UN Babies wanted: Nordic countries crying for kids

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html

Oslo (AFP) - "Norway needs more children! I don't think I need to tell anyone how this is done," Norway's prime minister said cheekily, but she was raising a real concern.

Too few babies are being born in the Nordic region.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."

In Norway, Finland and Iceland, birth rates dropped to historic lows in 2017, with 1.49 to 1.71 children born per woman. Just a few years earlier, their birth rates hovered close to the 2.1 level required for their populations to remain stable.

"In all of the Nordic countries, birth rates started dropping in the years after the 2008 financial crisis," University of Oslo sociologist Trude Lappegard told AFP.

"The crisis is over now but it's still falling."

From Copenhagen to the North Cape, from Helsinki to Reykjavik, demographics across the Nordics reveal two things: there are fewer large families, and women are waiting longer before having their first child.

There's no single explanation, but financial uncertainty and a sharp rise in housing costs are seen as likely factors.

In the long term, this means there will be fewer people of working age to pay taxes that fund the generous state welfare systems.

These systems pay for, among other things, lengthy parental leaves, which in Sweden can last up to 480 days.

- Paying for pregnancies -

Experts present differing diagnoses and prescriptions to remedy the situation.

In Norway, one economist concerned about the effect the slowing demographics will have on economic growth has suggested giving women 500,000 kroner (50,000 euros, $58,550) in pension savings for each child born.

Another has suggested that, on the contrary, women in Norway who reach the age of 50 without having had a child should be paid one million kroner, since children also cost society a lot.

Finnish municipalities have already decided to loosen their purse strings to encourage locals to get busy under the covers.

The town of Miehikkala, home to 2,000 people, is offering 10,000 euros for each baby born and raised in the municipality.

"The number of childless individuals is growing rapidly, and the number of women having three or more children is going down. This kind of fall is unheard of in modern times in Finland," said Anna Rotkirch, a family sociologist at the umbrella organisation Finnish Family Federation.

In Denmark, Copenhagen has meanwhile turned its attention to men, who are in less of a hurry to become parents than women, with a campaign aimed at raising awareness about how sperm quality declines with age.

- Immigration boost -

The Nordic region already boasts a wealth of family-friendly initiatives, such as flexible working hours, a vast network of affordable daycares and generous parental leave systems.

But when all that is still not enough to encourage people to have more children, immigration can be a lifeline -- or a threat, depending on the point of view.

Sweden may have a falling birth rate, but it still comes in second in the EU behind France with 1.85 children born per woman in 2016.

That is largely due to Sweden's decades-long history of immigration: immigrant women tend to have more children than the average Swede.

With 2.6 children per woman in recent years, the town of Aneby in southern Sweden has one of the highest rates in the country, a phenomenon attributed to the fact that it opened its doors to immigrants two decades ago.

"Aneby welcomed around 225 Eritreans in the early 1990s and just after that (it took in) refugees from the Balkans. 1994 was a demographic record for the town," local official Ola Gustafsson told AFP.

But population growth among minorities has also fuelled fears.

A former justice minister in Norway, Per-Willy Amundsen of the populist far-right, made headlines when he called for family allowances to be reduced after a third child.

His stated goal was to stop Somalis who, he said, had a higher "birth production" rate than "ethnic Norwegians".

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

This is going to lead to a change in how people have homes, within about 50-60 years.

Spoiler: real estate prediction spergery

Right now, in a time of ever-increasing populations, it makes sense to have a "property ladder" and new properties constantly being created.

If you have steady-state population, with everyone having pretty much 2 kids (with an occasional family having 3 or 1), and generation lengths becoming 30+ years, multi-generational, large dwellings become a sustainable and more attractive option.

Think of it this way. Say you're 22 when you have your first baby in the 1970s, less than 50 years ago, and you have the most common number of kids to have back then (4) by the end of your fertile years. If each of your kids followed your exact path (got married, and had kids of their own starting at 22), and no one moves out, when you're old, you have 8 children and children-in-law, plus 16 grandchildren, and up to 16 grandchildren-in-law and 64 great-grandchildren. Live past 88 and another generation multiplies.

