The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Feminism and the birth rate > Comments

Feminism and the birth rate : Comments

By Paul McFadyen, published 21/7/2017

The key factor in studying the birth rate, an obvious factor sometimes overlooked by men, is that it is women, not men, who decide.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A good summary of our population problem.
Several steps could be taken to restore a healthy reproductive society to Australia. They all involve bringing our taxation system in line with the reality that the Australian nuclear family faces. Let procreation capable couples elect to be taxed as a unit at twice the amount applicable to half the total income less a fixed figure for each child supported.
For such couples no baby bonus nor child care or education support but allow child care cost and cost of travel to work as a deduction.
This would encourage people with high incomes to have more children who would be well resourced and discourage people of limited income ability from producing under- resourced children.
For people without children who complain that they are taxed unfairly I would point out that when they are old and need support it will be nurses, police, doctors, gardeners, housekeepers etc, brought up at the cost of the patriarchal nuclear family who will be providing that support.
Posted by Old Man, Friday, 21 July 2017 9:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the most recent census, there are now more women than men in Australia? Which ought to mean they decide everything? Not the least of which is the law o the land, or what (incubation) use their bodies are subject to!

And as such, the rate at which each individual women gives birth must remain indubitably, on the basis of fully informed consent! End of story!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 21 July 2017 11:02:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One other factor in this is the family court.

Women with children can choose at any time to walk out of a mirage or relationship, & take over 70% of the assets of the couple with them.

I know quite a few men who have had the snip, so they can not find themselves in that situation.

On the other side of the coin, how many children, claimed to be due to a failure of contraception, were definitely planned by a lady?
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 21 July 2017 11:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, people argue we need to reduce the global population which is true for the developing world. On the other hand, most if not all western countries actually need to drastically increase their birthrates...the EU birthrate is something like 1.5 which has led to the massive debt problems, terrorism, the sexual assault crisis, and the destruction of the absolutely necessary social contract.
Its hard to imagine what else the boomers could have done to make the West weaker for young people. Generation Z are now faced with rebuilding western civilisation from the ground up while shackled with trillions of dollars in debt. Quite the sad state of affairs.
Posted by progressive pat, Friday, 21 July 2017 11:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reduction in the birth rate can be largely attributed to the introduction of the contraceptive pill and has nothing to do with feminism.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 21 July 2017 11:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
feminism has usually equalled selfishness. Obviously some exceptions. Strange part is that it also often ends in bitterness and regret.
Posted by runner, Friday, 21 July 2017 12:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does the Handmaid's Tale baby maketh strategy offer a logical solution?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale#Plot_summary
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 21 July 2017 1:08:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of the Handmaids Tale (or more correctly tail or buttocks) why not do a search on Mike Pence and the Handmaids Tale.
Plus Mike Pence and John Hagee too.
Pence and his fellow traveling (no-fun)fundamentalists certainly know where are womans "proper" place should be, summed up in the old-time patriarchal trinity of kinder-kuche-kirche
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 21 July 2017 3:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Daffy Duck

Yes, I thought Pence was a sensible man, compared to that low life Trump, until I read about the Pence Curse - his UNHAPPY CLAPPY fundamentalist Christianity.

See http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339222-protestors-in-handmaids-tale-clothing-greet-pence-at-colorado-speech records

"Vice President Pence was greeted by protestors cloaked in red robes outside a Friday speech in Colorado.

The protestors’ dress was an homage to the TV series and book “The Handmaid’s Tale,” in which women are treated as male property. One protestor carried a sign that read “Stop targeting women’s healthcare,” according to a photo posted on Twitter.

...The protest was staged outside of Pence's planned speech to Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian organization that takes strong conservative stances on political issues including abortion."

____________________________________________

Separately, and at the risk of offending some.

There exists a free speech satire Youtube of the Handmaid's Tale, that Pokes (forgive me) fun at many things:

Pray this comment duth not getteth the snip: http://youtu.be/ciPszqk703k - don't miss the last 40 seconds - the Handmaid's basketball game.

Praise be.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 21 July 2017 3:32:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Countries wishing to reduce the birth rate should promote feminism and those wishing to increase the birth rate should promote Patriarchiality."
The counterexample of Japan shows just how silly that approach would be.

Aside from which, social engineering can be a bad thing, and when it doesn't respect people's rights it's ALWAYS a bad thing.

Rather than limiting people's opportunities in order to enable women to "partner equal and up", try addressing their desire to.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 21 July 2017 8:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Slightly off-topic: from the Census results, it is clear that, for the Indigenous population, 'natural growth' due to the balance of births and deaths, amounted to about 30,000 over the 2011 population of 548,000. Over five years. A rise of about 5.5 % in five years. So an annual increase from births of about 1 %.

