The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[LuckyR]

Actually your view of the world (individuals and governments) being divided into two groups, natalists and anti natalists, is flawed (through oversimplification) at it's outset. Thus predictions derived from that premise also suffer from oversimplification of complex issues, such as the factors that influence familial choices as to family size.

As an illustration of this, it is a gross error to declare that the worldwide drop in birthrate is due to vast numbers of families having NO children (because of an adoption of the belief in "anti natalism", learned by attending an evil government school). Rather the actual issue is a drop (not an elimination) of the number of children NATALIST parents choose to have. This is due to starting families later due to concentration on career (a good thing), better Birth Control cutting into the number of unwanted pregnancies (a very good thing) and the erosion of earning power impacting the cost of large families (a bad thing).

No requirements for evil shadow governments to "explain" the observation.

[godelian]

Actually your view of the world (individuals and governments) being divided into two groups, natalists and anti natalists, is flawed (through oversimplification) at it's outset. Thus predictions derived from that premise also suffer from oversimplification of complex issues, such as the factors that influence familial choices as to family size.

I did point out that there is more than one factor at play.

As an illustration of this, it is a gross error to declare that the worldwide drop in birthrate is due to vast numbers of families having NO children

Individuals do not even form families when they do not intend to have children. By 2030, half of the female population in the West will be single and childless.

(because of an adoption of the belief in "anti natalism", learned by attending an evil government school). Rather the actual issue is a drop (not an elimination) of the number of children NATALIST parents choose to have. This is due to starting families later due to concentration on career (a good thing), better Birth Control cutting into the number of unwanted pregnancies (a very good thing) and the erosion of earning power impacting the cost of large families (a bad thing).

Girls are indeed fed a life strategy by the schools which consist in spending their prime-age years on acquiring usually useless academic credentials and focusing on "careers" which are usually just meaningless office jobs instead of prioritizing finding a husband and having children.

By the time, they start paying attention to the problem of finding a suitable husband, they are in their late twenties or early thirties already, at which point their prime age is over and men generally lose interest.

These women in their early thirties typically fail to convince a sufficiently high-value man to provide for a family with them. The man that they want, does not want them. It is understandable that they do not want to lower their standards but the result is that they end up alone.

No requirements for evil shadow governments to "explain" the observation.

It is government policy that encourages girls to prioritize "careers" (meaningless office droning jobs) over family in their prime age.

The government even encourages these girls to rack up large amounts of student debt and provides state-backed guarantees for that. If the government did not do that, many, if not most, prime-age girls would not waste their time on that stupid life strategy and would instead start looking for a husband.

Looking for a husband in your early twenties is absolutely not the same thing as looking for one in your early thirties. You have to massively lower your standards if you do that, while most women prefer to stay single in that case.

A man in his thirties generally does not want a woman in her early thirties. If he cannot get one in her early twenties, for lack of finance, he'd also rather stay single.

Prime-age girls are being encouraged by government policy to study useless content, the kind of which it costs zero effort for ChatGPT to spit out on the fly, instead of prioritizing family formation.

As soon as the government runs out of money, the problem will be solved. Since the rapidly shrinking demographics resulting from this government policy will indeed end up bankrupting state finances, the problem will eventually solve itself.

The solution to the problem is to make sure that the government no longer has the money to fund its damaging policies. This will to an important extent happen automatically because these policies are on the long run self-defeating.

Government policy cannot overrule the laws of nature. Men simply do not want to spend their income on providing for a family with a woman in her early thirties. He'd rather stay alone.

[LuckyR]

The numbers just don't support your conclusions. Firstly, only a minority of those currently in their 20s have a bachelor's degree. Secondly, those degrees are most typically received at age 21, leaving plenty of time for husband hunting in the early 20s. Thirdly, for the most desirable women, college is one of, if not the singularly most fruitful time and place to meet suitable husbands.

You are correct that there has been a modest increase in bachelor degree attainment by young people over time, but that is among both men and women (who are delaying their marriages equally).

But most importantly, the observation that education of women leads to lower birth rates, is seen worldwide and typically means completing high school, not college (which, of course occurs before their 20s even start). Thus your theory about college debt and wasting their prime years in school, becomes totally irrelevant.

[godelian]

But most importantly, the observation that education of women leads to lower birth rates, is seen worldwide and typically means completing high school

If high schools destroy the birth rate and push it below the level required to sustain the population, then they ultimately destroy society itself.

