The feminist zeitgeist in the media

[Santa]

I didn't forget to mention any of that, I just didn't see the need.

1 million people: 500,000 men, 500,000 women. If on average they have 1 child, that means 500,000 people will be the next generation.

500,000 people: 250,000 men, 250,000 women. If on average they have 1 child, that means 125,000 children will be the next generation.

Repeat again and again. Simple.

 

I could be wrong, but im guessing you visited cities Like London and Paris etc.The reason they are over crowded is because mostly of immigrants (I am from an immigrant family myself). If you go out of the cities, and into the country side, you will see it's not like that. Also, what I have talked about hasn't really become noticiable yet, because the older generations are still alive. The process will take a very long time, maybe hundreds of years. However, I doubt you will even notice then, because immigrant families like my own will interbreed. The native population however will still decrease, either due to not being replaced, or by interbreeding.

I strongly suggest you look at the Sweden as an example, and Scotland. Sweden introduced many efforts to try to get people to have children, but failed.

About the large families - yes it was mainly due to many of the children dieing, but on average like 3 children would survive maybe, which will expand the population. Most old people I know have a like 2 or 3 brothers/sisters.

[annie24]

I've been all over europe - big cities and small villages. Well - the earth's population overall is rapidly increasing, so I think talking the women of sweden and scotland into giving up their careers to have more children isn't really necessary.

[Santa]

You are right, yet wrong. The worlds population is increasing, but decreasing in Europe.

 

You just need to do a simple search on google, like "europes population decreasing" to find loads of evidence.

 

Also, you wasn't alive 100 years ago, so how can you compare? And as I said, it's too early to compare.

No offence, but I trust scientists and the government more than your personal opinion.

 

Also I never said Sweden etc were trying to get women not to work, I said they were trying to encourage them to have children.

[Santa]

link removed

 

Enjoy.

[annie24]

Santa - guess what - I am a scientist! What I said was correct - the overall population of the earth is increasing. I think that the bigger problem is controlling population growth in underdeveloped countries, not native population declines coupled with increased immigration in europe.

 

What do you propose? Should all the women of europe tell their husbands that they will be quitting their jobs to have more children, so the husband will have to take this financial burden all on his own? Do you think that men nowadays would appreciate being the sole providers for their larger families?

[Santa]

Mate, stop digging yourself into a deeper hole!

 

Population of world is going up. Population of Europe is going down. Europe is more feminist than say Iran (or the old Afghanistan) maybe.

It's just common sense that the population is going down because people arnt having children, because they want to work instead.

 

And about being a scientist, well you could be a scientist in space flight, which has nothing to do with this. If you are a scientist in the european population decreasing, then I will see this as a valid point, and strongly suggest you go and tell the other scientists etc they are wrong.

 

It's not about what I suggest we do, as it's not for me to make that decission. However, I have outlined very briefly about some kind of robotic nanny, or just normal nannies being common.

 

You seem to be trying to suggest i'm against women's rights, but i'm not.

 

End of this mini discussion.

[annie24]

I haven't dug myself into any hole. The earth's population is rapidly rising, despite population decreases in some countries. I'm quite frankly a lot more concerned about all the AIDS orphans in Africa, rather than Swedish couples that only have one child.

 

I know of couples who have 2,3, or 4 jobs between them, not because they are work-a-holics, but out of necessity, to make ends meet. I'm not sure that this is so much the consequence of feminism, but because of economic forces.

 

Robotic nannies are your solution?

[DN]

Why does it matter if the birth rate in Europe is falling?

[asdf]

ergh... i don't see how you can say feminism is bad for evolution. there's no such thing as good or bad in terms of evolution, it's just about adaptability. if you mean it decreases the population of humans over time, then... you may have a point.

 

it is a trend lately that the birth rate/population increase rate in more "developed countries" is lower than in less developed countries. this is partly due to feminism i guess, but more in terms of quality of life. In places like USA, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Australia, etc, parents want to be able to provide their kids with good schooling, college funds, etc, and thus save up a lot of money for their children, and can't afford to have many of these children. In the less developed places, where a bright education isn't as allowable, and there's lots of prostitution, some prostitutes will have many children. Also, countries which are primarily agricultural may have many children to help out the family out. And if they don't have as much access to modern medicine, they

 

Feminism isn't really the cause of the divergence of birthrates, but it's a symptom of developing countries, just as lower birthrates are. So it's not that feminism causes this trend, but is a symptom of the same cause.

[annie24]

I was watching this on CNN - To raise a child in the United States from birth to 18 years, it costs $200,000! Now - imagine having more than one child!!! Mind you - this doesn't even include college! Of course people in developed countries are going to think twice before having 4-5 kids, like in other countries, where they may be needed to help out on the farm...

[corvidae]

I just want to stick in a word about populations in Europe. As a UK dweller, and thereforeeee a European, I must say there that is no current widespread concern about decreasing populations, certainly not in the UK. In fact, Santa's post is the first I've heard about it and I'm not in the least bit convinced. Many families, particularly at the lower end of the spectrum, still have multiple children. As for working parents, well both my parents worked and they managed to raise me and my brother just fine. The culture here in the UK is very much for having more than one child; having a brother or sister is seen as a very positive thing, and virtually all my friends have at least one sibling. Really, I think while robot nannies sound fun, really you just need sensible planning and some flexibility on the part of the employers.

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

You don't have to spend $200,000 to raise a child. It can be done very cheaply!!!! TOo many parents waste money on thier children....everything can be cheap if you shop at Value Village and other cheap places, rather than buying everything new. The problem is not children...its how North Americans waste thier money!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I was watching this on CNN - To raise a child in the United States from birth to 18 years, it costs $200,000! Now - imagine having more than one child!!! Mind you - this doesn't even include college! Of course people in developed countries are going to think twice before having 4-5 kids, like in other countries, where they may be needed to help out on the farm...

[annie24]

Hey - I'm just giving you the answer that was on CNN.

 

$200,000 for 18 years, that's $11,111 USD per year. Remember - this includes rent, food, water, electricity, medical bills, prescriptions... Kids get sick A LOT!!! Crib, diapers, diapers, diapers, toddler bed, teenager bed, Clothing, clothing, clothing, health insurance, braces, glasses, school supplies, little league uniform, school picture fees, prom, SAT prep classes, college application fees, car insurance, gas to drive your kids around..... all these things add up! Fast!

[DN]

Hey - I'm just giving you the answer that was on CNN.

 

$200,000 for 18 years, that's $11,111 USD per year. Remember - this includes rent, food, water, electricity, medical bills, prescriptions... Kids get sick A LOT!!! Crib, diapers, diapers, diapers, toddler bed, teenager bed, Clothing, clothing, clothing, health insurance, braces, glasses, school supplies, little league uniform, school picture fees, prom, SAT prep classes, college application fees, car insurance, gas to drive your kids around..... all these things add up! Fast!

 

and ... therapists bills (for you), bribes for chores, allowances, dentists bills for your teeth grinding sessions, hair loss treatments for repair of hair-tearing out sessions, car repair costs after they get a license - - oh, believe me, we haven't covered half of it!!!

[asdf]

children are expensive, especially for personal development purposes (school fees, music lessons, sports gear, etc). Not to mention that it is not uncommon to have a children which require long term medication if they have a disease/syndrome of sorts.

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

The reason why raising children is so expensive is because many parents waste money on unnecessary things. Here are some examples:

 

1. Food: Food is relatively cheap in Western nations if you shop around and buy in bulk. The problem is that many parents take thier kids out to fast food several times a week, wasting huge amounts of money. My family only went out to dinner (even to McDonalds) once every 4 months of so!!!!! They saved A LOT of money (and aren't as fat as some people I know....haha).

 

2. Electricity: We waste so much electricity in North America...it goes to running TV's (that we don't need...get outside and play some games) or computers (oops, I am wasting electricity (and time) right now)!! Also, you can save electricity by remembering to turn off lights when you are not in the room!!!!

