The return of patriarchy

[antares]

Cause patriarchy is what keeps birth rates high, and this feminist, low birthrate world can't last and will be swallowed by cultures with high birthrates

newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

[Childless]

Japan has one of the most patriarchal societies on earth and yet, their birth rate is still falling. I think it has less to do with patriarchy and more to do with cost of living/quality of life. People see quality of life go up for their families if they limit their number of offspring, so that's what they do. And I can't say I blame them one bit. It's the primary reason my partner and I are keeping our family size small. In my view, there's no point in having half a dozen kids if we're going to be scraping by and constantly stressing over finances. What a miserable life for both parents and children.

[SteampunkLovelace]

I'm uncomfortable with this, since it's way too close to all the other moral panic about how people not like us are making more babies than us. It's a very traditional sort of moral panic and it's almost never not really really racist.

Also, I think the examples of history are against the conclusion of the author. According to all surveys, the US is becoming less religious than ever. We can and do talk about the uber religiosity of the Deep South in the U.S. but let's not forget that the cities of the South swing liberal and just get outvoted by the more rural parts of the state (and I've lived in Atlanta and Houston, this is a very real effect). It's easy to focus on newsworthy patriarchal families, but newsworthy by definition means it isn't that common. The tendency of the world has been toward more education and more equality for women. It is harder than ever for patriarchal jerks to completely control all access to information and education for women (even the Taliban can't do it completely) and we know that the tendency of women with more education is to have fewer children. We can fearmonger about the rising influence of patriarchy, and maybe we should, but let's not do it with hysteria, questionable analogies with ancient Rome, and terror about being outbred with phrases like "survival of the fittest" thrown out.

On a completely related note, that's a very inaccurate phrase, even in the context of natural selection. Reproduction of the fittest is closer, but even then doesn't cover a lot of behaviors. And since humans don't exactly do natural selection, what's the point of bringing it up?

[crazyforkate]

Russia is a very sexist society, and yet I see very few families with more than two children (and often the children are spaced quite far apart - there are very few "two in two years" families). Hmm, maybe because now that people can actually lessen the complications and expense in their lives by not having a ton of kids, they actually choose to do so?

[Cleopatra7]

Being patriarchal isn't enough to ensure high birth rates. In this day and age, you really do need an ideology to push people into embracing militant fecundity. In this day and age, there's no reason to have a very large family. Even people in Asia and Latin America are having smaller families, because it's just too expensive. The moral panic about declining birth rates is hardly new either; even Augustus Caesar was complaining about falling birthrates, the lack of family values, and homosexuality over 2,000 years ago.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

It's from 2006.......