Re:The global fertility rate is falling
by ryan_j_naughton on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @11:44PM
(#23841065)
Premodern society where women were effectively property, where religion dictated their role, where marriage and a woman staying at home were the social norm. You're trying to pretend like social policy is a new thing when the Catholic Church has been controlling the rights of individuals for a very long time. To such an extent that Kings were generally subservient to the Pope. And then those Kings and Queens did actions like the Inquisition where they forced individuals to either convert to Catholicism, be exiled, or be murdered.
History goes through many stages of social belief intertwined with social control. In ancient Rome there was a plant that caused abortions and was so popular it went extinct [1]. However also in ancient Rome, Augustus patronized writers like Virgil to help instil "traditional family values" in the Roman population.
“Premodern?” The US fertility rate fell from 3.65 in 1960 to below replacement in 1972. In that time, the labor force participation rate of married women went from 32% to 42%. Then it’s been pretty stable since then between 1.8-2.1, even as the labor force participation rate for married women went from 42% to 67%. We are talking about much more recent social trends at issue.
Re:The global fertility rate is falling
by jessaustin on Wednesday July 15, 2020 @12:09AM
(#23841230)
Perhaps the "premodern societies" that are emphasized in educational settings had those qualities. Maybe that says more about our educational values than about premodern societies. Many ancient people didn't emphasize property in the first place. Many others were more matriarchal than patriarchal. Sure, Catholicism was fairly irredeemable...
[dead]
Re:The global fertility rate is falling
by jessaustin on Wednesday July 15, 2020 @08:33AM
(#23844247)
I did my time in the Catholic church. There were some weird moments, but I got a lot luckier than a lot of other kids (and women, indigenous, etc.) Now I get to say my truth. Actually, anyone who reads history can say it too.
What suggests these are targeted "top down" forces and not just a natural progression of society and technology?
While I don't really believe in a 'conspiracy' - I can easily see "targeted 'top down' forces" in the reverse direction...Limiting women's access birth control, abortion, etc. Hell - just getting your tubes tied can be 10x harder then getting a vasectomy.
If societal forces can be so effective in limiting women's choices/options, is hard to believe they could have had a hand in expanding them as well?
Why can't it be both?
> One only has to look at how different things were 50 or so (or less) years ago before these things were as widespread.
Was the average person happier under these circumstances? That's what should be optimized not keeping things the same for the sake of it
I wasn't making a normative statement. You can form your own opinion on what you prefer
Access to birth control and abortion, social services and welfare, trends in divorce and family court ... All of these things are top-down forces that create a tapestry heavily influencing human sexuality and the choices men and women make. One only has to look at how different things were 50 or so (or less) years ago before these things were as widespread.