Progressivism and Population Decline

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (71 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image84
    Ken Burgessposted 14 months ago

    With the hope of gathering opinions and ideas for an article on this issue, I begin with the following observations:

    What I want to consider, is the progressive ideas of Western Civilization vs the general depopulation found in advancing nations like China and India.

    Does the decrease in childbirth come more from the advancement of technology and women in the workplace or is it more of a social construct created by the divisiveness created between sexes in a progressive Western culture?

    Women's empowerment in the form of feminism and egalitarianism pushes women into corporate work and into a social environment where youth (prime reproductive years for women) is spent seeking pleasure and/or corporate success, with the effect of delaying motherhood (or eliminating it outright).

    When women follow the same social and corporate pathway that men do, many find themselves in their 30s and 40s unable to produce children, whether they want to at this time or not.  Men and women are created differently, while a man may be in his physical and financial prime for reproductive purposes in his 30s, or even 40s, a woman physically will never be more fertile or capable of reproducing than in her late teens and twenties.

    However, one has to also consider the Progressive outlooks of today and wonder what impact they have.  Leftists seem to always support issues that lead to the destruction of the family unit, the breakdown of society’s social fabric (the Patriarchy), and their own voluntary sterilization.


    I got the idea for creating this article after reading the article below which produces a plethora of ideas but seems too far out there with its conjectures for a sound read:
    https://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of- … population

    1. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      To me, it seems that you are describing depopulation as a bad thing.
      but at the same time, you connect depopulation with the richest countries in the world. So it seems to me depopulation leads to success (or goes hand in hand), not the other way around.

      One of the biggest problems we face is connected with the decrease of the world population. Since 1975 the world population has almost doubled! And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this brought huge problems. (the climate crisis we face for one)
      As all these humans have to eat, live, use energy and produce waste.

      One of the biggest influences on western society is the contraception pill. Which gave women the possibility to study and to be independent.
      Because of this more people were involved in the society and the economy as a whole. I can't see this as a negative thing.

      Another question you can ask is: Do you want a better quality of life or a bigger family. Big is not always better.
      People used to have bigger families as the possibility of children dying was bigger, so you built in a guarantee with a bigger family. Today, that's not necessary anymore. (of course, no parent would say this, but that's the basic reason, children used to be your pension. the ones that took care of you if you became old)

      The destruction of the family unit is a debatable. Is a family with five kids happier than a family with one? I doubt it. There are many different families, and I do not have the moral ground to say that a family with 7 children, or with two wives, or with two mothers, or a family without children is better. My personal idea is, if somebody is happy with the way they live, they have chosen the right way. My way of living is not automatically the right way of living for everyone.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Amen, Peter.  Bigger families means impoverishment.  Studies show that the larger the family, the more impoverished it is.  Dollars are stretched to the limit & there is a struggle even for necessities.   Bigger families also rely upon outside assistance to keep them afloat.  Children in bigger families receive LESS parental attention.   They also raise each other & younger siblings.  Yes, the onus of bigger families are put upon oldest/older children who have to give up their own lives for the "sake" of the family.   No bigger isn't better in the least.  In fact, bigger is WORSE.

        So called depopulation isn't a big thing at all.   With the raise of smaller families, there is a higher quality of life.   People can afford to have more disposable income than they would if they had large families.  People in large families struggle, they must also do without, even the rudiments.  Who wants to live like that?   Small families afford a more comfortable, humane way of life.  Large families are atavistic, going the way of the dinosaur.   No one has large families these days, except for retrogressive people.   There is NO NEED for large families in this postmodern culture & society.

    2. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Ken, i think the discussion title does imply something which is not backed by any evidence. This article by the Iranian/Armenian Macho does not contribute any evidence either.

      Nevertheless, i ran your request through some analytics.

      1. Collect data to get an overview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … ility_rate

      2. Find patterns:
      Among countries with lowest fertility rates i can find only few with a "progressive" perspective.  (actually i was stunned to find South Korea at rock bottom). Spain, Italy and Greece, Portugal also have low fertility.
      Scandinavian countries on the other hand do not good, but much better. Developing countries in Africa and Asia have highest rates and drive world population growth.

      3. Build explanation models
      What distinguishes the country groups from the pattern finding?
      Looking back at the Eurozone crisis, all countries with debt problems are in the low fertility group.

      Scandinavian countries have very strong social systems, that allow children to be taken care of during worktime by society. There are plenty of free kindergarten, day care facilities, all day schooling, you name it.

      Then there are western countries which are attractive to immigration like UK, France, Germany and the USA. They swim in the middle.

      All countries from Spain to Sweden have the same freedom for women to participate in work. There are no legal gender discriminations in place. So what makes countries behave so differently?