But let's say you have two kids, and you start at age 30, have your second at 35. Your children and their children can now do this indefinitely. At age 60-90, you and your spouse will have two children, two children-in-law, and up to four grandchildren. Only at age 90, if you make it that far, do you end up with the first of the new generation bringing in a child of their own.

This means you've got a maximum of about 12 people in a house that can now be kept in a family indefinitely, with each child in each generation owning half. That, by the way, is if none of your children-in-law's parents decide to take in your child along with the child-in-law and grandchildren. If it was split 50/50, you really only ever have 5-6 people living in the home.

12 is a lot, but it's not crazy. 6 is downright easy to accommodate in a 4-bedroom home, without children even needing to share a room. There will be a couple of decades in each family, each generation, where there's three or four adult incomes coming in (even if one person takes care of kids full-time, three incomes is nothing to sneeze at). Elder care and childcare become far easier with this arrangement.

While there are bound to be conflicts between parents and children, people have already noticed that these most recent generations stay bonded to parents for longer. Expect that to just continue until moving out is no longer the norm for kids spreading their wings, but a sad event that happens when someone has to move for work or there's a serious rift in the family.

 

[Datiko]

the millennials who you see having kids are the ones who either made bank early on, are absolute dumb fucks, or both, and the millennials who don’t are typically the ones who don’t because after rent and bills they have like $40 leftover from their paycheck.

Its pretty true. I'm an early-millennial and most of my social peers have 2-3 kids with the exceptions being those who haven't married or have other issues. I don't think its economic prosperity alone but also attitude. I made a lot of money by sacrificing short term pleasure for long term gain. I was able to step out of the moment and think towards the future. Having kids sucks in the short term but it is the only way you get a dynasty.

 

[Slap47]

What's the mystery? Socialism, even democratic socialism like the Scandinavians love, is fundamentally not sustainable, it can only ever temporarily be propped up by these pyramid-schemes of subsidizing others to live off taxes from an ever-crunched middle class... until nobody left is rich enough to tax.

And as the middle class find it harder and harder to bear the burden and have to start cutting things out, having kids ends up being one of those expenses. I mean, what else can they cut?

The USA, Japan and former eastern bloc also have fucked demographics. The issue is only crippling in Japan and Europe because of limited immigration. Sure Europe got injected with migrant but that wasn't exactly families.

The core of the issue is women working, women being empowered and men being disadvantaged. Why should a woman have a child if she is just going to hire a nanny to spend all of the time with them? Why should a man have a wife if she's just going to dump him on a whim and take his possessions and children? Why have a family when that just means two people working themselves to the bone for the basic middle class child basics?

"In all of the Nordic countries, birth rates started dropping in the years after the 2008 financial crisis," University of Oslo sociologist Trude Lappegard told AFP.

"The crisis is over now but it's still falling."

From Copenhagen to the North Cape, from Helsinki to Reykjavik, demographics across the Nordics reveal two things: there are fewer large families, and women are waiting longer before having their first child.

There's no single explanation, but financial uncertainty and a sharp rise in housing costs are seen as likely factors.

People want to do the responsible thing so they hold back on having kids till they're ready but the fact that this has continued on despite the crisis mostly being resolved in the country is damning. Hell, they're in Norway, poverty is not an issue.

These issues are entirely social and economic. France's great population crisis of the 19th century was caused by changes to marriage and inheritance laws the privileged women and distributed family assets. France tried paying women to have lots of kids and this failed. There was thought of awarding parents with more kids extra votes for each kid and the communist party of France even stopped supporting abortion over population concerns.

France has a growing population now but is also has millions of African and Arab migrants (not Syrian men) who are basically required by their traditions to have families.

There are too many people on this planet, anyway. Every country should be focused on having lower birth rates (at or lower than the replacement rate). The explosive population growth we’ve been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution can’t go on unchecked forever.