The Taliban seem to be spot on in that regard:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/1 ... hooling-un

Taliban ‘deliberately deprived’ 1.4 million girls of schooling: UN

“UNESCO is alarmed by the harmful consequences of this increasingly massive drop-out rate, which could lead to a rise in child labour and early marriage,” it said in a statement.

Other governments, on the other hand, keep extracting and exacting taxes out of the population to fund the destruction of society.

You see, if the girls' parents want to fund the complete destruction of the birth rate with their own money, then that is obviously their own choice. If UNESCO want to pay for that, then that is also fine.

Confiscating money from other arbitrary Afghan people through taxes to keep pushing down the birth rate in Afghanistan, is however one bridge too far.

Why would anyone have to forcibly contribute to the destruction of society by paying taxes for that?

UNESCO insists that the Afghan population must be taxed to pay for their own demographic annihilation. Where do these people find the temerity to insist on that?

[LuckyR]

Well before making those sorts of declarations, for one thing you've got to show why having 8 billion humans on the planet is better for "society" than a number smaller than 8 billion.

Second, I'm assuming you don't personally have a daughter. If I'm right, I'll not be taking daughter rearing advice from you, regardless.

[godelian]

Well before making those sorts of declarations, for one thing you've got to show why having 8 billion humans on the planet is better for "society" than a number smaller than 8 billion.

Second, I'm assuming you don't personally have a daughter. If I'm right, I'll not be taking daughter rearing advice from you, regardless.

Everybody does what they want, but expecting other people to pay for that, is in my opinion one bridge too far.

[gregf]

Do we mean "modern liberalism" rather than "democracy"? Arguably, Switzerland has been a democracy for a long time before the modern trend of not marrying or having children. So, I'm not seeing a particular connection between political philosophy a denial of further procreation.

Civilization is a work-in-progress and those who see no value in procreation are just abandoning the work.

Aren't they solipsists and nihilists in the most practical sense?

[godelian]

Arguably, Switzerland has been a democracy for a long time before the modern trend of not marrying or having children. So, I'm not seeing a particular connection between political philosophy a denial of further procreation.

For a starters, Swiss democracy introduced women's suffrage in 1971:

ChatGPT: Switzerland introduced women's suffrage at the federal level on February 7, 1971, following a national referendum.

That is when this special interest group began demanding that the government intervenes in private family matters to side with the wife against the husband, and that the destruction of the family structure began in all earnest in Switzerland.

Furthermore, in matters of intergender dynamics, it always takes time for the ball to start rolling. The domain is under heavy influence of tradition, religion, and biological inclination. That is why it took at least a generation for men to realize what was going on.

So, it did take some time for men in Switzerland to react, to adopt the trend global across the West, and to start rejecting marriage, cohabitation, and relationships in general.

It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to stick to rational decisions. Even today, there are still men who get misled by their emotions and sign a civil marriage contract anyway, knowing full well that on rational grounds, they should not.

Another issue in the West is that Christianity is not a scriptural but a centralized clerical religion that does not hesitate to advocate against the interests of its own believers.

While Islamic clergy will resolutely point out that civil marriage and divorce are fundamentally "haram" (impermissible), the Christian clergy will still portray it as recommended by the religion. In Christianity, there is no other benchmark of truth than the opinion of the clergy.

It will take some more time for the population in the West to completely abandon Christianity and its nefarious influence.

Hence, there are many reasons why men in the West still get misled into signing civil marriage certificates.

It will take some more time for the practice to disappear completely. In the meanwhile, the ongoing standoff will ultimately lead to the collapse of western civilization.

[Phil8659]

Democracy has historically led to women's voting rights

Personally, I do not understand this type of gibberish. The way I see it is something like the following
What may be predicated of anything is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.

Now, every human, what makes us human, is not our gender, it is the mind. The mind has one and only one job to perform, information processing, and it does it through one's ability to comprehend grammar systems which is puttering language into perceptible forms.

Therefore, there is only one right which defines any person, they have the right to be literate and the wrong to be illiterate. Most of fall between the two. So what in the hell does the illusion that we live in under some mythology called democracy, when nobody in this country or any where else can even tell you what it is, for if is something, it has a standard by which it is expressed, and this is clearly not so.

Biblically, this literacy is called judgment.
A lot of brave women fought for their rights, i.e., fought for what you call democracy, making your statement something of a self-referential fallacy, and actually demeaning the work and hardship they went through to get the recognition as a human being.

[godelian]

A lot of brave women fought for their rights

Well, it looks like the time has come for men to fight for theirs.

If a woman wants to divorce -- which is obviously her right -- she should not expect any more money from the husband that she apparently no longer needs.