      The financial aspect. The question: can you afford children? Even in less progressive societies with deep family traditions (like in the Mediterranian), even in these societies the old tradition of children taking care of their parents is put aside if it is simply too costly (from career building to income situation to general economic situation) for families to raise children. In all those countries with more wealth and more even distribution of income this seems to foster higher fertility.

      4. With my findings it seems to be more to the opposite. The more progressive, the higher the fertility rate.

      An anecdote at last:
      In Germany the most progressive party followers (Green party) have the highest average child count per family.

      What do you think?

    3. Castlepaloma profile image73
      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Elon Musk believes the biggest problem will be a population collapse.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/30/elon-mu … -drop.html

    4. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting line of inquiry, Ken

      What is the explanation for a decreased birth rate in Western Civilization, generally?

      I begin by saying that women are people and individuals and as such has a right to self determination rather than some sort of statutory obligation to procreate to preserve a society.

      I do not support a patriarchal, racial nor any other hierarchy that asks some to defer their rights and prerogatives to the advantage of others.

      In today's world, economic security is uncertain for all. Can I blame the ladies for making certain that their lives are on solid economic footing, not depending upon others in that regard? I tell my nieces to avoid rushing into marriage, but to educate themselves and obtain a trade or skill, independent of their mate. It is good to have mutual respect between the parties in such relationships.

      Your idea of a family unit constitutes licentiousness for some and shackles for others. In this century, day and time, that will not stand.

      Just my opinion, great question!!

      1. Ken Burgess profile image84
        Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        That is what I am looking for... input and opinion.

        To clarify, as CHRIS57 noted, the title is not ideal to the body of information put forth.

        I see how advances in technology have effected childbirth...

        We cannot discount the influx of immigrants' impact on the increase in population to Western nations, without the population increase due to that immigrant population, how severely would the population be in decline?

        How much of this is deliberate choice and how much of it is lack of comprehension (or even deliberate culturally supported ignorance) that when women choose to pursue "independent success" or simply enjoy the "single's sexual-freedom lifestyle" when young, like men get to, they are sacrificing their childbearing years in the process?

        I am most curious about this, does our Western Society/Culture shed light on the very real fact that women, unlike men, typically cannot produce children in their mid 40s and beyond?

        When being spoon fed equality, independence, getting their education and spending most of their 20s pursuing a higher degree, do these women realize they are sacrificing their best years for childbearing?

        Or is even bringing up such information in today's society considered sexist or worse?

        I would like to know what women in their 30s and 40s think, when they look back at what they were told, what messaging was trending in society, in "women's books" in "sex education".

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Definitely the broad access to education for women is enabling them to make a choice. I think this is at least as important as contraception.

          Our oldest granddaughter got her confirmation (Lutheran) last year. Reminds me that juveniles of 14 were treated as adults in old times. And apparently with some biological reasoning behind.

          We may have to ask the ladies in this discussion for more insight, but i remember from my wife and our daughter that when they got pregnant in their (late) 30ties, the first question was: Did you give birth to babies before? If the answer was "yes", then gynecologists relaxed and said everything will be fine. There doesn´t seem to be a limit for women to give birth in mature age, however there seems to be necessary :"experience of the women´s body to give birth".     

          If women spend their first 10 years on their career, then it may be too late for them to aquire the "experience" of giving birth. All this said in layperson terms.

          And again, if a society allows women to pursue their career and at the same time raise children, then fertility rate is higher in said society.

          Another aspect of fertility may be archaic beliefs to have a son, a male descendant. I noticed this in China. Even in the 1 child period, families neglected heavy fines and women kept giving birth, until a son was born. Just a remark and something to support the discussion title.

        2. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "We cannot discount the influx of immigrants' impact on the increase in population to Western nations, without the population increase due to that immigrant population, how severely would the population be in decline?"

          As I have heard in Europe, immigrant populations are generally younger. I have heard that these younger people have contributed to keeping Germany economically viable? Without the influx there would no doubt be an exacerbation of problem of population growth of the native born.

          When the society was much more patriarchal in nature, it was difficult for women to have any status independent of their male spouse. I certainly don't believe that choices being made by women today is ignorant. I am sure that women are well aware of the tradeoffs. Why should they not have the options with their lives that men have enjoyed?

          Woman are inundated with information about the maternity issue, they want choices, as I want more choices, Am I to be surprised?

          It is a free country and information is everywhere, but ultimately the choice must lie with the woman's whose life and its quality is directly involved.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image84
            Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I think the opposite of this statement is actually true.

            I don't think our society, our MSM, Progressive or Feminist efforts puts any emphasis on the facts at all...

            The facts being that while menopause may not happen until a woman is in her early 50s, for most women, fertility begins to decline sharply around age 35.

            Any woman that chooses to be career orientated (college degree then making way in their field) which may seem the thing to do when young, probably does not realize they are sacrificing the ability to have a family.

