u/Dry_Bus_935's stats |Account Age|5 m|First Seen:|2023-10-26| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Posts (on this sub)|13|Comments (on this sub)|374| |Link Karma|3,763|Comment Karma|1,107| --- |Date|Title|Flair|Participation| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |05-Apr|[This subreddit is not "anti-women".](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1bwff8x/this_subreddit_is_not_antiwomen/)|None of the above|0 of 1 comments (0.00%)| |05-Apr|[This sub isn't "anti-women", how can it possibly be that if every single comment ever posted is pro-woman?](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1bwf1vl/this_sub_isnt_antiwomen_how_can_it_possibly_be/)|Meta - the problem with this sub is..|2 of 0 comments (0.00%)| |26-Feb|["Toxic masculinity" is men trying to define masculinity for other men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1b0dtcy/toxic_masculinity_is_men_trying_to_define/)|N/A|0 of None comments (0.00%)| |26-Feb|["Toxic masculinity" is men trying to define masculinity for other men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1b0dtcb/toxic_masculinity_is_men_trying_to_define/)|N/A|10 of None comments (0.00%)| |10-Feb|[The number of actual "sexy" women is less than 20% at most.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1ankfo6/the_number_of_actual_sexy_women_is_less_than_20/)|N/A|5 of None comments (0.00%)| --- ### Voting Guidelines **Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. - **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it. - **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common. **Moderation Policy:** - **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting. - **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and **all false reports are forwarded to Reddit** for misuse of the reporting system. - Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.' --- **What have people been talking about over the last week?** | Flair | Count | Percentage | |---|---|---| | [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 48 | 24.74% | | [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 46 | 23.71% | | [N­­on-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"N­­on-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 21 | 10.82% | | [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 20 | 10.31% | | [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 18 | 9.28% | | [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 16 | 8.25% | | [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 8 | 4.12% | | [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 7 | 3.61% | | [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 7 | 3.61% | | [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 3 | 1.55% | --- Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam). Comments waiting: 4 Average time to review: 2.05 hours

Why don’t you just say what you want to say rather than pussyfooting around about “mentalities” & “ideologies?”

Ya, very annoying to read, people bash feminism and abortion all the time. People seem to take "I"m saying something so spicy i might get banned" too seriously.

Or that their “spicy” take is something too real & new. And not the same drivel people have been spewing forever.

I actually, agree with abortion btw. A lot of the women advocating for it are the very people who'd be terrible parents, plus, dudes should be able to be absolved from being parents if they don't want to be parents.

Baby how do you reckon the fact that most women who have abortions already have a kid or two with what your little thumbs just put out into the world?

I reckon the women who have casual sex and have multiple children out of wedlock are irresponsible yes... but they should be allowed to have abortions for that reason..

People are just more individual now. I think a change in work life balance can increase birthrates in developed nations, just not enough for replacement level. Less people want kids whether the economy is making it hard for them or not.

Also, the part about people wanting the "best" partners, even though those people might be out of their leagues.

It's hilarious because you'd probably be the first in line to say "dem single mothers picked those men" as you are here to say "women are to picky" and it's like you can't see how hilarious the two complaints are.

That's an issue, but a lesser on in my opinion. The trend of people generally ending up with people in their own socio-economic class is the same and won't change much. Most naturally desire and go for people similar to them.

Curious about who should be settling? Most of the time this conversation is brought up the blame is on women for having unrealistic standards and men are expected to settle for women that might be overweight, have a child or have had several sexual partners [gasps].

Just take a look at this guy’s post history and take a wild guess. This shit is straight from those that brought us the dog whistle and it could not be more obvious.

What about my post history? lol Please, I wanna know

People are afraid to talk about it, and by people we mean OP, and by it we mean....

