3 ms·
> Are you sure that women entering the workforce wasn't _because_ of economic reasons? It seems to me that "feminism", as you put it, may have only been allowed
by kace91 6y ago
> Are you sure that women entering the workforce wasn't _because_ of economic reasons? It seems to me that "feminism", as you put it, may have only been allowed to win, because it was desirable economically.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is there. Yes, one of the reasons women entered the workforce was the increase in income for two-earner households.
The point is that both having two earners per household and having good birth rates are beneficial to society as a whole, but we don't yet have a system where both are compatible; we just exchanged one for the other, as the negative effects of low birth rates aren't immediate.
The economic incentive to not have kids is where the problem lies, and it's what needs to be tackled. Flexible schedules, paid paternal/maternal leave, free education/healthcare, access to affordable housing for young couples... There is no silver bullet, it's a sea of deal breakers that need to be addressed individually.
- raducu 6y agoThe reason humans have babies is sex is pleasurable and no birth control was available. Nobody cared 50% of children died before turning 5, nor that they got shit education, nor that women were oppressed. Our expectations and sensibilities grew much faster than everything else, not the least or biological natures.
- strulovich 6y agoActually, some people theorize the opposite causation for one thing you mentioned: kids survival rate increasing means one could have less kids. In a world where half the kids don’t make it to 5, and people depend on their kids for their elder life, people are likely to have more of them.