            In other words, I am saying society is lying to its young people, telling them to  get their degree, work up the ladder in their chosen career...

            For many women, I think when that desire to have a family kicks in, its too late.  Their body can no longer provide them what they want.

            Speaking for myself, the last thing i wanted when i was in my teens or twenties was a family.  But as a man, I could have waited until I was in my 40s with no negative consequences.  That is not the case for a woman.

            I think this is why, through thousands of years, older more established men, have married younger (by a couple years to a decade or more) women and produced successful families.

            When you tinker with that, and break apart the dynamic that allowed for families to thrive as a unit, you see a rapid decline in the population.

            This is all speculation, I have yet to pool together enough satisfactory evidence to prove that our societal change, the focus on women succeeding in the workplace and having their independence seems to directly correlate to the lowering of the percentage of successful families and the decline in childbirth.

            What I would really like to see is more of what women believe and what they have experienced... as men, we are not as well suited to know how these things are viewed and certainly don't have the experience.

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I understand what you are saying, Ken

              I would like to hear from more of the women regarding these thoughts.

              I remember the Ken and Barbie dolls and the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

              But was not society different then? The sanctity of marriage was more firmly established, people simply did not divorce over petty things. The security women once had as home makers in the "Donna Reed" or Father Knows Best" era have long past. I don't like the idea of total vulnerability and I am sure that our modern maidens don't like it either. While love is always linked to a certain amount of vulnerability, we have gone from Annie Glenn to Sally Ride, is there really any turning back?

              Since you were born before 1970, you remember the sitcom "Bewitched"?

              This Samantha subordinated all her vast powers, washing dishes instead of twinkling her nose and going to Paris to shop with her Mom, Eudora, all on the interests and desires of her husband, a dork like Darrin Stephens. Who could imagine it today? I thought it was ludicrous then and I was just a kid.

              Women are not so ignorant as to not be aware of basic biological realities.
              The Friedan book, the "Feminine Mystique" spoke of the subjugation of women by men as the patriarchal culture circumscribed women's place as in the home and cultural advertisements that made them domestic scientists using Mr. Clean for floors that shine.

              We all have one life to live and one shot at making that life as satisfying as possible and how that happens is an individual decision. As a progressive, I understand and appreciate that and do not wish to rain of anyone's parade in that regard. As long as the domesticity option remains just one choice among others, I have no dispute.

              The observations you make and positions that you are taking belong to era long past which are unlikely to return.

              Check out "Revolutionary Road" a film featuring DiCaprio, a reflection on "the man in the gray flannel suit" 1950s era with a spouse having every aspiration and desire dashed as part and parcel of the patriarchal system so much more in play during this period.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image84
                Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Credence you are reading into what I type, I am considering, conjecturing, I am not stating this as my position and that we have to go back.

                I recognize that society doesn't change overnight and typically flows in the more progressive direction until disaster or decline forces drastic changes.

                What I am pointing out, is that the messaging has totally changed.

                Drastic changes in expectations put on women...

                The idea is to better identify the primary cause for population decline in western nations.

                The query is not considering world population, not whether its a higher form of morality and equality.

                What I would be most interested in... is the opinion of women.  What do they think about society's messaging, and what they think about today's push for women to do all the jobs, businesses, etc. with nary a word about having a family or raising children found in today's messaging.

                By messaging I mean what is found in tv shows, movies, spoken about in media. For instance:

                Top shows in 1976 - Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, Happy Days, Good Times, One Day at a Time

                Top shows in 2020 - Chicago PD, Blue Bloods, FBI, NCIS, Bull, This Is Us

                Are people choosing to watch those shows... or are the networks putting the most funding, the most popular actors, and giving the best time slots to those shows?

                Why are the majority of top shows today related to crime (dysfunctional  society and dangerous people)?

                Is our entertainment a reflection of society or is society influenced and manipulated by its entertainment?

                What messaging was being put forth in 1976... compare it to today.

                1. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "Developed countries tend to have a lower fertility rate due to lifestyle choices associated with economic affluence where mortality rates are low, birth control is easily accessible and children often can become an economic drain caused by housing, education cost and other cost involved in bringing up children. Higher education and professional careers often mean that women have children late in life. This can result in a demographic economic paradox."

                  I would not say that this reality is a drastic change that is imposed, more than a change on ground for social mores based on economic realities. How can you change that reality?

                  --------
                  Top shows in 1976, interesting.

                  I am reminded of the 1930s when families use to sit around the radio for entertainment. With the invention of the transistor, the market became segmented for a variety of programs. Transistor radios were cheap portable and ubiquitous. By the sixties, we had all kinds of radio music and news formats. I had my rock and roll station while grandma had her classical music station.