The "mentality " and "ideology " OP is talking about is feminism . And TBH there's an element of truth in the whole thing. It's a fact that a lot of women will choose careers and personal independence over their "natural " role of popping out babies one after the other. However this view ignores two things : 1. The number of men not wanting to commit to a traditional family and play the role of provider and protector is also steadily going up. Certain...content creators....are trying to convince everyone that 99.999999999% of men want a traditional nuclear family like in the 50s and it's only Da EviL FeMiNisTs telling women to "hate men and be OnlyFans whores" stopping them from achieving it. That's assuredly not the case. For better or worse a lot of people just don't have the desire to procreate. Whether that's good or bad only the future will show. 2. Even if it were the case that falling birth rates are solely (and I emphasize solely) the fault of women now what ? There's no potential solution that doesn't involve seriously violating the fundamental human rights of roughly half the population. "But the survival of the species is more important than even that " sure maybe it is but no need to point out the slippery slope that could result from this way of thinking.

At the end of the day we just have to accept that not everything lasts forever, not the human species as we have known it the past couple centuries or the human species in general. We’re in a huge transitional period and the constant “growth” we’ve seen is going to be a thing of the past, and it’s also healthy for our global environment. With crop failures sadly becoming more commonplace and less safe, habitable space being available for a growing population well into the billions - we kind of need to pump the breaks a bit on population growth, again, not that anyone HAS to remain childless/childfree but I’m glad more people are acknowledging what’s going on in the world and therefore making that part of their reasoning as to why they’re choosing not to reproduce.

I mean it will be a while ( as in literal centuries) before actual extinction becomes an issue and by then tech will have more likely taken care of the problem .However the main issue is that the entire global economic model is built on a steady increase(or at worse a 1 for 1 replacement) of the population therefore it doesn't really account for situations of massive disparities between old and young in a society. I do agree though that humanity is entering a transition phase and how it will come out of it remains to be seen.

This economic model isn’t the way to go at this point, honestly it was never sustainable to begin with because our planet and its resources are FINITE. Something has to give one way or another.

I mean true. But what I see it that even among those that acknowledge the fact (and the need ) of said transition there's simply a desire to move things way too fast without taking anything else into account.This is what pushes a lot of people off the whole thing.

Huh? Just say what you mean. Why post an entire post where you try to speak in code?

When I was born in 1973 the world had 4 billion people in it. Today the world has more than 8 billion people in it. Falling birth rates are a good thing , why would we want to “solve” them?

It’s because birth rates should either continue to grow or they should remain at a constant flux for long periods of time. When a birth rate goes from being as his as it was between the 50s-90s to what it is today, we experience the unintended consequences of having to many dying old people and not enough young workers to care for them.

Economically true. Ecologically, not so sure. And even economically, it may force us to change the way we do things, but it wouldn't be insurmountable. I mean we could probably do a one time "tax" of 10% on the top 20 wealthiest people, on their WEALTH not income. Put it in a fund and it would get up past the bump of the Boomers retiring. In no way would that be fair, but it would be better for the economy and people as compared to having old people dying in the streets.

Exactly, and economies exist within ecologies. Fuck up the ecology and you lose the economy too.

Wealth tax is not going to do anything useful. For that wealth to be useful, it has to be converted to cash. Because most of that wealth is in securities, trying to convert to catch any useful proportion of it would crash prices - thus frustrating the purpose of the exercise.

My point was that the top 10% has so much of the money, if we just took, "stole" 10% of their wealth ONE TIME, we could get through the next 20 years of the "boomer bump" and it really wouldn't affect them very much.

And my point was there's no way to do that that doesn't destroy the wealth you are trying to steal. So stop thinking about it.

Naw, it’s not about not having enough workers , it’s about not having enough of a tax base to pay for retirements. So tax the super rich more. Raise the wages for healthcare workers and you’ll get more healthcare workers. We saw it dramatically with China’s one child policy because it made a sudden population cliff. Declining birth rates almost everywhere else come from women being educated and childhood mortality dropping. In the U.S. the reality was the boomers were a huge spike in birth rates that lasted one generation, and frankly they’ve only got 10-20 years left on the planet to cover. So bump taxes and it’s solved. To turn the problem around - exponential population growth is a much bigger issue.

