[basetop]

That's the pathetic "liberal" sexist caricature you see on TV and media. And like most caricature in media, it's nonsense.

The problem is that both men and women are deciding to having less kids. And that trend has continued with maternity leave, paternity leave and even paying people to have children.

In poor countries, they have more kids. Is that because of your caricature or lack of it?

Europe has provided great benefits to women and men to have more kids. Birth rates have declined.

https://www.thelocal.it/20180627/italy-declining-birthrate-p...

Governments are even paying women to have kids and that hasn't helped.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when...

The only thing that increases birth rates is an increase of poorer and less educated women. The wealthier and better educated women are, the less children they have. That is the only consistent correlation across ethnicities, cultures, religions, etc. Educate women and reach a certain level of wealth and birth rates drop.

It's true in japan

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/japans-births-and-marriages-...

korea, china to iran and all the way to europe.

If we really wanted to increase birth rates, kicking females out of school and removing any and all benefits would be better than increasing benefits. It's counterintuitive, but it's true. Or maybe we could accept that population decline is going to happen and prepare for that? It's strange how we think we can bribe women to have more children. That's never going to happen, so we should learn to live with our current reality.

[bazooka_penguin]

I think you've walked around the part where traditional cultures actively pushed women to get married and have kids, forced even, through arranged marriages or selling them to basically go live with the man's family. It's not so much as drawing back benefits as it is literally forcing them either through extreme social pressure and isolation or physical force. Anything less has been a slow decline as we slowly drift away from that sort of strict culture

I recall at least a few articles suggesting that among ancient humans far fewer men than women engage in reproduction, suggesting that only a handful of men (proportionally speaking) were selected to breed by a larger population of women. I hate that it sounds like incel speak but we could probably see more babies if we 1) get rid of monogamous culture altogether and 2) limit birth control options. The alternative is to return to a stricter marriage and baby making enforcement culture.

I'm not advocating for anything here to be clear. I just dont think theres a "solution" that lands perfectly where everyone wants it to

[magduf]

Exactly. Birthrates were high in the past largely because women had no power, no choices about their future, and birth control didn't really exist. Their entire value in society was as an incubator and sex toy. Now that's changed, and surprise surprise, they don't want to have a bunch of kids, because kids are a lot of work.

Add into this that families have changed. It used to be that people lived with their extended families, so parents had help raising kids, from the grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc. Now no one lives with their extended families, and have gone to the "nuclear family" model, and raising a bunch of kids with only 2 parents is just too much work, so parents stop at 1 or 2, if they have any at all.

Paying women to have kids isn't going to work unless you're going to pay them enough to hire a full-time nanny.

[thinkingemote]

The article was saying women wanted more kids and men (if they took paternity leave, in Spain) wanted less, it's not nonsense and it's not sexist nor a charicature. it's pretty much (but paraphrased) what the research is about!