"The world must be 90% Indians and Africans"

 

[Buer]

The "millennials are too hedonistic" is prob a bit true but tbh I've seen some of these people as parents and they're bad at it. I heard one story where a father wouldn't even speak to his children unless it was about something he was interested in(hobby wise). And that's pretty sad. I think if you're going to have children understand that some of your hobbies either need to take a seat or you just need to get rid of them because of how expensive/time-consuming they are. Let's say a guy is wanting to be parent but he spends quite a bit of his money and time on video games. If his job is video games this is fine but if it's not it'd affect how good of a parent he is. I don't think giving them up entirely would be a good idea but maybe incorporate some hobby that your kid can participate in and doesn't break your bank(that you're using to spend on your kid) such as writing, drawing, painting, etc.

And I mean being a gamer doesn't even have to be that expensive if you're frugal about it but if want to play the AAA games you're going to have to spend a big chunk of change. Some people are just hedonists and don't really see children as a net gain. That's not a wrong way to live but I think some of them are a bit disingenuous about their motives for not having kids. You don't need to live in a gated community, in the best neighborhood where your kid goes to the best schools and you can pay for their college(a lot of parents can't and not all people benefit from going to college). If you need all that to have a kid then you don't want to have one. It's not wrong to say you don't just be honest about it.

 

[Figuratively Stalin]

Blaming le feminism is retarded. In my country, even when feminism is present and exists, autistic dangerhairs are a minority and most wimminz are boring normies just like most men. Yet we're stuck at 3mil population since God knows when. The problem lies in money; everything from food to clothes to technology to a fucking place to live is expensive as fuck and as such both parts of a couple have to work. Richfags have 1 kid at most because they want to give them the best of the best, sending them to Super Expensive Fancy Private Schools™ that costs half their salary, buying them pricey shit etc which leads to more fucking work for the parents. Kids are raised by poorly paid babysitters while their parents work their asses off nonstop.
As for poorfags, the ghetto as fuck ones don't give a fuck because they quite literally live off neetbux, while hardworking ones just have their kids raised by their grandmothers and even then they never have more than 3 kids because shit is fucking expensive. At least where I live (t. poorfag) it's common for fathers to cuck their wives which results in either divorce and as such single moms or mothers putting up with it because it's really fucking hard to raise kids alone. Guess how most of those kids turn out.
I thought things were different in the ~first world~ but turns out there isn't as much of a difference as I thought.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

Probably, though from what I understand multi-generation households was also something that started falling out of style during the Industrial Age.

Not really, but sort of. That's a post-WW2 phenomenon. Read Road to Wigan Pier by Orwell, and you get a good sense of it. Like, at one point, he describes a house with a big family, and grandma gets her own room (the couch in the common room IIRC), and the father sleeps with the several boys in one bed in a room, and the mother sleeps with all the daughters in a bed in another because it would otherwise be inappropriate, and the mother and grandmother slave away all day in the house, the girls forced to go to school, as the boys and the father are off on the edge of death in the coal mines, breaking their backs and can't even stand when they get home.

On second thought, you are right, but it took WW2 and the technology it brought to break people of living like that. The ripples in the pond of human development that Hitler caused haven't even begun to settle yet IMO.

My guess from what I've read, at least, and Orwell seemed to have an excellet intuition and understanding.

 

[One Man Bland]

The "millennials are too hedonistic" is prob a bit true but tbh I've seen some of these people as parents and they're bad at it. I heard one story where a father wouldn't even speak to his children unless it was about something he was interested in(hobby wise). And that's pretty sad. I think if you're going to have children understand that some of your hobbies either need to take a seat or you just need to get rid of them because of how expensive/time-consuming they are. Let's say a guy is wanting to be parent but he spends quite a bit of his money and time on video games. If his job is video games this is fine but if it's not it'd affect how good of a parent he is. I don't think giving them up entirely would be a good idea but maybe incorporate some hobby that your kid can participate in and doesn't break your bank(that you're using to spend on your kid) such as writing, drawing, painting, etc.