 

3. Cribs and baby items: I know so many parents who wasted HUGE amounts of money buying new baby items...buy them second hand!! YOu can save soooooo much!!!! As long as the items are safe and in reasonable condition, you can buy almost everything (except diapers) 2nd hand that you would need for a baby

 

4. Why do you need to buy a toddler bed, a teenage, bed, and adult bed? I have had only ONE bed!!!!! I sleep in the same bed I did when I was a child. Stop wasting trees!!!! Buy one bed, and keep it for all off childhood and teenagehood

 

5. Clothes are cheap!!! Have you ever been to Value Village? Even Walmart and bulk places have good clothes!!!! You can even get bargains at "expensive stores." I am wearing an outfit that cost $30 (pants and shirts)...i know other people who would purchase the same outfit for $80 because they are lazy and don't look around. Save money!!!! $$$$$

 

6. Why do you need private health insurance? Most nations have a reasonable public health care system.

 

7. I was shocked at how much some parents spend on children's school supplies. My parents would spend around $10 for each of us. Ten dollars buys a few pens and pencils, paper, erasers, and pencil sharpners. What else do you need? Maybe a calculator, but that would be a ONE time purchase!!!

 

8. School picture fees? Have you ever heard of Walmart photos?????

 

9. Prom dressses can be made by hand. My mom made my sisters prom dress!!! My mom is so awesome!!!!!!!!!

 

10. SAT prep classes? Is that a joke? Students do well if they study hard themselves. They don't need prep classes...what a joke!! Doing well on your exams is a result of individual effort and determination, not stupid prep classes. (I never took classes, and I got into an awesome university...I worked hard!!!!!!)

 

11. Parents paying for thier kids car insurance??? Is that another joke? My parents won't even pay for my bus pass!!!!!!

 

12. Gas is expensive, so there is a good solution: Walk!!!! Get out of that car. Cars make people lazy and fat. Cars are responsible for America's (and the Western world's) obesity epedemic!!!!!!!!! Walk, take the bus, ride your bike, car pool!!!!!!! Also, you can meet hot girls on the bus...you won't meet any in your car.

 

Raising a child can be cheap if you want it to. Its your choice. I intend on raising 4 children when I am a parent (two of my own, two adopted) and I know money won't be an issue. If people were wiser with thier money (and time) then everyone could raise multiple children.

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

There are even more ways to save money!!!!!

 

DN, did you really bribe your kids to get them to do chores? My parents simply yelled at me if I didn't do my chores. All children should do chores!!!!!!!!! My parents did pay me 5 to 15 cents per chore, to a maximum of around 25-30 cents a week. Thats right. I would get just 25 cents to 30 cents a week. It would take a couple of weeks just to buy a can of coke!!!

 

And my parents never gave me a free allowance. I had to earn all my money doing chores, up to 30 cents a week. Even prisons get paid more for doing "work" in prison.

 

As for car repair costs, if kids reck the car, they will have to pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Music lesson? What a joke!!! WHat good does music lessons do if you are not going to be a musician. Thats a bit like everyone taking accounting lessons even though very few people will one day be accountants. I never had music lessons, and I am not giving my kids music lesssons.

 

Sports gear? My parents know where to get that....garage sales!!!!!

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

Also, I am equally outraged about students who rack up tens of thousands of dollars of expenses because they live on residence at a university rather than commuting. Over a four year degree, living on residence will add up to around $30,000!! What a waste...and some parents even pay for it. Now I understand why living on residence might be necessary for students who come from rural areas. But I know for a fact that most students on residence (at least at my university) don't come from rural areas where their are no colleges or universities. They are just ignorant and immature people who waste thier parents' money!!!!

[DN]

I was actually joking - no, of course I did not bribe them. But they did get allowances. Between them they were involved in four accidents. one of which wrote off my Taurus, but only one was their fault (only because she was driving in a snow-storm when she had been told not to) but the insurance paid.

