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,
families, children and women in the workplace.
So how could it not have had a major influence on the declining birth
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
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
Lewis Wolpert: The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
they didn't want their women readers to have
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.