And I mean being a gamer doesn't even have to be that expensive if you're frugal about it but if want to play the AAA games you're going to have to spend a big chunk of change. Some people are just hedonists and don't really see children as a net gain. That's not a wrong way to live but I think some of them are a bit disingenuous about their motives for not having kids. You don't need to live in a gated community, in the best neighborhood where your kid goes to the best schools and you can pay for their college(a lot of parents can't and not all people benefit from going to college). If you need all that to have a kid then you don't want to have one. It's not wrong to say you don't just be honest about it.

True, though I also don’t quite buy the assessment that if a millennial isn’t selling off everything that can’t be considered an absolute necessity to put aside for a baby fund, or they want to get to a point where they feel they can comfortably balance a hobby and a kid/s, then they’re a dang dirty hedonist who should just start popping out kids regardless.

As disingenuous some may be as to the reasons they don’t want kids, it’s an equally unreasonable view of parenting that the only things in your life should be work and kids. Not only is it good for the kids to be involved in the parents’ hobbies (as well as having their own supported) as a form of enrichment, but parents absolutely need alone time with something just for them every once in a while. I’ve seen parents who don’t, and the end result is always pent up balls of stress with maladjusted weirdos for kids.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

Lol what
How would giving women 100k for not having children improve the birth rate? Did whatever talking head "expert" even know the question they were responding to?

No idea what that part is about but giving money for giving birth already happens and it varies depending on the region, that's on top of maternity leave and all the other benefits.

The money is decent enough that there's a system for scamming the state and living comfortably without ever having to work. The gist of it is that a couple with children divorce, a single person gets more than a couple and a single mother gets even more benefits and the number of kids works like a combo multiplier of that. The husband, who of course is unemployed and have no money, can't pay child support of alimony, it can't be garnished from his welfare either, so the state pays it on his behalf as well as the rent on his new place and so on.

Here's where it gets really good: They keep having children despite being officially separated, live together in not-so-secret while renting out his apartment that the social services pay for, and no one ever asks any questions about it. The woman that blew the whistle on this got beaten up in the street.

And three decades ago, we had a pretty good birth rate despite not having that many immigrants (it peaked with 2.13 children/woman in 1990, then it started going down due to the 1990-1994 financial crisis)... but that was mainly because the economy was doing well. Now the government is boosting the birth rate with a shitty immigration policy which, amongst other things, has had a negative impact on the economy. Thanks Reinfeldt and Löfven?

Another factor is the housing market. I've known couples that live in areas that wants to have children someday, but not in the area/neighborhood where they're currently living. They're saving money to be able to buy a nicer place at the insane prices things sell for.

That's very often code for wanting to raise children in a more Swedish, more expensive, environment with everything that comes with that. It prices out many immigrants, financial segregation. And they're not racists, I know this because they say as much before they, in a more hushed voice, asks if this or that area has many, you know, immigrants.

It's not that strange, the more integrated immigrants with nicer jobs also wants to get into the more Swedish areas and raise their kids there.

So in my opinion, based on my own observations, that's a thing that just like long studies and establishing themselves in a career has begun to impact the birth rate primarily among the middle class/upper working class.

 

[One Man Bland]

Lol what
How would giving women 100k for not having children improve the birth rate? Did whatever talking head "expert" even know the question they were responding to?

I think the logic is that the women not having kids cost the government less due to using less social services, so giving thise women money for their lack of kids further helps the economy because it’s money those women will put into other things.

That’s what it sounds like they’re trying to say at least, though don’t quote me on that.

 

[SugarSnot]

Enough people even consider it an embarrassment to be living with your parents in your twenties, no matter the financial situation. Being independent is a big deal to them.

Great irony is that this way of living is a great way for your family to stay poor. They never keep their money in the family, they pay it out to strangers who have no vested interest in them other than wanting to drain their banks. Seems great being a landlord in a country where families are desperate to throw their kids out early.

