> It’s entirely possible to have a culture where women can have families and careers at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't be a good

> It’s entirely possible to have a culture where women can have families and careers at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't be a good mother and a good worker. You can't be at home taking care of your baby and at work being productive for your company/boss/etc. Not rocket science. > It’s entirely a cultural problem and is completely solvable if there is a collective will to solve it. The most egalitarian societies with the most women-friendly workplaces have some of the lowest birth rates. Your assertion, which has been around for decades, has been well tested and well debunked. For decades, wealthy western societies have increased benefits for working mothers. Birth rates continued to decline. If you want higher birth rates, you want women to spend less time in school/work and have children in their prime birthing years ( 18-29 ). That's simple biological fact. The question for society is whether we want women at home with their babies for the benefit of their families or we want women at work for the benefit of corporations/shareholders. The elites have spoken and it's the latter. It's why the elites want more immigration. We need to maintain the population somehow. The issue isn't complex unless you want it to be complex because you don't like the simple truth.