                  That is what happened to tv, when the hundreds of channels that they told us in the sixties would be coming finally came along, even the most insignificant niche now had their own channel. This was to occur during the early 1980s. What happened to the Westerns, variety shows? Again, nothing sinister, people's tastes have simply changed. In Colorado, I had a channel for each of the big three major networks, one for PBS, an one independent channel as recently as 1976. I like the action crime drama shows of today over the bulk of programming on TV 45 years ago.

                  Feminism was in vogue during the 1970's, Virginia Slims was a tobacco product that used the nascent movement as its theme.

                  Would you think that the world was different 44 years prior to 1976, 1932.
                  Can the technological and subsequent social mores as change over this period be considered as unexpected?

                  The people and the market drives the messages, not the messengers controlling the people and the markets. Yes, our entertainment is a reflection of our society, nothing more complicated than that. And I think that the choices of 2020 tv are the result of quality through technical excellence and great stories. And yes, families no longer sit around the set to watch "Criminal Minds", the way they use to watch Bonanza or Ed Sullivan

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image84
                    Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    I think that is a sound counter argument to the impact of technology and how  it changed.

                    Who benefited from the push for women to have "equal opportunity" and equal representation throughout the workforce?

                    Was it the corporations, who have been able to progressively lower wages and benefits for decades now as the pool of employees continued to grow?

                    Has this "freedom" from being expected to be a mother, have a family and have children, and instead expected to become educated and find a place in the workforce made their lives better, have they become more empowered?

                    Wondering what those women in there late 30s and beyond feel about he shift in expectations and how this may have impacted them personally.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Thank you Credence.   Societies which are affluent have the smallest families while societies that are poor have the largest families.   Small families are the hallmarks of a progressive, affluent society.  There is a saying that small families live better.   Ken mentioned The Waltons.  The Waltons demonstrated the impoverished state of large families.  Who wants to live at the lowest common denominator.   Small families are here to stay.  Large families are going the way of the dinosaur & dodo bird, except among retrogressive & reactionary extremist elements which are on the OUTSIDE of normal culture, society, & civilization.

            2. peterstreep profile image79
              peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I think the fact that we have fewer children is not "the fault" of women. Nor is it a "progressive" thing. As the society is made by people of many feathers.
              Society as a whole went in this direction for a multitude of reasons. A society is a complex organism that you can't just describe with a few notations.
              You said that the fertility declines rapidly after 35. So why don't women die when they are 50. The child is 15 and can birth the next generation.
              Apparently, there are important roles in the society for women who are not fertile anymore (or don't have children) Grandparents and elderly people are important as they can teach the younger ones about life.
              In other words, the role of a woman in life is not per definition to bear children.
              And today we are close to an overpopulation of the world, so do we really want that everybody has a family of 5 children?
              Are we not killing the world for our grandchildren if we have ourselves a family with five children? As resources have a price...

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Large families are out of place in postmodern society.   The purpose of large families was to have children help with farm work.  Large families in the past provided support for elderly parents, widowed, & single people.   As societies became more urbanized & social programs went into effect, families became progressively smaller.   The invention of the pill & more equalization of women's roles all but decimated large families.

                Intelligent, educated people don't have large families.  There is NO NEED to with social networks & social programs that provide support to people.  With the advent of social security, there is no need for parents to depend upon their children to support them.   Large families were for more agrarian times.  Those times are long over.   Postmodern society is the society of small families.   Large families AREN'T NEED in postmodern society & culture.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image84
                  Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  A question I would have to ask in that regard then, is why do we have a welfare system that rewards women for staying single and having children?

                  Is it not true that our government, for decades, has paid additional income for each child a woman has, who is on welfare?

                  Why does our system reward women for remaining single and having multiple children if we are worried about population control?

                  But I am not arguing for large families, but rather the cultural perspectives on families and children in general and the messaging being put forth to women in recent years.

                2. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Large families AREN'T NEED in postmodern society & culture.

                  yes. And you can even argue that large families are a burden, as the resources of the earth are not infinite. And everybody has to eat, need shelter and need to get rid of their waste and rubbish.
                  There is only so much that the planet can take.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Exactly, Peter.   Large families are a burden not only to the family itself in that fathers have the onus of supporting a huge number of children.  This translates into oldest/older children foregoing their education to supplement meager family income.   I have written numerous articles on the detriments of large families.  Children in large families oftentimes must work to get the things that normal children have.   Large families do take up UNNEEDED space.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I agree:
                "I think the fact that we have fewer children is not "the fault" of women. Nor is it a "progressive" thing. As the society is made by people of many feathers.
                Society as a whole went in this direction for a multitude of reasons. A society is a complex organism that you can't just describe with a few notations." peterstreep

                Why blame it on progressives/liberals as though it was a plot to reduce the population?
                Feminists simply wanted to free women of feeling FORCED to be mothers. Some women were not happy behind their proper and expected white picket fences playing their roles of dutiful/doting wives.