Clearly, the Indigenous birth-rate is lower than the Australian average. Perhaps it has been for many years now, masked by the huge numbers 're-identifying'. I would suggest that, since the 1971 Census, around 80 % of Indigenous population 'growth' has been from identification, not from births.

Discuss :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 21 July 2017 9:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe so Joe? in any event, DNA testing will sort who is or isn't an authentic indigenous Aborigine? Given they as a sub species, retain some Netherlander genes, whereas those arriving here later from mixed Caucasian stock, apparently have none?

One of the things that really burns me are urban black activists, whose ancestry is mainly white and not a single Netherlander gene to bless themselves with!? Purporting to speak to traditional black concerns and land rights etc!

Particularly those who want to be compensated for lost land and traditional hunting rights etc!

Me and my claims need far more thorough definitive testing, not vote hunting pollies just rolling over and begging for a tummy rub and surrendering stuff not theirs to give away!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 21 July 2017 10:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

With respect, you and I have Neanderthal genes (I'm assuming you have European ancestry), but Aboriginal people here don't, unless they have European ancestry too: they may have Denisovian genes, from the groups who went north into and through central Asia sixty or more thousand years ago, then a part of which moved (probably through population pressure) down through what is now China to SE Asia, joined up their with their distant cousins coming across Asia through India, and on to Australia. Neanderthals were more or less strictly European/Mediterranean.

Your suggestion about DNA is interesting: bona fide Indigenous people would have either a maternal DNA, a paternal DNA,or both - or at least RNA (given my very limited understanding of DNA). People with no Indigenous ancestry wouldn't. Even so, I'm inclined to believe that any welfare support (if that's what this is about) should be provided on the basis of need.

Cheers (before my bastard computer plays up again: am I on the NBN ? I must be, because the service seems so lousy, this post has taken me half an hour, dropping in and out, etc.).

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 22 July 2017 1:17:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was a coordinated scare campaign about the population and sustainability of Australia and conducted by academics, government (politicians to be more correct) and the media, that put pressure on the Australian population to achieve Zero Population Growth (ZPG).

At the same time, there was always the angst from the feds and 'experts' in the media about 'that' post-WW2 'hump' in population. It was to be used time and time again to excuse lack of, and poor planning, by the federal governments. It was a 'hump' that kept on giving.

Strangely enough at the same time the feds were maintaining and ramping up migrant intake to ever new records.

The always compliant Australian population obliged and ZPG was quickly realised. Federal governments moved to up the migrant intake.

It was always 'migrants good' - the sacred cow - but Australian children, most likely a bad idea.

Has anything changed? Probably not.

You have to feel for young Australian singles and couples though. They are demanded to put many years into education and even pay for short courses to 'qualify' for casual work while they study and accrue large 'loans'.

Government has over years found many new things to pay for and has slyly pushed 'user pays' to make the public pay twice for what was previously provided for from taxes. As well, all tiers of government have been very clever again to diversify taxes, fees and charges to make more money, while selling off and getting 'private' sector to do their dirty work of putting up prices.

It is shattering to see so many young people planning and working for the families they are being obliged to keep putting off, until one day they find that female fertility isn't as easy at older ages as the talking heads on TV and in feminist blogs pretended. Other options get ruled out too.

I am old enough to have heard many stories of emptiness, disbelief, shame and cruel final resignation (a dog). It is not simple. But it sure isn't going to receive any grants form Canberra for independent research.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 22 July 2017 3:09:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj

I agree to a large extent with your saying, having children hasn't been encouraged
in Western society, but in fact discouraged in many ways especially financially.

German Greer observed the difference in attitude in Western societies to more tribal societies in their attitude to children. She made the statement, that "the western world hates children." I can understand what she is referring to, in the sense that mothers face a lot of hostility when they take their children out in public. It's only in the last decade, that baby's feeding rooms and changing rooms have been improved in shopping centres. They were only toilet areas when I was a mother stuck way down the back of a long dingy corridor without even a chair to sit on for breastfeeding.

Today they have improved but still not what a society who really valued babies and mothers would provide. Especially big supermarkets like Woolworths and Coles who after all, depend on mothers spending in their stores.They should at least provide decent feeding rooms, like they value mothers as customers. A mothers room should be up in the main shop area, with a pleasant room with suitable armchairs for breastfeeding, and TV running programmes for toddlers while mum feeds the baby, toys and books too, like doctor surgeries.

Today in this affluent society all they can offer mothers is a sterile room with blank white sterile walls.not much bigger than a prison cell. Although they are still a lot better than just the public toilet Mothers had back in the 70's.