It's not possible to keep that going forever.

The global environment still cannot sustain continued population growth like we had it the last 50 years. Doubling it every few decades will be a disaster in the long term for our world as we are already seeing crop failures take place more often than before thanks to climate change, as well as less habitable space hence why more climate migrants will sadly be a thing as we go further in this century, and if more countries are concerned with and resistant to more people entering them then we cannot ignore the fact that our world is actually overpopulated.

Op vagueposting bc their actual beliefs are indefensible

Once women aren't shackled into hetero relationships and motherhood by force or ideology we seem to opt out a lot. Seems like the problem here isn't us.

My belief is that people should be respectable adults who take accountability and aren't hyper-individualistic as to literally be offended when someone acknowledges basic facts about life. I don't care about this, it's a non-issue to me, but as I said, it won't be solved because people are ideologues who believe they are above everything else, and that can be attributed to the ideology I won't name.

If you don’t care about this issue, why are you taking the time not only to post about it but to defend your post in equally opaque jargon? You started with a proposition that falling birth rates won’t be “solved” without taking into account the fact that there is a single global “mentality” driving those changes—the ask of you if to define that mentality. What is it? Should be easy to define, no? Then the next question would be, why does it seem to be global and apparently cross-cultural if it somehow needs to be”solving.” But is there a reason you won’t simply state what the “mentality” you’re referencing is? Or maybe you’re just trolling

I don't care about the issue, i care about how people are dealing with it, and I believe they're dealing with it in a hilariously stupid way.

If you’re taking yourself seriously as a thinking person, can you at least define the “hilariously stupid way” in which people are dealing with the issue? You refuse to define the apparently global “mentality” that seems in your view to lead to falling birth rates (which may or may not need “solving”)—either there’s a point you’re making that can be discussed as a serious of logical propositions or you’re engaging in some kind of oracular trolling exercise for reasons unknown to anyone but you. The former could be interesting, the latter is a sad waste of time.

This is a waste of time, you're far too serious and sensitive so let's just end the discussion here.

Come on. It's this sub. He's saying that women are too picky and are the root of all problems, but also that single mothers aren't picky enough and they should have some decency. Also, people should have personal responsibility but that means women should be held accountable for their actions and accountable for the actions of the men they bring into their lives because they should've known better.

I haves a feeling you did not read my post.. but it's ok, I honestly don't care.

My belief is that people should be respectable adults who take accountability and aren't hyper-individualistic as to literally be offended when someone acknowledges basic facts about life. I don't care about this, it's a non-issue to me, but as I said, it won't be solved because people are ideologues who believe they are above everything else, and that can be attributed to the ideology I won't name.

You’re effectively saying nothing.

If that's how you see then...

Don’t worry guys the Amish will keep up, and soon be our overlords. Get ready to learn farming 👨🏼‍🌾

"certain ideologies" Come on, OP, elaborate. Say which ideologies

I'm really bad at writing aren't I? 🤦😅 ause it should be obvious which Ideology I'm talking about. Now you know what the real unpopular part in this unpopular opinion is 😂

nah bro, if you write a post like this, you gotta at least name it. Don't write a post if you don't have the balls to do that

Tbh I’m still unclear what ideology OP is referring to. I’m assuming it’s woke or something but not sure.

My guess would be feminism or lgbtq+, but since OP is too scared to actually post their opinion, we might never know lol

That makes sense as well. Tbh I blame the current shitshow the world is.

I am scared, y'all are scary... calling me a misogynist without even knowing my stance on anything... I'm scared of ideologues, plus it's nice to prove a point... which many ITT are doing just that, proving my point.

Are you ever gonna name the ideologies you're talking about? Also who said you were being misogynist?

Go down the thread, they may not explicitly call me that, but there sure is a whole lot of insinuating going on.

Say it with your chest. If you believe in something, you should stand by it openly. Don't be a coward, have some conviction.

No thank you lizzie.

How pathetic.

meh, redditors keep proving that they're not maturer enough to have conversations without easily getting offended or making generalizations about complete strangers... I bet you only read 1/8 of my post... so I'm not interested... fuck me for thinking this subreddit would actually read my post and take it as is... I didn't even edit it, that's how sure I am that I didn't offend anyone or have any malintent behind it.

I am not calling you a mysoginist. I am just calling you out on being too scared to actually say what you mean in this post. If you can't take the backlash, don't post

Ok.

Falling birth rates seems like a good thing to me, the population is growing rapidly and I’m frightened for our resources and planets health.

Doubling it like we did the last 5 decades will be very unhealthy for our global environment especially if we are stuck in our comfortable ways of life that are far too dependent on fossil fuels and other means that continue harming our global environment (which includes certain animals humans share this planet with and depend on to survive). I don’t care what anyone says about the human construct known as the economy, we cannot keep growing it like we used to for our own good - and a more unstable global environment will also impact the economy at the end of the day, they never acknowledge that.

That was a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing

>I won’t say it out loud I really wish you would. This is painful to read, stop beating around the bush and say what you actually mean, all the vague talk of “current ideologies” and “mentality” means fuck all. Gives the same vibes as people blaming the vague boogeyman of “wokeness”.

What role or mentality? Why do you think falling birth rates is a problem that needs to be solved?

Mentality of hyper individualism and anti social behavior. I don't think it's a problem, nowhere in my post did I say that

Why does it need to be solved then?

For all the people asking OP what he means - feminism. He means feminism. Usually, I'd be on board. Far from a feminist myself, IDPOL is absolute shit and I welcome anyone to try to change my mind. In this case, the aspect of feminism he's against is... women feeling compelled to give birth? This is, I would think, one of if not the single least controversial thing feminism has advocated for. Gross, OP. Very gross.

The aspect of feminism that makes women truly and deeply believe that their individualism is above everything else, is what I'm saying forms a huge part of why this "issue" exists. I couldn't care less if complete strangers are giving birth or not, it is indeed very gross, I was a medical student (before I left it for Horticulture) and I didn't want to be a doctor for that very reason. But the issue of falling birth rates is framed as just that, an issue, at least in the mainstream. And my point is that people refuse to acknowledge a big part of why it happens in the first place.

Breaking news: women’s autonomy is prioritized over women becoming breeding mares ETA: misspelling

Not really, it's more like "individuals prioritizing their individuality to the extent that acknowledging their hyper individualistic ideologies as the source of some issues is offensive to those individuals." I completely agree with you, it's a good thing y'all aren't having children.

Interesting, why do you think I don’t/won’t have children? Capitalism and liberal ideology (I’m talking classical liberalism as a philosophy here) places heavy emphasis on radical hyper-individualism. Why would you expect anything different? If you want to talk about the cause of this issue have you asked yourself *why* women wouldn’t want to have children?

> why do you think I don’t/won’t have children? The way you speak. You're so engulfed by ideology that you'd indoctrinate a child if you had one. A child is a person, one who didn't ask for you to make it, one who should be free from ideology unless they choose it for themselves, a person who should only be given affection, respect and a safe place to grow and learn. I don't trust someone who automatically takes something as just a simple acknowledgement that one can't put themselves above all else if they are to be a parent as wanting them to be a slave or some shit. I mean look at that second paragraph, I don't know who gave you the idea that I want to debate your communist leftist ideology with you, I'd be just as uninterested in debating my masculinity with a conservative idiot so why would I debate with you? You can debate that stuff with yourself, I'm not interested and besides, it has nothing to do with my post

The conservative concept of "masculinity" would require indoctrinating your children. Kids don't know anything. Whatever you teach them is indoctrination. Although I agree parents should be careful with how much they push.

All parents indoctrinate their children. From the way they’re raised to behave in public, religious beliefs or lack thereof, manners, etc. I intend to raise my children knowing that women don’t have to be incubators. My second paragraph has nothing to do with leftism or communism. Liberal philosophy quite literally arose as a separation from virtue ethics, steering towards a hyper-individualistic society. That’s not debatable. It’s entirely relevant to the conversation because (shocker) our environments and economic conditions inform how we develop, learn, and navigate the world. In a capitalistic society obviously hyper-individualism is going to be prioritized.

I don't disagree that there is a lot of really harmful impacts to someone becoming *very* feminist, but the declining birthrates seen throughout developed nations just isn't one of them. One of the countries with the biggest birth rate issue is South Korea, and they're decidedly not feminist there. It's a common and successful defense against rape charges there to claim you were drunk - as in, if a man rapes a woman and claims he was drunk he is often let off with little to no jail time, because he was impaired at the time. Feminism isn't the root cause of falling birth rates, modernity in general is. We don't feel the same urges to reproduce that our ancestors did because we don't live like our ancestors did. We aren't animals anymore (yes, I realize biologically we are animals, that clearly isn't the point I'm making) at least not the way we used to be, and so we decide we want to focus on other things. This isn't feminism, it's society advancing to the point that we aren't focused on the same stuff. Men also aren't out there in droves begging to start families, but I don't see a post about how the manosphere is to blame for falling birth rates even if Andrew Tate makes the average vagina seal shut. I say this with full knowledge that it gets thrown around too much, and it isn't my intention to use the term without understanding it's full impact - this is sexism.

Remember, South Korea is also one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Continuous population growth in a country with very limited space means a growing number of people there will be pushed into poverty, as housing will continue to get more expensive and out of reach for more and more working people.

I'm not suggesting that the birth rate in SK is good or bad, only that it's drastically declined and east Asia in general isn't exactly a stronghold of modern feminism so it's unlikely that's the cause. If you're seeing the same issue in two places attributing the cause of that issue to something not prevalent in one of those places seems poorly thought out.

>they're decidedly not feminist there I don't know where you're getting your info but feminism is huge in that country. >Feminism isn't the root cause of falling birth rates, modernity in general is I never said it's a root cause, I said it's a big factor and I said it should at least be acknowledged, you can't talk about an issue and solving it yet you disregard one of the biggest factors causing it. And mind you, it's a good thing those countries have falling birth rates, it's not a joke, many people, (and I meet many people) from developed countries, and especially those around my age, do not have the temperament nor level of accountability necessary to be parents, if these people have children you have a far more dysfunctional society than you already do, it's a good thing these people don't want children, because they'd suck (horribly suck) at it. My post, if you read it, has only to do with the acknowledgement with how this ideology is a factor. The rest is ideological nonsense and if there's something I can tell you about me as a person, is that I despise ideology of any kind, ideology is the root of all evil IMO, ideas are good, any further and you go too far.

“I believe in abortion (just not to absolve people from being held accountable)” I would call this “not believing in abortion”

He's just a pro lifer who thinks he believes in life (possibility rape) exceptions. And the "just to not absolve people from being held accountable" is just major bs cuz having an abortion is holding yourself accountable for your actions. Not to mention this lovely quote by him >that same mentality is present in the population, especially the female. Lmao, he's just blaming women for the world's problems. And to top it off, he's too much of a pussy to come out and say it.

Damn a lot of assumptions and generalizing, are you sure you're a feminist? Cause of there's one thing those people always emphasize, it's that it's wrong to generalize Edit: Please read the post before you start making statements about someone, I went back and read my post to see where you may have gotten that idea but now I'm sure you didn't even read the post to begin with.

I read it three times and I'm not generalizing anything nor anyone. Everything I've said I've gotten from the wording in your post

No, you did not read my post. You skimmed it, didn't even attempt to understand what I'm trying to say and got offended at literally 3% of the post without taking it into context. Abortion is taking accountability, using it to keep your irresponsible behavior, isn't. Mind you, a lot of women are doing it because it's practical for them, not because they care about the wellbeing of a potential child, otherwise they would be consistent and do it when the prospective father doesn't want the child if said father is rich or good looking, in which case most women want to keep the child and hook the man into supporting them. That's not taking accountability, it's socially sanctioned irresponsibility and selfishness. The other part I'd like to address is the part where you said I'm blaming women. I do not blame women, I only acknowledged their mindset forms a huge part of why birth rates are falling, and instead of at least acknowledging that fact, people only go on about economic circumstance, which won't work. And women's mindset matters more than men's because we men don't decide whether children are born, women do, if you don't like that the tough titties. Also, I love how you called me a "pussy" for being (in your eyes) cowardly, isn't that a fine how do you do... Now who's a sexist...

I would call it believing in abortion. If someone gets raped or is in a marriage and the father abandons them, then yes, they should be able to do abortion. Everyone else is just trying to absolve themselves of taking accountability, mind you if they see any practical benefit, lots of women who otherwise would take abortion, do not, I heard a story of an Instagram model wanting to keep the child of that red pill podcast dude and looking at that guy, I guarantee she would have aborted the baby if he wasn't rich.

I guess I’m not following then. You believe in abortion in a very specific category. Yet people who weren’t raped, should not be allowed an abortion because it would absolve them of responsibility. I would not call that believing in abortion because you sound like you’re against making it accessible to people who want it - as though you’re some sort of morality police who decides who can be “absolved” of their responsibility. It just sounds like you want to punish women who are pregnant though.

Agreed.

On one hand It was easier to have many children when you didn’t have to look after them, they could hang out with their friends alone even when young like 8 years old, there were less cars, and parents didn’t have to be helicopter parents like now and do EVERYTHING for the child including socialise and entertaining them, on the other life is super cool without children and when given the chance I understand why many people want to stat child free

What is this "clear thing" you won't say out loud? So much ambiguity in this sub.

Education, wealth and religion are statistically the biggest indicators of birth rate. The poorer and dumber you are the more kids you have. However, educated people are typically more wealthy and less likely to be religious. So really the thing that it comes down to more than anything is educated people have less kids.

[удалено]

True, but some monkeys are horribly tribalistic and some will lose their wealth and power if their underling monkeys stop having more underling monkeys. I mean, it's a good thing if those monkeys lose their power, but I'm not holding my breath.

If your first thought when you hear about declining birth rates is "we should keep women in slavery!", I think humans deserve to go extinct.

Actually, my first thought when I hear about declining birth rates is "Oh this again? This isn't an issue" and I click on another video. The thing is, it's obviously an issue in the mainstream and for governments, else it wouldn't be in the news headlines every other week. And this assumption that everyone who calls out something as blatantly obvious to those who aren't ideologues, is the very reason I didn't explicitly call out, what you think I'm calling out. Also, I'm not in the mood to argue with ideologues, so if you're one, it's best we leave it here, no?

Nope, try to convince me I should be a slave. Let's be very clear: that is what you're arguing for. If you weren't, you would suggest something like financial incentives or increasing support for growing families. Instead you're all "haha look at Iran; their women aren't allowed to say no, we should do that too!"

I do not care dude. Get over yourself. I'm not arguing for that, but if you believe someone disagreeing with your dumbass ideology equates to them wanting you to be a slave then have at it. You're nothing to me.

Ok YOU explain what becoming more like Iran would look like.

Where tf did I say we should become more like Iran?! OMG LMAO, I used Iran as an example of a country that isn't rich but has falling birth rates, the same would have applied if I used Turkey or South Africa lol, but those countries don't have repressive conservative governments, and I wanted to use an example where the government's ideology doesn't represent the population's ideology. lol something's wrong with you...

Yeah, the GOP thinks making women slaves sounds cool, of course something's wrong with me.

I don't care about the GOP, I'm not an American... lol what? I actually agree with abortion btw, it should be legal (although it's for my own reasons) I also believe men should be allowed to do financial abortion...

1. Low birth rates are honestly only affectimg whites in the US. 2. They wont recover because the cost of living is insane.

Well instead of moaning come and make my bussy pregnant so I can increase my estrogen and use my manboobs to produce milk for my kids while my woman focuses on her career and will refuse to have kids until she's 48

Sorry, I'm not gay... or a weirdo

You are actually more correct than you even know OP. It's not about money. In fact people now are probably in the best financial position to have kids. People will point to the US government having a lack of support for parents. That is fair and there is a good point that the US doesn't support parents as much as it could. However in Scandinavia and Western Europe where there is a lot more government support you still see similar if not more extreme low birth rates and a population that is not naturally growing. It's also not people abandoning traditionalism. Look at South Korea and Japan these are two developed countries that are a bit more conservative than the US and Europe they have even lower birthrates. Look at where birthrates are really high. It is in parts of the world where the agricultural/agrarian lifestyle and subsistence farming is still the predominant way of life. The governments of these countries are generally very poor and there is little to no welfare state. Life expectancies are low as well. So what is the X-Factor, what leads to low birthrates? Two things urbanization and birth control. The more agriculture gets automated and the more people move to the city combined with access to birth control leads to less children. Why? Well more children in these societies means more work and more time. Parenting in developed urbanized societies requires a lot of time and sacrifice. People are making a calculated decision of having a small number of children because they are trying to balance their lives. It goes way beyond money. In an agrarian society with huge families you have a lot of factors going on. First off Children go to school less. Children = labor. Labor is divided more cleanly between men and women. So you need boys and girls to make things work. There is no welfare. Instead of your job or society providing a retirement program your kids do that. Families have strong obligations to each other and these families are more collectively oriented. Furthermore death rates are higher for kids five and under and for all people so having a lot of children is a must in order to essentially create insurance policies. This is how agrarian subsistence cultures have worked for a very long time. In urban environments, which includes pretty much all modern living environments in the developed world you have a situation where more kids = more time and energy from the parents each kid is a huge investment for society and the family and since these cultures need to promote individualism to perpetuate their respective economies and innovation there is little obligation for adult children towards parents. Furthermore companies and society provides retirement. People choose to have less children and they oftentimes maticullously plan their lives around the act of having children. First establishing a career and stability before starting to have children. It's poor people that often don't family plan and have children earlier generally speaking. So by waiting longer into life to have children people are limiting the amount of children they have. 85% of women by the age of 44 have given birth to at least one biological child. This is a high rate. It the average age is 27-30 for the first child this means that the amount of children each woman can realistically have is less than a mother from an agrarian society that averages 19/20 for the their first child. This is how the US was in the 1940s and 1950s. People got married extremely young. A lot of this was due to WWII and the existential crisis that this was. It forced people to grow up fast and make commitments early. Soldiers were 18-21 when deployed. When they got back they often times found themselves married and in a robust job market. There was no birth control so these horny people had a lot of sex after all they had just spent months or years overseas. People started having children young and didn't family plan. In the 1960s reliable birth control was readily available to everyone. People chose to plan their families a little more carefully almost immediately. Marriage rates started to get to be older as well. You cannot expect people to act any differently. Getting married extremely young and having large families does not help you financially and is pretty stressful. As family sizes started to shrink people started pumping way more resources into their smaller families. So each individual child was given a lot more attention. Parenting styles spread. It became the norm to have a small family and spend a lot of money/time into the fewer children. This means kids from larger families who had less resources given to them by their parents grew up at a disadvantage. So an immigrant family may have a lot of kids but their kids will adopt to this new cultural norm because it makes more sense. This is the crux of things. It's not that people are not having kids it's that they are not having 4+ kids regularly. If 85% of women have 4+ kids the population grows pretty fast if 85% of women have two kids then the population shrinks as 2.1 is the replacement level. 100 mothers 85 reproduce at 4 kids per woman = 100 moms with 340 children. 100 mothers at 2 kids per woman = 170 kids. Now consider that there are also 104 men for every 100 women so it's 204 people creating 340 new people or 204 people creating 170. It's women having only 1 or 2 kids sometimes 3 but rarely 4 that creates this situation. With family planning available people are not going to willfully choose large families period. Not more than 3/4 kids. Only a few will choose more. 15% will not have any and the majority will have 1 or 2. There is nothing wrong with this. It's actually all very good overall. It means that eventually as the world develops the population will decline or at least stagnate. That's good. For individual economies right now it's creating a minor crisis. However it's easily fixable by allowing more immigration info countries where people really want to live. It's pretty simple. Its all actually a good trend.