                Options were presented have been taken. Women are happy today. They can have it all.

                If you want women to go back to the fifties, they wouldn't be happy or content as women today truly are. Women of the olden days were practically slaves to men.

                Now they can analyze their hopes and dreams. They have a wide variety of choices as to how to live their lives. The sad thing is sexual urges will get in way of their freedom of choice.  And so abortion, unhappy marriage, deferred eduction and the rest of the tragic consequences that come from unwanted pregnancy.

                                              GIRL, BEWARE!

                1. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  yes women, today have more possibilities. But there is still a lot of inequality. Payment for instance. Man do earn more in lots of cases for the same work.
                  As well as top positions are still kept a male's network.
                  There is still a lot of discrimination, sexism and machoism on the work floor.
                  But it's getting better...

            3. Jean Bakula profile image93
              Jean Bakulaposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Taking a look at female friends who had children young, they never had any chance to gain life experience or education. So when the kids got older, their job choices were very limited to entry level jobs. Or by the time the children are older, employers don't hire them because they don't have job skills after being tied down with children. And if the man does cheat and decides to divorce her, she is literally helpless to support herself. Young couples can't afford to live on one salary like in the 1950s. Also, we are not an agrarian society in the U.S. now, and don't have the need for a lot of kids to work on family farms. Many don't want to anyway, whatever the family business is.

              I still don't see a lot of parents discussing birth control with their kids. But the same parents are against the school system teaching it. In today's culture, they learn mostly by watching porn. This is very negative for both sexes, as they aren't learning what a respectful and loving relationship is like. So it follows, most are not mature enough or stable enough to marry or stay together and even raise kids.

              Do we need a society where men rule everything? Women realize what they give up if they want a career more. It seems to me in the U.S., 30 is the new 18. Our young people are overeducated, have too much student college debt, and lousy jobs. Or no jobs equal to their experience. They can't afford to raise children. I know very few couples who marry, or even stay married anymore.

              I think both females and males are confused about what their roles are supposed to be now. I counsel young people. Even if they are in love, they don't marry, because they always have a fear of missing out if they settle down with someone (FOMO). At least when I got married in 1979, I was sure he was the one.

              This was just a bunch of thoughts in no particular order. It should be an interesting article though.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Where is our consciousness heading?
                Is it toward our offspring or just ourselves?
                I would say we are quite self-oriented and ego-driven as culture. Our hearts are not open to raising the next generations with love, care and observation as to the best way to educate them. And we are completely ignorant as to what IS the best way.
                Do we have any idea as to how to sail into the uncharted waters of the future? Not at all. I feel very sorry for us.

    5. tsmog profile image79
      tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      An interesting subject and good luck on writing an article that is not too long and gives the information to spark interest further.

      Reading the article you provided and doing some online snooping I can see there has been a decline in birthrate in the US. I found a chart by Statista for crude birthrate in the US since 1800 at the link below. It dramatically illustrates it has essentially dropped since then with two upward trends in the midst. It was 48.3 live births per 1000 at 1800 with expectation of it being 12 in 2020.
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/103 … 1800-2020/

      Just for interest the following link is for continents from 1950 - 2020, in which all are in decline.
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/103 … 1950-2020/

      So, I ponder can that pretty much downward trend be because what the author proposed fit why. In other words that decline began at 1800 without the influence of education, media, and such forming notions to not reproduce with large families, yet open to change. Maybe many ideas he brought up is contributing today and I took note of the quotes he offered from government and economic elites. Did not watch the videos.

      Personally I do see the impact suggested with society changing on birthing importance. For instance TV shows with women in careers and no children and with very few show with families now. Can't recall how many kids in those families. I would contrast the Walton's with seven kids with Father Knows Best with three kids and Leave to Beaver with two.

      And, with my family all my brothers and sisters pretty much all baby boomers of a family of five children had only two kids each. And, so far that is all for nephews and nieces too. I am left was that an economic issue as well as they are educated with college degrees.

      So, I am left pondering mulling over what the author proposed while wondering and will look about more later.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image84
        Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I appreciate your response, and the information/links you supplied.

        I had not thought of looking that far back, this new information may in itself disprove the idea that progressivism has had a significant impact.

        If I can disprove it to my satisfaction, it is unlikely I would write the article.

        ^^

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Progressivism, a characteristic which is pushing equal rights and options and opportunities for all, of course is involved and has had an impact in regard to women and their recognizing that there are choices beyond being catagorized as "barefoot and pregnant".

          Is the desire for people to have more equal rights and options rather than not a natural inclination for everyone?

          That is not a function of the media or some sort of programming....