 

[Buer]

^They sorta feel that way in the US too. Basically you're not seen as officially an adult unless you're living on your own. They also think your parents pay for everything too. Idk maybe they're just bitter that their parents don't care about them enough to let them stay until their financially stable enough to move out as in not struggling with bills and stuff. Though there are good reasons to move out such as getting a long term bf/gf that you feel is at the point where you should start living together. Not easy to test a relationship if you can't be alone together really.

 

[Captain Ahab]

That’s the natural outcome of strong secularism and liberalism. Without pressure from religion and society, most people will choose whatever they find the most pleasant. Raising kids is hell, so they choose not to.

Once people realize this life is the only one they’ll have and soon they’ll be rotting in the ground, it’s hard to convince them to give up 20 of the best years of their lives because society needs workers.

This is why, though I’ve been an atheist for almost 15 years, I never understood the push for mainstream atheism. Religion is the great motivator. Maintain the illusion.

 

[Fareal]

Can I throw out a theory based off my own limited experiences?

People are more reluctant to have kids because it carries a social penalty now that it didn't carry 30, 40 years ago.

Of my extended social circle, I am one of only two who is a full time stay at home mom. I am talking about literally hundreds of people here. There are exactly two of us.

Our circle are very honest about their decision to work (almost exclusively) full time after their children were born. They say they were bored. They say they were lonely. They say they didn't want to wipe butts all day and never talk to anyone.

The upshot of this is that folk like me, who are spending all day with those whose butts they wipe, are shatteringly lonely. I will easily go a fortnight without holding a conversation with any other adult besides my husband, my kids' language teacher, and their ballet teacher. The other kids who attend these classes come with their grandparents, who are caring for them whilst parents are at work.

It was the case even into the 1980s that enough women were at home full time that a certain fellowship developed between local mothers at playgroups, or school gates. That isn't happening now. I left one playgroup because I was absolutely sick of being roasted by the attending grandmothers (who were the school-gate friends of my own mom back in the day) about why I didn't go to work and why mom doesn't look after my children. (She's insane and I choose to look after my children myself). I feel tragic admitting to this, but I could really use a little circle of other mom friends to hang out with and take the kids outings together. It wouldn't make much difference to the kids - they are very small, I keep them very busy, I make sure they have a lot of activities where they spend time with other children - but yeah, it would make a difference to me.

If someone came to me for advice about leaving the workforce completely to be a stay at home mom, my honest advice would be not to do it unless you were really, really committed to seeing it through. You lose all flexibility in terms of your time and your activities, to an extent that even if you think you realise what it entails, is a bit of a shock. The only hours I have not been caring for at least one child in the last four years was during hospitalisations, and I had to refuse hospitalisation against medical advice on a number of occasions because there was no one to watch the kids. I haven't been to the hairdresser in four years; she has to come out to the house because no one watches the kids. I haven't seen any movie in the cinema since 2014, or any gigs. I went to a gig a week. My friends have carried on with busy, active social lives of parties and dinners and nights out. My husband goes. I can't, because no one watches the kids. It's hard when your 'outside' life stops dead and your partner's carries on without interruption.

I do not regret the time and effort I am giving to my children. I love them. There is nothing in my life more important than their wellbeing. But truthfully, that means there's also nothing else in my life any more. I can absolutely understand why other people are choosing not to do this. I hope that I am doing the right thing for my children.

 

[Sawmill]

The short explanation is feminism: an entire ideology based around telling women that building a family is evil is going to tank birth rates, obviously.

I'd hate to agree, but it's true. Practically every facet of feminism is anti-fertility.

Women studying longer. Women persuing a career. Women being more promiscuous. Fat positivity. Men shouldn't hit on women. Changing marriage and divorce to make the whole thing unattractive. Celebration of homosexuality and transgenderism. Puberty blockers.

It's hard to find positions that feminists have that don't have an anti-fertility effect on society. And that's probably by design.

 

[One Man Bland]

Can I throw out a theory based off my own limited experiences?

