Feminism And Falling Birth Rates

In one of my recent pieces - Say Goodbye To Your Country - I stated that feminism was responsible for the catastrophically low birth rates in the indigenous populations of western countries - particularly those in Europe.

And I received a few emails suggesting that the low birth rates were mostly due to other factors rather than feminism - most notably stemming from the notion that the richer do people become, the less do they desire to have children.

However, I was, in fact, well aware when I wrote the piece that I was probably over-egging the case and that I would probably have to re-write parts of it upon further reflection.

And yet I find it almost impossible to believe that feminism has not caused a significant downturn on our birth rates.

After all, feminism has surely been one of the most influential ideologies on the western mind over the past three or four decades.

Furthermore, it is mostly concerned with inter-gender relationships, marriage, families, children and women in the workplace.

So how could it not have had a major influence on the declining birth rates?

Has it had no effect on them?

Well, the first thing that I would ask you all to do is to treat with huge scepticism anything that any lofty academic might say about anything these days.

Academics, nowadays, are mostly politically-corrected, communist-oriented, feminist-fearing drones

Academics, nowadays, are mostly politically-corrected, communist-oriented, feminist-fearing drones who would not dare to implicate feminism as a cause of anything that might appear to be deleterious to the well-being of people.

Over and over again, we see them studiously refusing to make any connection between feminism and some very serious ills.

For example, as mentioned in my pieces entitled Feminism causes traffic congestion and global warming and Feminists Destroy the Planet, neither academics nor politicians will point out the undeniable links between the increasing tendency of people to live alone - and the increasing numbers of women going out to work - and the increases in traffic congestion, pollution, energy consumption etc etc.

These connections are blindingly obvious.

But they won't even mention them.

The persistently severe problems being caused in the UK's National Health Service because some 50% of women doctors abandon the profession within about 10 years is, occasionally, mentioned in the press, but feminism is never openly connected with this issue (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

Even the NSPCC - a large children's charity in the UK - is now - in order to comply with feminist doctrine and feminist dishonesty - burying the data that show that children are better off if they live with their own biological parents (e.g. see Does The NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped?)

On and on it goes.

Goodness me. Even biologists and neuroscientists are nowadays forever talking drivel in order to appease their feminist overseers; e.g. see  Dr Lewis Wolpert: The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women

And throughout this entire website we see academics lying through their teeth about domestic violence, sex-assault, rape etc etc (e.g. see How Rape Statistics are Distorted and Inflated).

So what makes anyone think that when our economists and demographers suggest, for example, that increasing wealth is the primary cause of the drop in our birth rates that they are not simply fabricating a plausible explanation that does not involve implicating feminism as a major factor?

Come on. Wake up. Think about it.

Why should we trust the academics on this issue

Why should we trust the academics on this issue when, quite clearly, we cannot trust them on anything else where we know, for sure, that feminism is implicated?

And we also do know, without a shadow of a doubt, that feminists and their various allies in the abuse industry are forever doing the best that they can to mess up the close relationships that men, women and children might have with each other.

And we also know that the feminist-dominated media - which, by and large, determine how people think - is bound to have an effect on the way in which people view the prospect of having children.

So how can feminism not be implicated in our falling birth rates?

Surely, it is just not possible to accept such a view unless one is completely blind to any sense of logic or to the nature of what constitutes valid evidence.

Indeed, here in the UK - a fairly small country - we actually abort some 4,000 children every week!

This is 2 million children over the past 10 years.

Has this also got nothing to do with feminism?

half a million children aged ten and under are now missing from the indigenous population

Yes, of course, some of these aborted children will eventually be replaced, and some abortions are performed on non-indigenous women, but we can surely guess that at least half a million children aged ten and under are now missing from the indigenous population - which rises to one million if we consider those who would have been aged 20 and under.

So, all in all, how can it be that feminism has not impacted significantly on our birth rates?

Furthermore, if I understand the graphs correctly, the median inflation-adjusted income for households has barely changed over the past 35 years. Yes, it appears to have gone up by an utterly pathetic 10%-15% over this long period, but this is without taking into account the various extra costs that forever increasing local tax rates, regulations and red tape have incurred.

In other words - and speaking loosely - when it comes to families, two people now need to go out to work in order to earn the same amount of disposable income as one person used to do some 35 years ago.

And how can this be so?

Well, our fingers must point at Government.

