a popular idea here that low fertility comes from giving foids rights, however this has nothing to do with reality. It usually goes like this >G-goys, look, South Korea has the lowest fertility on...

incels.is

OP claims fertility correlates with hypergamy. The lower the fertility, the higher the hypergamy, and vice versa. This is clearly a misinformed take on the low fertility situation in the developed world. There are studies which show the majority of men in history did not reproduce, while the majority of women did (40% of men and 80% of women reproduced)

If you extrapolate this stat, it means one man reproduced for every two women that reproduced, which infers for every two women that became mothers, there was only a single man that became a father. This is quite a clear indicator that hypergamy has occurred in human sexual relations for eons, because it indicates that each father had children by two different women on average

Feminists tend to spew a rhetoric along the lines of “women were oppressed, men oppressed us” But if anything, history indicates that men have faced more oppression than women, as countless men have had to suffer and die as a consequence of serving their kingdom or community, while women remained safe and comfy, far away from the battlefields and other hazardous environments where men were risking their lives to protect women and children. Men are the ones who have historically protected the women, elderly and children whenever the community or nation was in dire straits. Men are the ones who WILL have to protect the women, elderly and children in economically difficult times that might arise in the future

Modern feminists try to cast the illusion that women were oppressed and they try to gaslight others into sharing their fanciful perceptions of the woman’s condition in the history of human civilization. But if you exclude the important men of history (e.g. nobles, monarchs, alpha men, dark triad men, male celebrities), and account for only men who were average or below average in social status, history shows these classes of men were the bigger victims, for two key reasons:

(1) These men had a harder time finding someone of the opposite sex who was willing to reproduce with them. Historically women were twice as likely to reproduce as men. Most women became mothers, but the majority of men never became fathers (80% women vs 40% men). This is also evidence that polygamy / hypergamy is not a new phenomenon - It has in fact been happening for eons, except it might have been less noticeable in previous eras (due to lack of available statistical data to validate it)

Of all humans ever born, did most men not become fathers?

I quote in full a passage from the book Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men by Roy Baumeister, pages 63 – 64: Counting Ancestors Let’s return now to the qu...

skeptics.stackexchange.com

(2) Men are the ones who were more often sent to perform hazardous tasks and self-sacrificed in order to protect the nation or community. In wartime conditions, it is mostly men are sent to battle, while children and mostly women are kept safe, far away from the battlefield. Historically most casualties of war were men; this included civilians and citizens of non-hostile countries

Do not be like bluepillers; think carefully about the fertility situation. If you look at available statistics, you should notice there is a direct correlation between a few things that have to do with women and the decline of fertility rates in developed countries:

(1) The increase in the percentage of women with a college degree / college education​

(2) The introduction of safe and effective contraception / increase in rates of clinical abortion clients​

​

(3) The decline in marriage rates / increase in divorce rates​

At least until the 1950’s, the fertility rate of most or all countries in Europe, America and East Asia was above replacement level

The simple explanation for the drop in fertility rate, is that giving women rights created an incentive for women to become less committed to maternal roles, and instead live like “independent bosses”. But if you were to be more precise -- The declining rates of fertility in developed world, are directly attributable to women being allowed into higher education, women being allowed to have access to medical contraception / clinical abortion service, and women being allowed to survive without a male cohort (via the collectivized funding of men who pay taxes to maintain the welfare system)

This is not the fault of the average man; it is the consequence of two things: (1) scientific advancement in sexual contraception and abortion methods, and (2) the actions of the people in power who allowed women to enter higher education and receive social welfare via taxpayer funding (the vast majority of it is contributed to by men in employment)

The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You

by Austin RuseThe claim that the world will become dangerously overpopulated has never been true. It was false when first postulated in the 19th century. It ...

www.usccb.org

The fact is that the much feared fertility rate began declining in the West more than 150 years ago, long before the advent of UN-style family planning and population control. In fact, France reached what is called the demographic transition in the 19th century. The fact of nature is that fertility rates decline naturally when populations move from the farm to the city and from agricultural subsistence to the industrial age. They decline also as women move toward education and postpone marriage, also aspects of modernization.

It turns out the war on fertility was not necessary and what we have achieved in artificially lowering it is a problem the world has never seen. At this point more than 80 countries have achieved what is known as below replacement fertility, the point at which women are having so few children, generally thought to be below 2.1 children per woman, that countries are no longer replacing themselves. The UN predicts that every nation on earth, with the exception of a few African nations, will reach below replacement fertility within the next twenty years. And this is a very serious problem. What this means is a rapidly aging population that turns the demographic pyramid on its head. Societies are meant to have lots of young people supporting an ever-shrinking number of old people. Below replacement fertility has meant in many countries there are more old people than young people. Fifteen years ago Japan reached a global first; it reached the point where it had more people over 65 than under 15. This is a recipe for economic disaster and intergenerational warfare over levels of government taxation and spending for social services for the elderly. The UN now acknowledges this.

According to the United States Conference of Christcucks (USCCB), there are three key factors that lead to women reproducing less: (1) allowing women to pursue education, (2) women moving from rural areas into the city, and (3) declining marriage rates. In this thread, I’ve covered the three key factors in more detail:


Key Factor 1 of Low Fertility Rate: Women in Higher Education

Historically, only men received higher education; it was extremely rare for women to receive college education. Up until the 1950’s, less than a quarter of women in the United States (23%) had a college degree. Fast forward to modern times, almost 60% of US women have a college degree.

Women's education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Look at this. From 1960 to 2011, the share of mothers with infants by educational attainment changed from 82% “high school diploma or less” + 18% “college educated or higher”, to 34% “high school diploma or less” + 66% “college educated or higher”. Within that same period, the fertility rate in the US dropped from 3.44 to 1.95 – That is a 43% decline in fertility rates within 50 years.

Record Share of New Mothers are College Educated

Overview Mothers with infant children in the U.S. today are more educated than they ever have been. In 2011, more than six-in-ten (66%) had at least some

www.pewresearch.org

Maybe you could say correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I think there’s a reason why women that obtained a college degree or higher in modern times, ultimately reproduce less than women in previous eras who had a high school diploma at most. I have a theory on why higher educated women in modern times seem to breed at a much lower rate, but I haven’t rationalized it with statistical data. According to sources, there seemed to be more women in employment during the early 19th century. Yet this was an era where I'm pretty sure the fertility rates across Europe and North America were much higher than they are in modern times. The following source was found in one thread by @GeckoBus, but I forget which thread

Marriage as economic slavery – GreenPill.net

greenpill.net

From the 13th to the 17th Century most brewers [in England] were women, a survey in 1228 found 80% of brewers in towns were female

Between 1787 to 1815 in families with unemployed children (!) wives earned 41 percent of household income.

In 1833 Britain, women made up 57% – the majority – of factory workers

Even in labour intensive agricultural work, significant numbers of women worked [the share of female workers was ranged between 6% and 42%]

In this same period 66% of married women had a recorded occupation.

However, by 1851 the proportion of married women who worked had dropped to 30%

The share of household income generated by women started to decline rapidly from around 1830 onwards. Notably this involved “increased leisure for women and children” with the percent of income generated by men increasing from 55% in 1831-1855 up to 81% in 1860-1865.

By 1890, women’s work in Europe and the United States contributed just 1.9 percent to 3 percent of household income.

This was entirely because of married women being supported by their husbands. By 1887, 3/4 of female workers in American cities were under 25 years old. 96% of them were single.

By 1911 only 25% of British women worked. In 1920 in the US, women were only 21% of employed adults. We can speculate this was because the extra wealth from industrialization meant it became possible for some people to not work outside the home, and women got this benefit. This is supported by the fact that the total working hours have dropped by almost half since 1870.

During WWII, when many women had to do war work in factories, it was found that women had been “made miserable by the [war work]” and “fervently wished themselves back into their prewar home routine.” During WWII the British and US governments spent a fortune on propaganda encouraging women to work, but less than 40% of women of working age in both countries took it up.

So wives didn't work in the 'good old days'? Wrong | Amanda Wilkinson

Amanda Wilkinson: The idea of the 'angel in the home' is an illusion. The Victorian working class counted on having two wages

www.theguardian.com

During the course of my research into Victorian families I have been told again and again that it was rather strange to be researching married women's work, as married women didn't work. It was interesting to move beyond the academic and the general, and to find my own great-grandmother, a formidable woman who was firmly of the opinion in later life that a woman's place was at home, being recorded in the census as a juvenile suit-maker and her mother also working, as an umbrella-maker.

This research has ramifications beyond the historical and academic and has implications for policymaking. It can be suggested that what we "know" to have been the family norm for centuries is little more than an aberration from the norm that has lasted less two generations.

The image of the "angel of the house" was very much a middle-class ideal and not a working-class reality. For most women, the luxury of being a housewife, simply caring for children, cooking and cleaning and creating a peaceful haven for the hard-worked husband who brought home the bread at the end of the day, was only ever an illusion created by the middle classes. Economics dictated that not only both parents but in most cases the children as well needed to work. Indeed, even our belief that the decline of the "job for life" is a modern issue couldn't be further from the truth. For vast numbers of working-class men a job was something that you did while it was available, and your wages were not in any way reliable.

The reality for many working-class families of the 19th century was that it was absolutely essential for the wife to work, and to work hard. The days of the 9-5 were decades away; instead many worked on average 12-15 hours a day, every day, and not just in what we might consider "normal" women's jobs such as domestic service, charwoman, laundress or shirt-maker. The census shows hundreds of different occupational titles for women, including married women working in agriculture, artificial flower-making, chemical working, cigar-making, warehouse supervising, the lithograph trade, meat preserving, straw plaiting, manufacturing of food and drink, printing, rabbit fur pulling and even medical galvanising.

Even more convincing was the argument that husbands might have been ashamed to admit that their wives had to work, and that their labour wasn't enough to support their family, and so they left their wife's job off the census.

My analysis of more than 23,000 women to date has shown that this was not the case. There is nothing to suggest that either the enumerators or husbands omitted to mention the women's work. On the contrary, in districts of Norwich, for example, more than 50% of women who are recorded as having a job are married. In towns in East Anglia and in London on average more than 30% of married women are recorded as working, and this matches with what other historical records can show us.

Women had to work or their families would starve. The situation we find ourselves in today where a significant percentage of mothers are working – many actively wanting to work, but for others their employment being a necessity to pay the mortgage and feed the family – is nothing new. The halcyon days of the mid 20th century, where more mothers did stay at home and the father could be a breadwinner, was not the norm for more than a handful of decades. Even as late as 1915 Clementina Black was bemoaning the fact that so many women had to work to keep a roof over their heads, supporting their husbands in bringing home the bacon.

Key Factor 2 of Low Fertility Rate: Accessibility of Abortion & Contraception

According to CDC and Guttmacher Institute, in the US, abortion rates increased throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. The annual number of medical abortions in the United States increased after Roe v. Wade court case led to the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973. Abortion rates peaked at 1990 (1.6 million abortions in that year), then abortion rates declined from 1990 to 2016. But the abortion rates from 2016 to present are increasing again, indicating a possible future resurgence of abortion rates similar to the 1980’s

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

www.pewresearch.org

According to the CDC, practically all females aged 15 to 49 who have had sex, have used contraception at some point in their life (99.2%). The most common methods of contraception that were used by women aged 15 to 49 during sexual intercourse with a male, were condoms (94.5%), “the pill” (79.8%) and “withdrawal” (aka pulling out) (65.7%). In other words, practically all non-virgin females have used contraception at some point in their life, and the most likely contraception they used was a condom, the pill or/and “pulling out”

