this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1634 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
6851 readers
988 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading comprehension much?
I never said it was acceptable to walk back on women rights, I said it's something that people who want to see a higher birthrate will have to fight against because it's not happening otherwise. I couldn't give more of a crap about increasing birthrate, I won't have kids by choice. I do give a fucking crap about women rights though!
I mentioned historical statistics because you can look back at times before climate change and wealth inequality worried anyone and birthrate was going down as women rights increased and contraception became readily available.
So, conclusion, if women are given the right to do more with their lives than being mothers and if contraceptives are made available, couples will make the decision not to have enough kids to renew the population, no matter how easy it is to have them, as we can see in all developed countries where socio economic inequality is lower than in the US. Scandinavian countries don't renew their population without immigration and haven't for a fucking long time, in Finland birthrate went below renewal rate before WW2 for fuck's sake!
It's the most horrendous correlation-is-causation I've ever seen.
And people outside US have it better, but the trajectory is mostly the same everywhere, so you're just full of shit.
It's not easy to have children ANYWHERE, and in most places it just too expensive or downright impossible due to childcare issues or tons of other things.
I'm talking about historic data and you're unable to understand what that means in terms of variation in quality of life over time. Even when people could make it on a single income they didn't have 2.1 kids if they had the means to prevent it.
Hell, millionaires and billionaires don't have enough kids to renew the population either, but I guess you will find some way to not understand that either.