Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan?
To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You have made an absurd claim and backed it up with a weak argument.
To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You have made an absurd claim and backed it up with a weak argument.
Once you adjust for immigration, they do.
> Idag föds i snitt 1,88 barn per vuxen kvinna. Det betyder att Sveriges befolkning skulle minska utan invandring. (Today, an adult woman has on average 1.88 children. This means the population would decrease if not for immigration)
> Idag (2023) har Sverige 10,5 miljoner invånare ... År 1950 var bara en procent av den svenska befolkningen född utomlands. 1980 hade andelen ökat till drygt sju procent. 2020 var nästan 20 procent av Sveriges befolkning födda utomlands (Today, Sweden has 10.5 million inhabitants... in 1950, only one percent of the population was born overseas. In 1980, the amount had grown to 7%. In 2020, almost 20% of the population was born overseas).
> Sedan 1980-talet har mer än två miljoner människor fått tillstånd att bo i Sverige, kortare tid eller permanent. (Since the 1980's, more than 2 million people have received permission to live in Sweden, including short-term and permanently.
A lot of people think that Sweden is still an homogenous country, ethnically, like Japan, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I am not mistaken, Sweden is, today, about as "mixed race" (for lack of a better word) as countries like the USA and Australia.
Source: https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individe...
Also, Japan is nowhere near as expensive as other countries but they are declining the same rate or faster.
The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. So far the flawed (i.e. batshit insane) reasoning of "women are forced to marry less" doesn't hold.
This is an odd challenge. The relationship between women's education levels and lower fertility rates is a famously strong correlation in the social sciences. There are tons and tons of studies that show that as women's education levels and status rise, fertility levels subsequently drop. Here is a page that links to a bunch of studies, https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertili... . But seriously, just Google "women's education levels fertility rates" and you'll find tons and tons of studies.
If we're talking about a certain sort of education received only within the last century or so, I think that should be a pretty big and explicitly stated caveat when spouting "Educating women decreases birth rates." It might be less so that education is the cause, but the social responsibilities that education entails, the role that the educated have in society, etc - that is way different now than it was N years ago.
And that's just one example. So many things are just different in the last 300 years from the last 3000 that it's incredibly difficult to attribute a trend to a single cause. It makes more sense to say it's harder to have children for a variety of factors/the calculus is different, rather than assuming for the bulk of history women have been having children because they lack education/rights.
[1] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/
When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else).
Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.
If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago.
Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option.
Why does that offend you?
This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry.
Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more?
Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop.
When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids.
You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.
This is incoherent. Average modern life has many more social demands than it did 100 years ago.
> You seem offended
You seem to be familiar with all the memes. Have fun!
Does 1970's America have much less social responsibilities?
Shouldnt look at what was happening then?
Who cares about 100 years ago. Birth rates werent dropping until decades later.
>Shouldnt look at what was happening then?
I live in one of the countries that, supposedly, support parents so much, and these society offer nowhere near the amount of support required to raise children and have both parents with day jobs. Nowhere NEAR enough.
The logic is very simple. You do not have time and energy to support even one child while living a fulfilling life if both parents work.
That is my explanation, and I didn't have to call women's rights into question. Weird, huh.
When you use a disgusting explanation model, you need a very strong case. Your case is make-believe and handwaving.
We did ok as a species with way less people that exist today, society will adapt, and there is no valid reason to impose "society's choice" on anyone.