This signifies a society that really wants to cast mothers and babies out the back somewhere.

My daughter who has four children but also a full time, very highly paid job, has mentioned how she notices a difference in the way she is treated when out shopping by shop staff, when it is a weekend and she has her shorts on and 4 kids with her.
They treat her with a certain amount of disrespect as in contrast to when she comes in done up in work clothes without the children.
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 22 July 2017 10:58:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHERFUL,

I agree with you.

Why don't more people put forward their needs and design ideas to local councillors and to management of shopping centres?
Posted by leoj, Monday, 24 July 2017 12:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Australian women, like women everywhere, have an inherited maternal instinct to want to have a baby resulting from evolutionary selection over millions of years. What has gone wrong?'

Nothing went 'wrong', because the basic 'evolutionary' premise of this statement is wrong. If the natural instinct for women is to have babies, then why did they opt out of their 'natural instinct' in droves as soon as socio-political forces gave them the opportunity to do so?

If the natural instinct for women is to have babies, why did the powers that be/were so ruthlessly prevent women's access to birth control over the centuries? Why all the ruthless continuing campaigns against abortion? Why were women denied access to any path to financial independence?

If women's 'natural instinct' is to have babies, then all this authoritarian obsession to control women's reproductive capacity and financial independence would be meaningless.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 29 July 2017 3:23:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

I have never had cause to disagree with women, people, who choose not to have children. It always seemed that they made the right choice where they (and children) were concerned. Never had the slightest interest in them either. Too much information, always.

However I am interested where economic conditions and government policies, eg infrastructure costs for a 'Big Australia' may be unfairly placing too much tax load on young employed and job seeking. It would be concerning for example if young couples, women, are being forced to delay, unreasonably, the children, family, they do want because of casualisation of the workforce, for instance.

One wonders too about possible unexpected spikes in pregnancy terminations affecting sectors of women (I am excluding men for obvious reasons). But only because the numbers might demonstrate unfair impact of poor government policy and planning. It isn't an argument for restrictions.

While some might exist, everything is possible, I have never encountered a man who wanted to control women's reproductive capacity and financial independence. Although Australia may be importing some as migrants. I have known many men who welcomed a partner's employment and business enterprise. It keeps brains alive and extra money is always welcome around the home.

What is having a much higher impact on people's choices and especially women is government shedding its responsibilities for the aged.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 29 July 2017 11:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi leoj

My comment was more about evolutionary sexism, which dictates that women are evolutionarily programmed to want to have (lots of) babies, to ensure the continuation of the species. The equivalent sexist dictate is that men need to plant their seed all over the place, to ensure the continuation of the species.

Realistically, both women and men make their reproductive choices based on their own needs and the social pressures they face.

To address some of the points you made:

The ageing population is pretty much a political stance. There is virtually nothing to validate the premise that the young are overly burdened by an ageing population – other than constant repetition. The first twenty years of life burden the taxpayer much more than the last twenty. As the long-term effect of compulsory superannuation kicks in, increasingly fewer people will need the aged pension. Intensive medical care only applies to the last 2-3 years of life and does not constitute a massive drain on the public purse.

In fact, the ageing population allows more opportunity for the young to benefit from a diminished labour pool – in terms of less competition for jobs. This is really what the ‘grey tsunami’ advocates are most afraid of. And it’s why immigration is constantly portrayed as our economic saviour.

In terms of women making their reproductive choices based on our governments shedding their responsibility for the aged, women are likely to go either way: don’t have children (or have fewer children) and look after your own financial security, OR have lots of children so that they will look after you in your old age. In non-Western countries, and in Western countries before the modern era, the latter was the preferred route. But in Western countries of the modern era, few women have any other choice than the former
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 31 July 2017 5:40:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,

I generally agree. Thank you for your considered reply in detail.

Well said too: "There is virtually nothing to validate the premise that the young are overly burdened by an ageing population – other than constant repetition". However the only politician I am aware of who volunteered that was Bronwyn Bishop. I think that was when she was Minister for Aged in Howard times. But she was drowned out at the time and there was no media taste for correcting a stereotype of 'Boomers'.

As you realise and these are recurring themes of mine, I am concerned about governments refusing to adequately address the needs of women both in:

- mundane, ordinary aspects of life (care facilities in shopping centres and the like) who are most usually the carers and arguably the glue that holds the families and community together. By performing the unvalued (by government) and unpaid roles (not necessary to list the examples); and,

- their senior years. There are solutions for superannuation. But government and one suspects the feminist lobby, the vocal element anyhow, avoid those by focussing on what is the ideal for careerists, usually educated middle class anyhow (and with plenty of options).
Posted by leoj, Monday, 31 July 2017 8:50:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy