this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1742 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
6857 readers
1084 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading comprehension much?
I never said it was acceptable to walk back on women rights, I said it's something that people who want to see a higher birthrate will have to fight against because it's not happening otherwise. I couldn't give more of a crap about increasing birthrate, I won't have kids by choice. I do give a fucking crap about women rights though!
I mentioned historical statistics because you can look back at times before climate change and wealth inequality worried anyone and birthrate was going down as women rights increased and contraception became readily available.
So, conclusion, if women are given the right to do more with their lives than being mothers and if contraceptives are made available, couples will make the decision not to have enough kids to renew the population, no matter how easy it is to have them, as we can see in all developed countries where socio economic inequality is lower than in the US. Scandinavian countries don't renew their population without immigration and haven't for a fucking long time, in Finland birthrate went below renewal rate before WW2 for fuck's sake!
It's the most horrendous correlation-is-causation I've ever seen.
And people outside US have it better, but the trajectory is mostly the same everywhere, so you're just full of shit.
It's not easy to have children ANYWHERE, and in most places it just too expensive or downright impossible due to childcare issues or tons of other things.
I'm talking about historic data and you're unable to understand what that means in terms of variation in quality of life over time. Even when people could make it on a single income they didn't have 2.1 kids if they had the means to prevent it.
Hell, millionaires and billionaires don't have enough kids to renew the population either, but I guess you will find some way to not understand that either.
What the fuck are you on about?
"Billionares are parenting on average 2.99 children"
It's you who mixes shit with stats and acting tough.
Shut up.
Wrong again
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369921158_Fertility_behavior_at_the_top_of_socioeconomic_hierarchy
1.05 kids for the ones under 45, will you look at that, just like everyone else in their generation, they don't have kids!
I have no clue if you're a bot or just an unbearable asshole, but you are proving me right by showing that PEOPLE DECIDE NOT TO HAVE KIDS WHEN THE WORLD IS FUCKING BURNING, yet those who were born earlier and had all the contraception and womens rights HAD NO ISSUE WHEN THEY HAD THE WEALTH.
GTFO
You think billionaires care about the world turning to shit? It doesn't affect them!
Anyone with half a brain understands that outside world will be fucked, and raising kids in bunkers is not fun.