If you no longer need a particular husband, then you no longer need his money either.

If anybody still wants to force the matter, then let them prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

[Phil8659]

A lot of brave women fought for their rights

Well, it looks like the time has come for men to fight for theirs.

If a woman wants to divorce -- which is obviously her right -- she should not expect any more money from the husband that she apparently no longer needs.

If you no longer need a particular husband, then you no longer need his money either.

If anybody still wants to force the matter, then let them prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

You are sadly mistaken; we are a mind, there is only one way for all of us to fight, as we have one and only one right. You seemed to miss the point.
So think about this;
Binary recursion, in grammar, is a correlative, i.e., noun, equated to a word set of noun and verb. this is called a unit of recursion.
And a unit, be it called a thing, one, etc., is then a standard of behavior, i.e., As Standard is to Noun, Behavior is to Verb. By biological fact, our mind is evolving to function by standards of behavior which maintain and promote our life, within and without, for us as an individual to the entire biosphere.
Yet today, there is not one correct grammar book teaching mankind our Grammar Matrix, not one. Not one correct grammar, socially taught to all, based on the biological function and purpose of mind.
An idiot choses to fight the perceptible before he has won the battle of the intelligible. And, if you actually study and comprehend the Bible, or the Dialogs of Plato, or even a quote in the Memoirs of Socrates, that this standard of behavior will unite all of mankind, then the way to fight is is to first learn it and then learn how to write that standard and a point in history will come where equality is actually known.
We do not fight for democracy, or any thing else than the ability to do the job a mind is designed to do.

Many have pointed it out, even in a comic stip of Pogo, Walt Kelly.
I spy the enemy, and they are us. Something like that, I read that strip when I was a teenager.
But long before that a very wise man said the same thing in a metaphor "Let he among you who has not sin, cast the first stone." What people fail to recall, was a passage God said, "I am the only Rock." Jesus also used that, in "Upon this Rock I shall build my Temple. For, to be like God, as we learn in Genesis, is to learn judgment, which is a function of Grammar.

[AlonsoAcevesMX]

I would say that marriage, as a traditional institution, is failing due to miscommunication, exacerbated by long hours at work and the increasing reliance on electronic devices as the primary means of delivering instant messages. Additionally, divorce is far less stigmatized than it once was, making it easier for couples to break their vows without fearing remorse. Add to that the growing economic constraints and the constant pressure to prioritize personal growth above all else, and you have the perfect recipe for the collapse of marriage.

[godelian]

I would say that marriage, as a traditional institution, is failing due to miscommunication, exacerbated by long hours at work and the increasing reliance on electronic devices as the primary means of delivering instant messages. Additionally, divorce is far less stigmatized than it once was, making it easier for couples to break their vows without fearing remorse. Add to that the growing economic constraints and the constant pressure to prioritize personal growth above all else, and you have the perfect recipe for the collapse of marriage.

When a woman says, "I don't need him but I want him", you know that at some point in the future, she will tire of her hobby. That is why things are different outside the West. Wives don't work. Only the husband does. The wife cannot say, "I don't need him", because that is simply not true.

[Gary Childress]

I would say that marriage, as a traditional institution, is failing due to miscommunication, exacerbated by long hours at work and the increasing reliance on electronic devices as the primary means of delivering instant messages. Additionally, divorce is far less stigmatized than it once was, making it easier for couples to break their vows without fearing remorse. Add to that the growing economic constraints and the constant pressure to prioritize personal growth above all else, and you have the perfect recipe for the collapse of marriage.

When a woman says, "I don't need him but I want him", you know that at some point in the future, she will tire of her hobby. That is why things are different outside the West. Wives don't work. Only the husband does. The wife cannot say, "I don't need him", because that is simply not true.

I think the idea of women working is so that they are not vulnerable to men preying on their financial insecurity to trap them into relationships that the women may not be as in favor of. It doesn't seem like returning 16-year-old females to the proverbial state of "barefoot and pregnant at home" is a step in any direction other than regress. It's reactive and probably unfair to women. It makes them more vulnerable to male predation.

[godelian]

I think the idea of women working is so that they are not vulnerable to men preying on their financial insecurity to trap them into relationships that the women may not be as in favor of.

If a woman does not want a man to spend on her, don't worry, because he certainly won't. He won't refuse the sex, though. So, that explains quite well the bane of the modern woman: The man will indeed have sex with her but he won't spend one dollar on her. It is not men who complain about this outcome. So, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.