People are more reluctant to have kids because it carries a social penalty now that it didn't carry 30, 40 years ago.

Of my extended social circle, I am one of only two who is a full time stay at home mom. I am talking about literally hundreds of people here. There are exactly two of us.

Our circle are very honest about their decision to work (almost exclusively) full time after their children were born. They say they were bored. They say they were lonely. They say they didn't want to wipe butts all day and never talk to anyone.

The upshot of this is that folk like me, who are spending all day with those whose butts they wipe, are shatteringly lonely. I will easily go a fortnight without holding a conversation with any other adult besides my husband, my kids' language teacher, and their ballet teacher. The other kids who attend these classes come with their grandparents, who are caring for them whilst parents are at work.

It was the case even into the 1980s that enough women were at home full time that a certain fellowship developed between local mothers at playgroups, or school gates. That isn't happening now. I left one playgroup because I was absolutely sick of being roasted by the attending grandmothers (who were the school-gate friends of my own mom back in the day) about why I didn't go to work and why mom doesn't look after my children. (She's insane and I choose to look after my children myself). I feel tragic admitting to this, but I could really use a little circle of other mom friends to hang out with and take the kids outings together. It wouldn't make much difference to the kids - they are very small, I keep them very busy, I make sure they have a lot of activities where they spend time with other children - but yeah, it would make a difference to me.

If someone came to me for advice about leaving the workforce completely to be a stay at home mom, my honest advice would be not to do it unless you were really, really committed to seeing it through. You lose all flexibility in terms of your time and your activities, to an extent that even if you think you realise what it entails, is a bit of a shock. The only hours I have not been caring for at least one child in the last four years was during hospitalisations, and I had to refuse hospitalisation against medical advice on a number of occasions because there was no one to watch the kids. I haven't been to the hairdresser in four years; she has to come out to the house because no one watches the kids. I haven't seen any movie in the cinema since 2014, or any gigs. I went to a gig a week. My friends have carried on with busy, active social lives of parties and dinners and nights out. My husband goes. I can't, because no one watches the kids. It's hard when your 'outside' life stops dead and your partner's carries on without interruption.

I do not regret the time and effort I am giving to my children. I love them. There is nothing in my life more important than their wellbeing. But truthfully, that means there's also nothing else in my life any more. I can absolutely understand why other people are choosing not to do this. I hope that I am doing the right thing for my children.

No offense, but your husband sounds like kind of a dick if he can’t be bothered to switch off on watching the kids every once in a while to let you partake in social gatherings. Partnerships are supposed to be a team effort.

 

[Meat Poultry Veg]

There are too many people on this planet, anyway.

How is Nigeria having "too many" babies Norway's problem?

This is the problem with Kumbaya thinking--people are not fungible.

 

[ADHD]

My friends have carried on with busy, active social lives of parties and dinners and nights out. My husband goes. I can't, because no one watches the kids. It's hard when your 'outside' life stops dead and your partner's carries on without interruption.

I'm sure you and your husband have your reasons for letting him have a social life while completely depriving you of one, but that situation right there is a reason a lot of women I know won't have children.

 

[Ali della Fenice]

Can I throw out a theory based off my own limited experiences?

People are more reluctant to have kids because it carries a social penalty now that it didn't carry 30, 40 years ago.

Of my extended social circle, I am one of only two who is a full time stay at home mom. I am talking about literally hundreds of people here. There are exactly two of us.

Our circle are very honest about their decision to work (almost exclusively) full time after their children were born. They say they were bored. They say they were lonely. They say they didn't want to wipe butts all day and never talk to anyone.

The upshot of this is that folk like me, who are spending all day with those whose butts they wipe, are shatteringly lonely. I will easily go a fortnight without holding a conversation with any other adult besides my husband, my kids' language teacher, and their ballet teacher. The other kids who attend these classes come with their grandparents, who are caring for them whilst parents are at work.