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I concur.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image84
            Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            As was noted in an earlier post, someone pointed out quite clearly that women even back in the 1950s had the ability to pursue their own course.

            The MESSAGING has changed dramatically... no longer is it OK for women to want to become a Wife and Mother as their primary goals/dreams.  If you say our society today doesn't frown on young girls and women having such goals/dreams you are not being truthful.

            While women were portrayed as strong wives and mothers decades ago in past shows like the Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, and Good Times... such messaging or role models are practically non-existent in today's media sources.

            But as I said, it appears that the decline in childbirth may go much further back than when this messaging shift began some 40 or 50 years ago... so it would appear progressive/feminist messaging has little to do with it.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
              Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              ... what does it (decline in childbirth) have to do with?
              and how far back?
              ... and what is your actual concern?


              "...  no longer is it OK for women to want to become a Wife and Mother as their primary goals/dreams."

              ... who takes the media/society seriously?

              I would be more concerned that women who want to have it all and try to have it all, end up with bratty, unraisable children ... which is what could be happening. Which to me, is more of a concern.

              What are children today going to to do in the future?
              They are being raised in daycares and schools. They are being raised on technology. They are being raised according to modern ideals of the technological, non-hands-on, non-concrete future. They are being left to the messaging/so-called entertainment of their screens, which is beyond nonsensical, if you ever bother to watch what the children are looking at by the hours everyday.

              Children of today have a real challenge in staying connected to the non-virtual, natural world, which I believe is their only salvation.
              It is better that they not even come to earth right now.
              Maybe later, when things return to normal. If they ever do.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image84
                Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I came across an article, by a 32 year old woman, that speaks of exactly what I was trying to get at.

                It expresses the type of feedback/opinion I was hoping to engage in this thread:

                https://medium.com/fearless-she-wrote/i … cc2667d889

                Perhaps she doesn't realize it yet, but that missing component may be the meaning found when you have a family, the love you can only get from children and being responsible for lives other than your own.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  well, she did not say anything about starting a family at all. You are right to assume that "she doesn't realize it yet." She was mostly concerned with wanting a partner to be with. Strange that by 32, that has not happened. It usually does, no matter how independent one wants to be, male or female.

                  Sometimes, by this age, if they have not found the love of their life they may decide to have a child and be a single parent, to fill the void. - Not usually a good option. But, some would disagree.

        2. tsmog profile image79
          tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Intrigued by the OP I looked further for more. I sought US family size discovering an interesting article with charts demonstrating the decline. What caught me off guard is how many women have zero children through history. Its metric was based on forty year old woman.
          https://qz.com/1099800/average-size-of- … e-present/

          The chart begins at 1850. The article stated that two children families started to become popular at 1920. That may coincide with progressivism since the so called progressive era was 1890s to 1920s. That is when industrialization brought more urban women in the workforce and the growth of urbanization contrast rural.

          Yet, I do agree the influence of progressivism through socialization has an aim at perhaps two children families with a more independent woman. Progressivism has a foothold in the entertainment world, education, and the work force while gaining in management and corporate leadership, which are socialization influences.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            ... what is the problem with a decline in birth-rate?

            1. tsmog profile image79
              tsmogposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              There seems to be experts on both sides of the fence. Flip a coin and choose. It has to do with fertility rate and replacement level. For more information take a peek at the following article. Interesting.
              https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho … a-problem/

          2. Ken Burgess profile image84
            Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Exactly, especially in regards to your last paragraph.

            Though I expect what was aimed at starting back in the 1950s, if not earlier (in regards to the 'Nuclear Family' ideal of around 2 children), has been discarded today for messaging of 'woman empowerment' simply for its own sake.

            That article has a great chart that sums it up nicely, there is a direct correlation between technology & progressivism and the decline in children being born, it will be interesting to see where that chart goes in the next decade considering the prevalent messaging of our times.

            And this was most telling:
            “Not only did the number of children born in the average family decrease, but the average age at which women had their last child decreased,”says the sociologist. “The mother’s median age at the time of her last child’s birth was 40 in 1850; by 1940 it had fallen to 27.3.”

            That really is a great kernel of information, because that is what I have really been most curious about... the women that pursued a career that are now hitting their 30s and 40s, do they look back and regret not having a family, do they find themselves in their 30s wanting a family and finding themselves not capable as that time has passed them by.

            I really appreciate your input and research on this, most illuminating links you have provided.

