What do feminists think of this article?

Question

Feminism “destroys” every single society it touches....

http://antimisandry.com/feminism_destroys_every_single_society_touches-t6350.html

Your thoughts on the destruction feminism has caused?

Baba Yaga, firstly, I won't tell you how ridiculous you sound when you dismiss the article alone as being "baloney" just b/c it didn't identify other countries they where they were paying families to have babies (despite the fact thatItaly was indeed mentioned, if you actually read the two sentences -- reading comprehension, Baba. Work on it).

Nevertheless, even if it didn't mention other countries, how does this still negate the fact that the birthrate of these countries have sunk to below- replacement level? Interesting logic you have.

You'll notice that a correlation b/w fertility rates can be established when you compare countries poisoned by feminism (namely, the West) and countries that haven't been - in other words, feminized countries = decline in birthrate.

Lastly, To quote Pat Buchanan, author of the Death of the West:

"Feminism is a Darwinian blind alley. In biological terms, there is nothing that identifies a maladaptive pattern so quickly as a below replacement level of reprocuction; an immediate consequence of feminism is what appears to be an irreversible decline in the birthrate. Nations pursue feminist policies at their peril."

He adds: "In short, the rise of feminism spells the death of the nation and the end of the West." And a little later, he says: "...the decisions women are making today will determine if Western nations will even be around in a century, and Western women are voting no."

You'll have to come up with a better argument than that next time, Baba.

Answer 1

Is this really feminism's fault.

The overall trend, worldwide, is that poorer countries have a higher birthrate than richer countries and that poor families have more kids than upper middle class or rich families.

When people have education, resources and ambition they simply have less kids. They're too busy for a large group of children and their sense of structure and planning assures they don't have children accidentally.

Reduce them to ignorant, hopeless, third-world crapholes and watch the population flourish.

About half of the top 10 highest birthrate countries in the world are in Africa's "horror and genocide" belt (Sierra Leone, Somalia, ect.) After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia's population plummeted to below replacement levels.

Freedom and economic development are what's really destroying the societies implied in this article. The real solution to falling population numbers is to destroy all hope and prosperity.

Answer 2

Part of the problem is that many women feel that they can't have children and careers at the same time. Obviously, a larger portion that I thought chose careers. If there were more opportunities for work-family balance, there would be more kids.

We must also consider that areas without feminism, such as southern India, are suffering from extreme overpopulation. I consider that a worse problem than a low birth rate. The rate in Canada is about 1.5 now, and we haven't been shot into the sun yet.

Furthermore, this article is extremely biased and just fishing for a way to blame feminism. It might as well have been funded by Paul Weyrich.

Don't expect me to contribute to the solution. I'm never having kids.

Answer 3

Its worrying. But hey when good things come bad things also come along with it. And this percentage is very small.... countries like Asia/India/France/Europe are preserved and most people do not encourage feminism. Tradition and old fashioned thoughts matter with a mix of modern ideals but not over doing things.... Cheers

Answer 4

I am very much in favor of a traditional family structure or something close to it (which is why I am a teacher). However this article poses so many flaws and biased assumptions that its really not even worth noting as a source of reference.

Answer 5

This article, which has an agenda behind it, doesn't prove that feminism causes destruction of anything. The writer and the group he cites, as well as the website, are not unbiased sources. The article kept referring to countries that pay families to have babies, but no such countries were identified. Therefore the article is baloney.

And how recently has Gloria Steinem been quoted in the mainstream press? Even Faux News, which also has an ax to grind doesn't attack feminism.

I notice your buddy took down his question that bleated that men are denied medical treatment in favor of women, once it was pointed out how ridiculous his point was. The anti-feminists are always whining about how they want debate here, but when their "logic" is shot down by better logic, they run in fear.

Answer 6

Thanks for the plug ;o)