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr195.pdf

If you extrapolate the stats, you can look at it like this:

There were approx. 1 million abortions a year from 1973 – 1979 and 1994 to present, and approx. 2 million abortions a year from 1980 to 1994. If you add it together, it means there was approx. 64 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade - That’s 64 million less potential humans that were neutralized before they could have been born (due to abortion)

Practically all non-virgin women in the US have used contraception at some point in their life. There are about 70 million women aged between 15 – 49 in the US. If you’re going to be very kind and assume all non-virgin women have had sex at least once - That’s at least 70 million occasions where conception could have occurred, but was prevented due to contraception

Combine the 64 million abortions since Roe v. Wade with the minimum 70 million prevented pregnancies due to use of contraception - You have at least 134 million prevented births / prevented pregnancies in the United States within the past 50 years. I'm pretty sure this is the highest recorded number of prevented births / pregnancies across a 50-year period in human history (which of course was after the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade)


Key Factor 3 of Low Fertility Rate: Low Marriage Rates; High Divorce Rates

I’ve covered marriage and divorce in another thread before. It would actually be cheaper for the average male to be a bachelor and escortbux every week for the rest of his working adult life. For the average male in western society, if his primary concern is saving money or spending less money, it’s easily the better option for him to escortbux for life instead of becoming married

Why Escortmaxxing is the Better Alternative to Marriage in Modern Society

A Summary of Divorce Statistics If your future plan is to marry a woman, unless you want to have children, you might as well become an escortmaxxer instead. Marriage is for the most part unrecommendable to zoomer & millenial men in the current state of western society. You have more to lose...

incels.is

It’s obvious that decline in marriage rate correlates with decline in fertility rates. Women had more children when marriage rates were higher and divorce was less common. I’m not sure if marriage conditions in human civilization have always favored women over men. At this point, I can’t say I know exactly why marriage rates have declined, but it appears to me that the more liberal / feminist that women become, the less likely they are to pursue a marriage with male cohort

If I had to speculate, I wouls say that allowing women to exercise a liberal feminist mindset will lead her to be discouraged from seeking a heterosexual marriage, and in effect she would be compelled to not have as many children as she would’ve had, if she instead got married and tried to be more like a conservative tradwife rather than a woke “self-empowered”, "independent", liberal woman


TLDR. No, hypergamy doesn’t cause low fertility. It’s caused by allowing women to have certain privileges, like access to higher education, access to medical contraception / clinical abortion, and the freedom to live comfortably as a bachelor / divorcee via social welfare support (collectively funded by taxpayers who are mostly men) even if she has custody of dependant children. Developed countries in places like North America, Europe and East Asia have cucked themselves by allowing women to have these privileges, but ultimately it is not the fault of the common man. It is because of scientists who created the devices that enabled women to have more control over their fertility cycle, and because of politicians who pushed out propaganda to encourage more women to seek employment in 20th century during and after WW2

 

[AsiaCel]

High effort. That can be summoned up that feminism lowers birth rate

 

[trksm]

High iq, brocell.

 

[Freixel]

They are chained effects

"Liberating" women so that they can get more jobs and access to higher education makes them more selective when deciding with whom to reproduce, that is, it increases their hypergamy.

The more access women have to higher education, the more access to better-paying jobs they will have, so they will become more hypergamous when it comes to judging men according to their socioeconomic status, which will lead them to reproduce less since there is less of men who can pass the filter of their increasingly higher standards

It's just going around in circles man.

The final consequence is what it is: fewer children per head

 

[GeckoBus]

Foid rights = Low fertility is COPE

While you retards are busy creating water threads I've got another TRUTHNUKE for you. There is a popular idea here that low fertility comes from giving foids rights, however this has nothing to do with reality. It usually goes like this >G-goys, look, South Korea has the lowest fertility on...

incels.is

OP claims fertility correlates with hypergamy. The lower the fertility, the higher the hypergamy, and vice versa. This is clearly a misinformed take on the low fertility situation in the developed world. There are studies which show the majority of men in history did not reproduce, while the majority of women did (40% of men and 80% of women reproduced)

If you extrapolate this stat, it means one man reproduced for every two women that reproduced, which infers for every two women that became mothers, there was only a single man that became a father. This is quite a clear indicator that hypergamy has occurred in human sexual relations for eons, because it indicates that each father had children by two different women on average



Do not be like bluepillers; think carefully about the fertility situation. If you look at available statistics, you should notice there is a direct correlation between a few things that have to do with women and the decline of fertility rates in developed countries:

(1) The increase in the percentage of women with a college degree / college education​

(2) The introduction of safe and effective contraception / increase in rates of clinical abortion clients​

​

(3) The decline in marriage rates / increase in divorce rates​

At least until the 1950’s, the fertility rate of most or all countries in Europe, America and East Asia was above replacement level

The simple explanation for the drop in fertility rate, is that giving women rights created an incentive for women to become less committed to maternal roles, and instead live like “independent bosses”. But if you were to be more precise -- The declining rates of fertility in developed world, are directly attributable to women being allowed into higher education, women being allowed to have access to medical contraception / clinical abortion service, and women being allowed to survive without a male cohort (via the collectivized funding of men who pay taxes to maintain the welfare system)

This is not the fault of the average man; it is the consequence of two things: (1) scientific advancement in sexual contraception and abortion methods, and (2) the actions of the people in power who allowed women to enter higher education and receive social welfare via taxpayer funding (the vast majority of it is contributed to by men in employment)

The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You

by Austin RuseThe claim that the world will become dangerously overpopulated has never been true. It was false when first postulated in the 19th century. It ...

www.usccb.org

According to the United States Conference of Christcucks (USCCB), there are three key factors that lead to women reproducing less: (1) allowing women to pursue education, (2) women moving from rural areas into the city, and (3) declining marriage rates. In this thread, I’ve covered the three key factors in more detail:


Key Factor 1 of Low Fertility Rate: Women in Higher Education

Historically, only men received higher education; it was extremely rare for women to receive college education. Up until the 1950’s, less than a quarter of women in the United States (23%) had a college degree. Fast forward to modern times, almost 60% of US women have a college degree.

Women's education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Look at this. From 1960 to 2011, the share of mothers with infants by educational attainment changed from 82% “high school diploma or less” + 18% “college educated or higher”, to 34% “high school diploma or less” + 66% “college educated or higher”. Within that same period, the fertility rate in the US dropped from 3.44 to 1.95 – That is a 43% decline in fertility rates within 50 years.

Record Share of New Mothers are College Educated

Overview Mothers with infant children in the U.S. today are more educated than they ever have been. In 2011, more than six-in-ten (66%) had at least some

www.pewresearch.org

Maybe you could say correlation doesn’t equal causation, but I think there’s a reason why women that obtained a college degree or higher in modern times, ultimately reproduce less than women in previous eras who had a high school diploma at most. I have a theory on why higher educated women in modern times seem to breed at a much lower rate, but I haven’t rationalized it with statistical data. According to sources, there seemed to be more women in employment during the early 19th century. Yet this was an era where I'm pretty sure the fertility rates across Europe and North America were much higher than they are in modern times. The following source was found in one thread by @GeckoBus, but I forget which thread

Marriage as economic slavery – GreenPill.net

greenpill.net

So wives didn't work in the 'good old days'? Wrong | Amanda Wilkinson

Amanda Wilkinson: The idea of the 'angel in the home' is an illusion. The Victorian working class counted on having two wages

www.theguardian.com

Key Factor 2 of Low Fertility Rate: Accessibility of Abortion & Contraception

According to CDC and Guttmacher Institute, in the US, abortion rates increased throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. The annual number of medical abortions in the United States increased after Roe v. Wade court case led to the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973. Abortion rates peaked at 1990 (1.6 million abortions in that year), then abortion rates declined from 1990 to 2016. But the abortion rates from 2016 to present are increasing again, indicating a possible future resurgence of abortion rates similar to the 1980’s

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

www.pewresearch.org

According to the CDC, practically all females aged 15 to 49 who have had sex, have used contraception at some point in their life (99.2%). The most common methods of contraception that were used by women aged 15 to 49 during sexual intercourse with a male, were condoms (94.5%), “the pill” (79.8%) and “withdrawal” (aka pulling out) (65.7%). In other words, practically all non-virgin females have used contraception at some point in their life, and the most likely contraception they used was a condom, the pill or/and “pulling out”

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr195.pdf

If you extrapolate the stats, you can look at it like this:

There were approx. 1 million abortions a year from 1973 – 1979 and 1994 to present, and approx. 2 million abortions a year from 1980 to 1994. If you add it together, it means there was approx. 64 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade - That’s 64 million less potential humans that were neutralized before they could have been born (due to abortion)

Practically all non-virgin women in the US have used contraception at some point in their life. There are about 70 million women aged between 15 – 49 in the US. If you’re going to be very kind and assume all non-virgin women have had sex at least once - That’s at least 70 million occasions where conception could have occurred, but was prevented due to contraception

Combine the 64 million abortions since Roe v. Wade with the minimum 70 million prevented pregnancies due to use of contraception - You have at least 134 million prevented births / prevented pregnancies in the United States within the past 50 years. I'm pretty sure this is the highest recorded number of prevented births / pregnancies across a 50-year period in human history (which of course was after the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade)


Key Factor 3 of Low Fertility Rate: Low Marriage Rates; High Divorce Rates

I’ve covered marriage and divorce in another thread before. It would actually be cheaper for the average male to be a bachelor and escortbux every week for the rest of his working adult life. For the average male in western society, if his primary concern is saving money or spending less money, it’s easily the better option for him to escortbux for life instead of becoming married

Why Escortmaxxing is the Better Alternative to Marriage in Modern Society

A Summary of Divorce Statistics If your future plan is to marry a woman, unless you want to have children, you might as well become an escortmaxxer instead. Marriage is for the most part unrecommendable to zoomer & millenial men in the current state of western society. You have more to lose...

incels.is

It’s obvious that decline in marriage rate correlates with decline in fertility rates. Women had more children when marriage rates were higher and divorce was less common. I’m not sure if marriage conditions in human civilization have always favored women over men. At this point, I can’t say I know exactly why marriage rates have declined, but it appears to me that the more liberal / feminist that women become, the less likely they are to pursue a marriage with male cohort

If I had to speculate, I wouls say that allowing women to exercise a liberal feminist mindset will lead her to be discouraged from seeking a heterosexual marriage, and in effect she would be compelled to not have as many children as she would’ve had, if she instead got married and tried to be more like a conservative tradwife rather than a woke “self-empowered”, "independent", liberal woman


TLDR. No, hypergamy doesn’t cause low fertility. It’s caused by allowing women to have certain privileges, like access to higher education, access to medical contraception / clinical abortion, and the freedom to live comfortably as a bachelor / divorcee via social welfare support (collectively funded by taxpayers who are mostly men) even if she has custody of dependant children. Developed countries in places like North America, Europe and East Asia have cucked themselves by allowing women to have these privileges, but ultimately it is not the fault of the common man. It is because of scientists who created the devices that enabled women to have more control over their fertility cycle, and because of politicians who pushed out propaganda to encourage more women to seek employment in 20th century during and after WW2

Very interesting thread actually. I like your approach, well written, and I can see you use basic logic and weigh the options of what could be behind the decline in birthrates. Rare for people to do this tbh. Usually people develop a paradigm and then just block anything that contradicts their few core hypothesis or re-interpret everything that seems like counter-evidence, so it actually seems to support their paradigm. Good job on not falling for this common trap.

Btw, I also don't know why foids don't have kids anymore honestly. As you pointed out with the greenpill article, women had tons of kids despite being employed in physical jobs for millennia. Is it education? Maybe foids used to see kids as a status symbol = more kids, more status?
Even in our time, women often have kids to keep up with other women, it is a milestone for them. Marriage, buy house, have kids, divorce - women really live life like they are playing the fucking sims, huh?

Women literally fought tooth and nail to get out of the workforce, contrary to what feminists want you to believe. The constitution of ireland from the 40s states that mothers should not work - they literally managed to put it into law.

This clause, which dates from 1937, specifies that: “The State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.” It goes on to say that: “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

According to Ireland’s constitution, a woman’s duties are in the home – but a referendum could be about to change its sexist wording

A vote on International Women’s Day should make the constitution more gender-neutral – but there is still a catch.

theconversation.com

However, even in our earliest known lawcodes we have clauses such as this:

The Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) declares that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children so that she can raise them:

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.[3]

Alimony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are also books from the 1940s, lamenting how "motherhood" had become a cult-like phenomenon in society. See the social critique piece, "generation of vipers" as an example:

Where the book struck home to individuals, they often wrote to say as much. I have on file, for instance, the confessions of numbers of “moms” who learned here how they had perverted motherhood to selfish ends and who pledged reform.

Mom is an American creation. Her elaboration was necessary because she was launched as Cinderella. Past generations of men have accorded to their mothers, as a rule, only such honors as they earned by meritorious action in their individual daily lives. Filial duty was recognized by many sorts of civilizations and loyalty to it has been highly regarded among most peoples. But I cannot think, offhand, of any civilization except ours in which an entire division of living men has been used, during wartime, or at any time, to spell out the word “mom” on a drill field, or to perform any equivalent act.

The adoration of motherhood has even been made the basis of a religious cult, but the mother so worshiped achieved maternity without change in her virgin status—a distinction worthy of contemplation in itself—and she thus in no way resembled mom.

338.1 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

So it seems that in their 19th and early 20th century, women used motherhood and children as a tool to virtue signal and achieve their desired goal - to leave the the workforce and leech of men.

This does not explain why they had children in earlier times though, when they worked side by side with men and still had plenty of kids.
However, it may explain in part why they are having no children now. I can kind of see a trajectory here from women not wanting to work anymore in the 1800s and realizing you could use children as a meal-ticket, to women in our time realizing you can just use skip the childrens part and use OnlyFans to leech of men.

Another hypothesis is that children were the equivalent of social security back in the day, they were a defacto replacement for the modern welfare state. You already tackled this. Women are usually described as risk averse, which I don't like (why do they seek out violent men for example? Or travel to 3rd shitholes and get killed?). I think peoples worldview makes them interpret female avoidance of harm as "risk averse" when it is really just the behavior of someone who, you know, is raised to actually value their fucking life, unlike men.

My point is, I could imagine that women had children back in the day simply as a form of social security. We still see this today in some cultures, especially asia, where the "tigermom" phenomenon is still strong. Most of asia was dirt poor just a few decades ago, so maybe children are viewed as a resource there moreso than in the west Mothers in the past could just have hads kids to be comfortable later in life. Your husband dying was not uncommon, men die more often than women. History is full of widows. With tons of adult children around, this would not be a problem though.

Another hypothesis I could imagine is division of labor in general - contrary to popular belief, having more children is actually less work in the long run than more. Within 5-6 years, children will start taking care of their siblings. Thats why we give little girls baby dolls - they actually automatically would do that with real babies if there were any around:


View: https://youtu.be/8FFQKu3jD5k?t=62


I once read a blogpost by a christian woman with ten kids - she said once the first children reach the age of 5-6, it becomes much easier as they start supporting the household. I could imagine that having tons of kids was simply a way to reduce the stress of physical labor.

This also overlaps with another myth about the past. Yes, much was harder back then, however, according to basic market logic, if something is harder and requires more energy, it's value will increase and thus new jobs will be created. If field work is hard, then being a professional field worker becomes a thing - or you simply have 20 kids to help you. That was the case until the mid 1950s, even here in germany. Many people were seasonal field workers.

Even today, this is still the case. In bavaria, every year farmers bring in busses full of eastern europeans to help with the asparagus and hop harvest.

So, contrary to what people believe, pre-industrial people did not work 16h a day all year round. They split the labor up between a huge amount of people. This slowed the pace of work down massively + they had tons of church holidays. Every sunday was off for one - thats 52 days a year, over a month of free time + additional hollidays. Work also was not quantifable, meaning, there were spurts of high intensity like during the summer harvest, and times of low intensity, like during winter, where you would just rot and do basic shit, like make clothes or something.

Btw That's why you have summer break in school kids - they needed all hands on deck for the harvest, but only for a few weeks in summer. Kids could not go to school in that period, there was too much work to be done.

Every farmer back then had multiple skillsets because there was just so much time around. They all could do basic carpentry, painting shit, fabric repair etc. Farmers art and furniture is a real thing.

These images are backward projections of modern work patterns. And they are false. Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind.

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

As I am proof reading my reply, this occured to me - maybe women were desperate to leave the workforce in the 1800s because of the industrial revolution but not before? If labor became that much worse in the industrial age, then it is unsurprising the desire to free yourself from labor would emerge. Whereas prior, it wasn't that much of a big deal. If you think about it, we can almost imagine it like this bell-shaped development.

In the 1700s, peoples desire to leave the workforce was still low. With the rise of industralism and labor becoming more and more stressful, the desire to free yourself from work gradually increases more and more. After the industrial revolution is over and labor becomes easier again in the mid 1900s, women gradually ask to be able to return to the workforce. But this time, children are not necessary for labor and social welfare anymore (in the west only though).

Phew, quite the detour we wen't on there. My basic point was this - having childen was simply a way of maintaining ease of life life back then. It meant you didn't have to hire maids and farmhands to help you with labor, which meant more resources for the family. The more children you had, the wealthier you became in effect. I see this as a viable hypothesis for why women had more children back then, despite being forced to labor physically alongside men.

Anyway, I really liked your thread. I will dump some of my resources for historical stuff here, it is a ton of shit, so please be patient if you really want to go through this. I will just link my replies with resources.

Here is a bunch of links to anti-trad shit. The entire "trad" thing is literally just what women invented to get out of the workforce back in the day. Trad-copers have no idea how people in the past actually lived (this includes the greenpill site you mentioned and other sites):

Even Historically Western Women were not Oppressed if you compare their lives to the Average Man

All western women today believe that women were oppressed by men historically and beyond that they believe that this oppression was just done due to men's selfishness rather than for some kind of practical reason. Most of them are convinced that they are still oppressed by men today. None of...

incels.is

Also worth nothing is this information on female spending power + in-group preference, going back to the 1930s even, where women controlled 70% of the spending just like now:

Women Opposed Female Rights, Not Men [Study]

video View: https://youtu.be/WQpC_5Ha7Ng PDF from video is attached here: https://mega.nz/file/8vdG0JqK#0_5wwaI_fB_wgON5h3wwM8utFrk-YwENUoWs7YtlJA4 TLDR - women know their privileges and power. Voting rights for women seemed to take that power from them, and make them equal to men...

incels.is

Than you for the amazing thread on this interesting topic, I really apprecaite it

 

[Gott _mit _uns94]

Water is wet (UN) already noted that feminism and sexual liberty collapse birthrates, ((they ))already implementing this in africa and arab countries, and it is effective.

 

[underballer]

Population is going to plummet