*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe feminism is an intuitive/unconscious/subliminal macrosystem reaction to industrialisation and increasing population, a powerful mechanism for discouraging women from childbearing, reducing the number of women willing to have more than one or two children, ( and then only later on in life too ).

As feminist principles/policies and women's rights spread so population growth automatically slows/grinds to a halt. Obviously some men, and genes, are going to suffer in the downsizing/bottleneck.

Whereas female rabbits automatically abort ( reintegreting foetal matter into their body to save resources ), when supplies of food are low or danger of some sort threatens, humans react with ideas and concepts to bring about a reduction in population growth.

Discuss.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Dec 2008, 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I get the impression from the bulk of your submissions that women merely endure and do not enjoy sex as much as men. Is this a personal view?

How is that relevant to the discussion/my hypothesis here?

To answer your question, even if it is entirely off-topic; between 33% and 46% of women, depending on which study you refer to, experience "little or no interest in sex" " often, most of the time, all of the time", and pharmaceutical companies are getting very excited about the possibilities of selling a pill to alleviate this so called "female sexual dysfunction" despite the fact that it is so common that it can hardly be described as an abnormality. The probability is that, on average, women simply have lower sex drives than men.

Thus it is not only my opinion and frequent personal experience, it is a fact for 33%-46% of women.

.

Hasn't it occurred to you that some feminists may have very valid criticisms to make about our male-dominant society? For some, it is a very serious issue. Perhaps you still haven't considered that they may really mean it.

Nobody is intimating that women are not getting a dirty deal economically and professionally. I just wonder why it is assumed that women are not particularly eager about sex. That's an extremely Victorian view and I doubt it.

It had, and I have. I agree with many radical feminist analyses and complaints about society. I do not at all intend to suggest with my hypothesis that feminism is invalid.

What I am suggesting though is that its criticisms and proposals over the last 100-120 years have "coincidentally" had a powerful effect on population growth, ( in the West/developed world, and are gradually doing so elsewhere too ) and continue to do so, and I think that this is very interesting.

It is as if the propositions of feminism are a perfectly "in the moment" response, appropriate to the situation; the system's way of reacting to an urgent problem, in typical human fashion, with ideas and words instead of just the body.

NB. In fact it could be said to be the "body"/physical world talking to us, because women have traditionally been identified with the body.

Feminist analysis/politics are actually achieving something that nothing else, ( no one person, no country, no organisation ), has managed so far; humane, non-violent, relatively egalitarian/non-eugenics-based population control, just as it becomes a burning issue. I think this is rather amazing.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Dec 2008, 11:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

It is not an assumption. It is such an established fact, ( as I already explained very clearly above ), that huge pharmaceutical companies are planning on making a lot of money out of it.

The sexist attitude, ( which is that men are the norm, against which women are measured ), is that women should/must want sex as often and as much as men, and if they don't they are dysfunctional, so let's give them a pill for it, rather than accepting that 33%-46% of women are very often ... etc, etc, etc, not that interested in sex.

And I still don't see in what way this is relevant to the topic under discussion.
.

You do realize that plenty of feminists have kids, right?

I have looked at several sources that indicate women and men are equally interested in sex. Pharmaceutical companies are well known to make biased surveys in order to sell their products. They are not to be trusted.

Of course.

But the fact remains that feminist policies and women's rights have changed women's reproductive patterns dramatically.

In the West/developed world, where feminism has spread the most, the birth rates have dropped hugely in the last 40-50 years as women have chosen to go out to work and leave childbearing till later, and then only have 1-2 children rather than the three, four, five or more that they would once have done.

.

It is not studies by pharmaceutical companies that I have been consulting.

One source is Edward Laumann's landmark 1999 study, the most comprehensive survey of sexual practices since the Kinsey Report, "The Social Organisation of Sexuality; Sexual practices in the United States". He found that 33.4% of women experienced "hypoactive sexual desire", that is "low libido", compared to just 15% of men.


And a growing number of researchers concur. In fact more recent studies, ( I found two the other day but can't find the sources/links today ), have found that as many as 46% of women report little or no interest etc etc etc. ( and it is the 46% figure that pharmaceutical companies are basing their investment on).
.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Dec 2008, 2:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The information I have seen indicates that both women and men lie freely about their sexual interests and contacts. You might be right but that large a percentage of women indicating no interest in sex strikes me as more than peculiar considering what I have heard about sexual relationships. I strongly doubt your figures.

if sending women into the workforce was supposed to reduce the population - why has the population only increased since then?? Personally I go with the theory that the main reason for letting women into the workforce is TAXES. Women represented like half the population of the country - why just let them sit there and raise the kids and keep the home when they can be out working and the fat cats can be collecting tax money from them? And they will all need bank accounts and then you can raise the price of everything once the household has two incomes.... See?? It was just a ploy to make America richer - to fatten the cow - and now look what's happening - recession - the separation of the classes, and let's hope we don't end up in a depression again...

Personally I love sex, and I believe that keeping the home fires burning is the most important thing in life. When both parents HAVE TO work just to make ends meet, it's a recipe for disaster. Either one loses their job or gets sick or anything and their whole system of existence falls apart. Call me old fashioned if you want - I've lived on or below the poverty line my entire life enough to know that for the most part, if you had a mother to come home to after school or work- you are one of the lucky few that doesn't self-destruct in one way or another (whether by drugs or alcohol or any of the myriad of psychological and sociological problems that go hand in hand with living on the edge)

Population growth rates have dropped radically in all of Europe since women entered the job market.


That just makes you one of the 66% who do. Not an exception. Nor proof that the studies are wrong.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 15 Dec 2008, 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think women, newly liberated, have like many newly liberated people in the past decided to have their turn at being irresponsible and short-sighted. Women are far more likely to seek out a man for sexual pleasure than look for a man to settle down with now.

It's more complicated than women being sent to work. It's also about many women no longer wanting even one baby. Astonishingly China which has a 1 baby limit for all citizens has a higher per capita birth rate than any 1st world country. I think it's probably related to the fact that in the past few decades we've become an increasingly superficial, self-indulgent society.

People have increasingly expected more and more of a potential partner. Both attractiveness and money have become increasingly all-important. Given the chance to settle down many quickly run away from it, not wanting to stop being hedonistic. I think it's a culture, it's not feminism. It's a combination of what has followed from feminism - female chauvinism - and what has followed from neo-liberal capitalism - greed and tending to put one's self first a lot.

Feminism is a concept that is in place to trick women into thinking it can get them equal rights but all it does is cause more friction between males and females. Females are indeed persecuted in this world but feminism just blames men for EVERYTHING while implying covertly that women are superior. Most feminists I've met are no less sexist than chauvenist men. Men and women need to work together to get rid of sexism and reverse sexism, instead of turning to a false group like feminism or masculism.