  2. MG Singh profile image72
    MG Singhposted 14 months ago

    The progressive decline in the population of the nations, like in western Europe has got serious repercussions as it leads to the aging of the general population and younger people are not available to do the work that is required to be done. What happens then? When your birth rate becomes below 2.1 you have to look around for some other labor force and that is where the problem comes in because the people who come in are aliens who do not accept the culture of the country and the net result is total chaos. Entire Europe is now in the group of an aging population and they are at a loss because the only labor they can find are the Muslims and they do not integrate with the society there. It is a sure-shot recipe for if I may say an atomic bomb of the population.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

    Let girls get married and pregnant as soon as they can. Then they can go to work and/or take on a carreer after their children are 18/up/out.
    Eighteen years are not that many. Women can do all they want, carreer-wise at 36!

    Can they swing college and child-rearing at the same time?
    I think so! But, they will need the help of OTHER PEOPLE with M O N E Y.
    Parents, husbands, etc.

    But, what would the progressives say?

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

    Is a decrease in birth rates the result of:

    1.) The advancement of technology?

    2.) Women in the workplace?

    3.) The divisiveness of the sexes created by the influence of Western Progressivism?

    The anwser has to do with women taking advantage of freedom, purely and simply.

    The earth has a lot of people walking around on it, so I do't know if this,(depopulation,) is a real problem. If so, how so?

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

    From Ken's link:

    "I’m coming to the conclusion that the only way to defeat the evils of liberalism, feminism, social justice, and progressivism is to have huge families and create tribes that are free-thinking, self-reliant, and, most importantly, armed. The men of the future who can resist totalitarianism and unjust government authority come from the wombs of the women living today, and those women must at some point be convinced that being stay-at-home mothers who raise strong men is superior to becoming zombie consumers who poison and sterilize their own bodies.

    The last thing that those in power want is for women to pair-bond with independent, masculine men who do not need the state and who place more importance and loyalty in their blood relatives and nation than to leftist ideas, iPhones, and sports teams. In the past, my fantasies were about sleeping with as many women as possible so I can be the playboy that I saw in the Hollywood movies, but now they are about creating the sons who will one day lead their people and their nation. It’s squarely up to us to create the men who can eliminate the parasites that are successfully controlling modern humanity.[culturewar]"

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

    so its up to the women.
    what do they want?
    their own freedom, or building up the tribe to fight for

    ... what again?

    "... men of the future who can resist totalitarianism and unjust government authority come from the wombs of the women living today,... who are convinced that "being stay-at-home mothers who raise strong men is superior..." and a valid/vital mission.

    Freedom of country.

  7. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 14 months ago

    Hi Ken, interesting, I look forward to your article.
    What I hear from my single lady friends is that all the good men are already taken and the rest are gay or are are missing out on a good opportunity to be {aka: not as masculine as they'd prefer!} So there's that to add to the discussion.
    I, personally, had a plan to have my children at a young age and God agreed!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image73
      Castlepalomaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      By the way enjoyed the full crowds at the Stanley cup hockey playoff in Florida. Sports suck alot more without a crowd of fans.

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        That was so exciting. I've a new love and appreciation for hockey. smile

    2. Ken Burgess profile image84
      Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I think the change in messaging that has been MSM and societal in nature did not have much impact on those who were born before 1970.

      I fall into that category as do many who participate in these Forums.

      Growing up in our times, girls were encouraged to be girls, boys were encouraged to be boys, girls played with Barbie and boys played baseball and rode bikes, that sort of thing.

      Today's times, girls seem to be discouraged to play with Barbie or 'Play House', they are encouraged not just to be doctors or scientists these days, but to do the jobs typically left for 'strong young men' throughout history (Firefighters, Military, etc.).

      Of course pursuing ANY career and choosing to forego having a family when young, for women, means they may never have a family at all.

      So when all our societal messaging is telling girls to get an education, be independent, invest yourself in a career, do what you want and don't tie yourself down to a man... we are telling them, without telling them, don't have a family, don't have kids.

      By the time many women get to a point in life that they realize they want more... that they aren't fulfilled with just a career but no one that cares whether they come at night or not, they are often past the point of securing "that good man".

      Basically "that good man" either has found himself a wife already, or is in search of a younger woman more capable of giving him a family.

      Is this what is at the heart of the population decline in "1st world" nations?

      Taking away men's roles as providers, telling women they should pursue a career (and not a family first), and creating a hostile social environment where almost any act can be considered sexual harassment and any woman can accuse a man without a shred of proof (IE - Kavanaugh) has made pursuing a family for either sex very daunting.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    The instinct to find a partner and have children seems so strong an urge, that I don't really think you can squeeze it out of women no matter how much freedom they get.
    You want to politicize the issue, but human nature is such that it cannot and will not be politicized. The real concern for you is ... what?

    1. Ken Burgess profile image84
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Politicizing the issue?

      I was observing our current state of society and cultural expectations put on women.

      I thought that link I provided to that one 32 year old's article was revealing as to what they are facing.