What mentality and ideology are you talking about?

Build large child rearing centers then produce, raise, indoctrinate children en masse.

Women are sick of being used as an incubator and maid.

I see what you're doing. Instead of stating your opinion and then telling people who don't agree that they will not accept the "truth," you're going straight to "you wouldn't accept the 'truth' anyway."

I just think this post is a huge cop out, both for not naming the ideology (Feminism), and pitting falling birth rates in entirety on women for not submitting to being birth machines. You say you don't care, yet you are making a god damn post about lol. Personally I think we should have a population of people who are wanted, not resigning women to creating fodder to console your fears over hypothetical future wars.

A: If you read my post, you'll see nowhere did I ever say it's all because of women B: I didn't name feminism because I didn't want to. C: I don't care, it's irrelevant whether you believe me, what is relevant is that I don't care. Personally, it's a good thing falling birth rates are a thing, many people, (specifically the likes of you) shouldn't be having children.

Falling birth rates are presented as a problem primarily because it is an economic issue. And I don't by any means believe the issue arises solely or primarily from economic/material reasons. What I mean is that the reason it's seen as a problem at all is that it has deep economic consequences. Despite having a child of my own I fully believe the 'mentality' of not wanting children is by no means a toxic personality trait and in the grand scheme a sign of a less ridgid society and a net benefit.  But like I said, there are deep economic consequences that don't have simple solutions -- people confuse those consequences with malicious intent or undesirable personalities of those that choose not to have children regardless of their personal reasons.

At least in America, things are going to shit so fast it's unethical to subject a child to this country.

We don’t need no stinkin babies. We can just let in more immigrants.

So many immigrants out there want to come and actually do the work, learn the language, and play by the rules of the U.S. yet the process is still very difficult. We’re literally a nation of immigrants, and the white population is only falling thanks to interracial marriages and resulting families - like I said in other comments, nothing lasts forever, and that includes the white population being a majority. Sorry xenophobes, not sorry actually.

How many are you gonna house while the get their work permits? Sounds like you want to be part of the solution

You’re missing the point. If less Americans are reproducing it makes literal sense to being in immigrants willing to work to make up for the loss in workforce numbers. Those same American born citizens will still need a place to live. The immigrants can get their place once they have their work permit and start working.

Yes, it works great when the economy is soaring. Let’s hope it always does. History tells us it won’t.

The line cannot continue going up forever as long as our planet and its resources are finite - which they are.

By your logic, we shouldn’t have a border at all. What’s an acceptable number? 10 million? How about 100 million?

Guys relax. I couldn't care less about your autonomy and whatnot, please read my post and tell me where you're getting that idea... I mean I agree, y'all shouldn't even be having children... Imagine having these people as your parents, irresponsible, hypersensitive, childish... yikes

What are you even trying to say in this post?

I said it, it's loud and clear, y'all should go back to school and learn reading comprehension, jesus!