[annie24]

Also, I am equally outraged about students who rack up tens of thousands of dollars of expenses because they live on residence at a university rather than commuting. Over a four year degree, living on residence will add up to around $30,000!! What a waste...and some parents even pay for it. Now I understand why living on residence might be necessary for students who come from rural areas. But I know for a fact that most students on residence (at least at my university) don't come from rural areas where their are no colleges or universities. They are just ignorant and immature people who waste thier parents' money!!!!

 

What if you mother can't sew a prom dress or a tuxedo? Ever heard the expression "Time is money?" How is a woman who doesn't know how to sew supposed to make a prom dress or a tuxedo for her kid? Should she take sewing lessons, and thereforeeee, she has to get a baby-sitter to watch her kids while she is off learning how to sew? Now that's a waste of money. It is easier, faster, and you'll get a better product if you she just bought her daughter a prom dress.

 

Ignorant and immature for going away to college? Wow - that's very close-minded way of looking at things. You have to remember that college is more than books and tests. It is about learning about different people, different cultures. I made life-long friendships in the dorms - I could never put a price on those. I talk every day with my best friend who lived next door to me my freshman year. The late-night pizza parties, the all-night cram sessions in the dorm lounge, the sense of community and friendships - those are things you can't get living with your parents.

[annie24]

Sorry - this is now going waaaayy off topic. Sorry Corvidae! If anyone is interested, they can start this discussion in a new thread.

 

I would like to say that I, as a modern woman, have absolutely no interest in raising 4 children. I enjoy my field of work, and I would keep working even if I won the lottery and I had enough money to last the rest of my life.

[asdf]

Music lesson? What a joke!!! WHat good does music lessons do if you are not going to be a musician. Thats a bit like everyone taking accounting lessons even though very few people will one day be accountants. I never had music lessons, and I am not giving my kids music lesssons.

 

So you'd want your kids lives to revolve simply around their career? I'd like to have kids that have hobbies and interests outside that, and at least exposing them to music first, and if they like it, they can take it up, if they can't, they don't have to.

 

Music is helpful in other areas of learning too, as it simulates the brain with pattern recognition. Kids who study music are known to do better in maths and science.

 

And anyway, the point was not the necessity oh things. If you live by the bare minimum, you don't even have to pay for schooling. The point was, in first world countries, most parents would prefer to spend more on their children's quality of life.

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

I want my children to have lots of hobbies...but only hobbies that don't cost anything.

 

ie. going to beach...doesn't cost anything....

 

playing football...doesn't cost anything (except the cost of a football....maybe $30???)

 

LOTS OF HOBBIES ARE FREE!!!!

[ShySoul]

I_love_rain,

 

You can have hobbies that are cheap and live rather inexpensive. I'm that way in that I don't need much to keep me entertained. I read alot and have a couple of games that for like 30 dollars every six months can keep me entertained for as long as my imagine holds out. You can also save money in a lot of other ways, so I get what you are saying.

 

However, not everyone is like that. And somethings are worth the cost. If your child was really into music and wanted to learn an instrument, you would want to do whatever you could to make the child happy. Seeing her face light up when doing what she loves to do would make you smile. You'd be so proud when she has a recital. The cost doesn't compare to that kind of joy.

 

You can have a balance. The family doesn't need all kinds of expensive things, you don't need that huge TV set you can get by with a smaller one. The kids don't need to take lessons in karate, piano, and four or five other things. But you can still afford to give yourselfs treats now and then like a nice, relaxing vacation. You can give your child an expensive hobby if that is the one thing they really want. And if they want to go away to college, you guys can find a way. Scholarships, loans... as long as they go where they really want to go and are happy.

[asdf]

If anybody else is interested in the topic of First world nation individuals having less children than third world nation individuals, and has a basic understanding in evolutionary biology, take a look at these sites:

 

link removed

 

link removed

 

Basically, it's saying that in a stable environment (such as a civilised first world country), a male's chance for reproducing surviving offspring depends on the amount of nurture and caring they put on their children, because skillls to gain resources is crucial in competition. Whereas in a third world country where the environment it less predictable, the strategy for a male reproducing surviving offspring depends on just having as many children as possible.

 

It's like the difference between sniping a standing target or machine gunning a moving target, if you understand the analogy.