      She literally is expressing how she has been "programmed" by society to think what she thinks, and she is struggling with it... in other words she is just becoming aware, at age 32, that she was sold a load of crap,

      Because lets face it... it is a load of garbage being sold women today... get a education, get a career, do men's jobs, don't tie yourself to one man... have sex with who-ever, when-ever, where-ever, go on Tinder or Bumble, etc. a new "flavor" every week!!!

      And then they hit their 30s... that urge to start having something more, that urge to care for more than just yourself and instant gratification begins to become a very serious need.

      Unfortunately for this 32 year old women, as this new awareness, this new awakening takes hold of her... as she begins to question what she was programmed to believe... its too late.

      Her body will soon be unable to provide her & a significant other, with children. And what she thought was unthinkable in her 20s becomes what she wants most in her 30s...

      And this deception, this programming, is the result of a progressive society that tells its women to do anything BUT settle down with a good man and have a family... and then later in life get a career, an education, if you want.

      I was just wondering if it is my perception alone.. .or are a lot of women in their 30s and 40s today coming to this conclusion?  Its seems at least one is, based on what she expressed.

  9. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 13 months ago

    Hi Ken, my initial response to this was to share what women ready to settle down are currently experiencing.
    But, I get it.
    We {girls, women} have been programmed to do it all first and then maybe think about having babies. That's how it was sold to us back in '73, with abortion. To go on with our lives, our careers, with what we had mapped out in our heads and that, along the way, if we got pregnant, to get rid of that problem, that inconvenience, by ending the pregnancy.
    Life goes on and then suddenly one day, women are looking around, when it is convenient...and find themselves all alone...with a career, up until they get pushed out.
    We weren't created to be all alone.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image84
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you.

      Based on all we know about human biology today, wouldn't it be more advantageous to be honest with women, put just as much positive emphasis on a woman who chooses to settle down first, and then in her late 30s and 40s pursues her education, career, business interests?

      Just a thought, but it doesn't seem like a message that is being produced as an option today.

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Honesty is always the best policy. The push by feminists way back when, didn't stop me, from doing what was best for me. I have 3 grown children and am currently working at my second (could say 3rd) career, working toward retirement soon, while still fairly young. As with everything; from getting a vaccine to getting married, to starting a family and/or, a career...whatever the case, it must be up to the individual (that's what should be pushed) and then it becomes what's best for them as a couple and then as a family, doing what is right for them in their unique situation.
        Not what everyone else is doing or what is currently in vogue or what the Government is dictating on any given day!

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Mothers are the ones to pass on the hopes, dreams and aspirations of motherhood to their daughters. If daughters do not want to become mothers, it may be because of unhappy home lives.

    What Ken is saying is very interesting and maybe we do need to consider what is happening to the state of motherhood in this modern society where girls are not inspired toward building homes.
     
    Perhaps there should be schools where girls could learn home skills. Would men be happy to marry these girls?

    ... or do men want wives who bring home a paycheck too. Nowadays, it seems to be the case

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Sounds like a blast to the past.

      I remember "Home Economics" courses for the girls  during Junior High.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Did your mother work?

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Not really, she had a home babysitting service. Papa always boasted about the fact that she did not have to  work outside the home to the advantage of the kids.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            - good for him! smile

            1. Ken Burgess profile image84
              Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Wow... This feminist hit ALL my questions and observations on this issue.  Excellent video:
              https://youtu.be/Rk6fuLOyZbg

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I saw the video, Ken.

                What is your solution?

                Public service announcements to women extolling the virtues of motherhood and family life?

                Really, would you share this advice, paying attention to the biological clock, for ALL women who are at the critical stages?

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  My father was of the school that women who concentrated on family life were the ones who mindlessly pop out kids, not contributing to anything.  He admonished me against being only a housewife & mother- he stated that THERE WAS MORE TO LIFE.   I believe that any woman who elected to be only a housewife & mother was amiss.   She was an incomplete woman to say the least.

                  1. Credence2 profile image79
                    Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    There are women who prefer the housewife role, I don't recommend that for my nieces. I tell mine to have something on the ball for both respect and contribution, things and circumstances change and people are fickle.

                    The point is that people should always have a choice as to which course of life that she may choose. I don't fear all sides and options presented as long as at the end of the day, the woman is unimpeded in making her choice.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image75
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    My mother was always very concerned with her career and was always taking university classes as I became an older teen. She, in her ambitiousness, abandoned me (relationship- wise) and I did not get the help/guidance I needed at that point/stage in my life. She was frustrated in her role as mother because she had been given the message by her father, in particular, that it was important for her to pursue a career. This message stayed with her, her whole life. Of course, she too wanted to be something more than just a mother. (She actually loved being a wife and couldn't get enough of it.) She had been born in 1930.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Dad always wanted to be sure that we were never latch key kids, but all this was during an era when a single, working or middle class income was enough to support a family.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)