It is government that, through one way or another, has purloined the extra money

It is government that, through one way or another, has purloined the extra money - e.g. through the various extra costs mentioned above and, just as importantly, if not more so, by diverting our energies away from producing products with which to earn our living - as a country - and putting them into areas that do very little at all to increase our wealth.

Examples of the latter would include the huge amount of wasted effort within government itself, and the enormous amount of energy that is now expended on dealing with legal and bureaucratic matters.

For example, the divorce industry is now worth billions of dollars. And the burden of dealing with the permanent deluge of government regulations (e.g. to do with 'equality', welfare, children, relationships, education, taxation, employment etc) requires a vast army of lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats.

There are also now huge resources being wasted on having to pick up the pieces that arise from family breakdown, fatherlessness, etc etc etc.

Such things do not increase the wealth of our people.

They do the opposite.

And we all know that feminism is heavily implicated in many of these areas.

And so my point is that feminism is also partially responsible for the fact that household median incomes have barely changed over the past 35 years.

And when it comes to having babies, responsible couples need money.

In the old days, the men went out to work and the women stayed at home.

Now they both need to go out to work in order to make the same money that is required to raise a family in decent circumstances.

But if the women are out at work, then it is not very easy for the couples to bear and raise children.

The result is that they do not have has many children as they used to do.

there are definitely connections between feminism and low household disposable incomes

In other words, there are definitely connections between feminism and low household disposable incomes, and there are definitely connections between low household disposable incomes and the willingness to have babies.

As such, feminism has impacted on our birth rates through its negative effects on household disposable incomes.

So, once again, on and on it goes.

And as I sit here at my computer there are many other connections between feminism and a falling birth rate that are springing into my mind - but I shall spare both you and me from the agony of wading through them.

And so, in conclusion, whenever you see something unhappy arising that is to do with marriage, families, men, women, children and/or relationships - e.g. falling birth rates - you can safely bet your last piece of gold on the notion that feminism has got something to do with it.

Let me put it this way.

Nature designed women to reproduce.

That is the purpose of them.

Their brains were genetically configured by Nature to love their babies and to want to have them.

But something has changed their minds.

Who or what did this?

Feminists.

And how did they do it?

Through many avenues; e.g. through the law, the media, the tax system, academia, government, education, activism and propaganda.

Now, it is clearly true that there are some countries that have low birth rates even though feminism does not appear to exert a huge influence on their peoples; perhaps Japan is an example.

But such counter-examples might simply have cultures and circumstances that are producing low birth rates for other reasons.

I don't know.

But we do all know that feminism has generated huge forces that operate through many avenues in western countries, and we do all know that it has shoved its nose very deeply into all sorts of areas to do with relationships, marriage, children etc etc.

people are unwilling to blame feminism for anything

We also know that people are unwilling to blame feminism for anything, and that they are forever hiding any data that might lead us to point our fingers at it.

And so when politically-corrected, feminist-promoting academics tell us (by omission) that feminism has very little to do with our falling birth rates, my advice is that you stop paying too much heed to them and start thinking for yourself.

And so while it is undoubtedly true that feminism is not the only cause of our falling birth rates - a possibility that I ignored in my earlier piece - the idea that it is not a significant cause of them is completely and utterly untenable, in my view.

Indeed, it was in about the year 2000 when I first realised that feminists had no real concern for women. I stumbled upon an article by two American gynaecologists who were complaining about the fact that no editor in a mainstream women's media publication would publish well-established findings that showed that many tens of of thousands of women every year were destroying their chances of ever reproducing because they were delaying too long to have babies.

Their claim was that in order to encourage as many women as possible to embark upon careers, feminists did not want women to know that they stood a good chance of missing their reproductive opportunities if they did this.

 they didn't want their women readers to have children.

In other words, they didn't want their women readers to have children.

And they had a huge influence on these women.

And, overall, they have helped to bias the psychology of women in favour of having fewer children.

We know that they did this.

Ask the gynaecologists!

Finally, of course, it might well be the case that feminism has encouraged some women to have more children (e.g. by the handing out of welfare cheques) while discouraging others.

And it might then be claimed that the overall effect of feminism on our birth rates has been zero - or something else.

The subject is very complicated.

But to remove feminism from the equation at the outset - which is what the academics do - is utterly ridiculous given that it is an ideology that invades nearly all aspects of our lives, and which exerts heavy influences in all those areas to do with families, children, work and relationships.

As such, those who promote feminism are probably promoting the actual extinction of their very own peoples and cultures.