It was the case even into the 1980s that enough women were at home full time that a certain fellowship developed between local mothers at playgroups, or school gates. That isn't happening now. I left one playgroup because I was absolutely sick of being roasted by the attending grandmothers (who were the school-gate friends of my own mom back in the day) about why I didn't go to work and why mom doesn't look after my children. (She's insane and I choose to look after my children myself). I feel tragic admitting to this, but I could really use a little circle of other mom friends to hang out with and take the kids outings together. It wouldn't make much difference to the kids - they are very small, I keep them very busy, I make sure they have a lot of activities where they spend time with other children - but yeah, it would make a difference to me.

If someone came to me for advice about leaving the workforce completely to be a stay at home mom, my honest advice would be not to do it unless you were really, really committed to seeing it through. You lose all flexibility in terms of your time and your activities, to an extent that even if you think you realise what it entails, is a bit of a shock. The only hours I have not been caring for at least one child in the last four years was during hospitalisations, and I had to refuse hospitalisation against medical advice on a number of occasions because there was no one to watch the kids. I haven't been to the hairdresser in four years; she has to come out to the house because no one watches the kids. I haven't seen any movie in the cinema since 2014, or any gigs. I went to a gig a week. My friends have carried on with busy, active social lives of parties and dinners and nights out. My husband goes. I can't, because no one watches the kids. It's hard when your 'outside' life stops dead and your partner's carries on without interruption.

I do not regret the time and effort I am giving to my children. I love them. There is nothing in my life more important than their wellbeing. But truthfully, that means there's also nothing else in my life any more. I can absolutely understand why other people are choosing not to do this. I hope that I am doing the right thing for my children.

Maybe you should have a talk with your husband, because it seems to me that your needs arent being met at all.
If he cares, you'll find a compromise together.

 

[Creep3r]

Is it wrong that I really don't give a shit about Norway, Sweden or Finland/pretentious nord folk in general? They wanted to be "modern and hip" with an indifferent outlook on life. They got the "best" of it for their indifference. The more interesting European countries I actually like are still going strong (except France and others like it dealing with the "migrant crisis") so I really could not give a shit. There's a lot of valuable resources up there worth claiming too and we have to do more than they have to protect their ancient architecture from crazy nutjob arsonists, since the resources and the buildings are probably worth far more than the people. My only regret is that I wish this was happening to China or India instead since they truly deserve a severe drop in birthrates.

 

[Medicated]

Bear in mind, having a lot of children before and during the early stages of the industrial age ensured a familial workforce for rural families. As society became more industrialized and urbanized, fewer children were needed to help maintain subsistence holdings and family farms. This isn't the result of purely "Feminism gone rogue", this is the result of progress. With the advancement of technology comes more financial inputs necessary to ensure your child can actually be productive, and survive, in the current age. With this also comes a need for fewer specialized labor inputs as we don't need 10 kids to operate one massive spinning machine in a factory.

With industrialization came more labor saving devices which meant women could take up more roles. Women in the past were largely confined to the home or grounds, not only because most jobs outside the home were strenuous and dangerous, the risk of rape and pregnancy for any girl over thirteen meant one rape could make you a social pariah. The advance of science meant that women now had birth control, so they weren't risk of at any moment becoming pregnant. The sexual revolution.

These fed into women entering the workforce, which meant now on a career level they were catching up on men, and as these women gained positions of power, they advocated for more things to make things amenable to women in the workplace, which lead into more women taking up jobs. With women in the workforce, the employee market is now doubled, wages are then driven down, as instead of a man applying for a skilled position it's a man and a woman. With automation, the need for human employees drives wages down further.

Now women are told they can have their power career and start a family, but most of them are happy being single, childless, and being able to spend money on themselves. The media and advertising feed into this, because women are arguably now the dominant consumer demographic in the world. So it's in their best interest to continue promoting the single career consumer lifestyle.

Feminism seemingly everywhere, is simply a symptom of having a primary female demographic, not the cause of it. With women in control of the market, feminists get a chance to have a sponsored voice.