https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/south-koreas-fertility-rate-set-to-hit-record-low
Welcome to the wonderful world of female empowerment. The article cites women's preference for careers and promotions over childbirth, which would set their empowered lives back, showing that giving women the option to work instead of stay in the home necessitates extinction.
It's not even about the money. South Koreans are all filthy rich on any historical scale. Women in the past, with much less, had no problem raising ten kids where now South Korean women can't even raise one. South Korean women just want to work, and to get as far as they can in the world of work, to actualize themselves. They have a single minded devotion to excellence in their field and the high status that goes along with it. I suspect if they were all paid in camp rations and the right to an egg per week they'd still all be working exactly as diligently.
Women have no evolutionary preference to giving birth. Since they were required to do so all these millions of years by dominant males, they never had to evolve to actually want to do it. It was meaningless whether they wanted to do it or not, they would be forced to do it either way. As such, the moment you give women the option to do something they never wanted to do, they'll cease doing it. This should have been obvious to anyone.
Nor does this have much to do with birth control or abortion. If South Korean women couldn't practice safe sex, they'd just abstain entirely. They aren't like blacks who can't restrain their impulses, so it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
Women just plain want to work. They find the world of work more exciting and rewarding than domesticity. This seems unfathomable to me, given how most work, especially work done by women, is utter bullshit and achieves nothing. But the polls don't lie. Work is like crack to these women. They are literally willing to drive mankind to extinction if it means they get to work a little more.
One question that could be asked is whether it's the actual work, or the prestige attached to the work, that women are chasing. If, for instance, all that prestige were instead given to high breeders, would the numbers change?
I don't think so. Because women would feel like prestige attached to work is justified, due to it being the fruits of their sentient efforts, while prestige attached to having lots of kids is unjustified, because even a brain dead vegetable with a womb could win such a contest. They're on to such ploys. Being honored for their animal-level equipment bodies instead of their angel-tier brains won't satisfy anyone. It will just be seen as a cynical ploy to re-enslave women's bodies and put them all back in cages.
Women want to thrive with their intellects in an intellectual world. They don't want their bodies to matter. They don't want to be praised for their looks or their fertility or their ability to nurse babies. It's just insulting, like being a prize milk cow or award winning hog. They want to be recognized as human beings, as rational animals, for their rationality and the fruits of their rationality.
Is it possible to persuade women that their children's accomplishments are due to their own parenting, and thus a proof of intellectual capacity? Unfortunately the science does not back this up. The correlation of all child achievement with their adopted parents is 0%. Anyone could raise anyone and it wouldn't make any difference, so long as you screen out abuse. It's all determined at birth, in the genes. You could praise women for having good genes that lead to good children, but that's again on the animal level -- a brain-dead vegetable with good genes could be far preferable to living, breathing, thinking women in that case.
The only praise women want to earn is the praise found in the current workplace. "You did a good job," is the only love poem they're interested in.
There is a way to convince women to do the right thing, though. No one 'wants' to pay taxes but they still do it, with the understanding that it is necessary for the continuation of society. If they feel it is a painful sacrifice that everyone as a collective partakes in equally for the betterment of the whole, they wouldn't have to be convinced to 'want' to do it. Only that they 'have' to do it.
"It is your moral duty to continue the human race," is a better argument than "Wouldn't kids be so much fun?"
I think if we drummed this into women from birth they would offer little resistance, just like men don't oppose the draft even though they don't want to join the army. If it is accepted as a bedrock norm that unpleasant things are necessary for the collective's survival then people will go along with it, especially if they see that everyone equally is asked to contribute in the same way. Which means not only must there be a cultural understanding that childbirth is a public duty, it must actually be a public duty that all women are mandated to engage in. The law is so simple. "All women must marry by age 20 and have two children by age 25."
If all women were 'drafted' as a moral necessity into childbirth, we could solve the fertility crisis in one swift stroke. Since all women equally would have to sacrifice as much as one another, they can't 'get ahead' of each other in the jobs rat race that they really want to perform in by shirking. This level playing field guarantees that all women will not lose relative prestige or status in the workplace compared to one another, so having children will cease costing them anything in the utilitarian currency they're interested in.
Comparisons with men would no longer make any sense, so it wouldn't be possible to make women feel bad about themselves if their careers were less productive than men's. They'd just say, "yeah but you weren't required to give birth and tend to children for your first decade out of school," and everyone would agree that it would be unfair and impossible to compare the two. At that point women would no longer feel 'lesser' to men who do more than them, and thus wouldn't lose any prestige no matter where they stand on the corporate ladder.
If women only have to compete with other women who all made the same sacrifice as them, in essence they lose nothing by being forced to have kids. If everyone does their public service together then nobody feels unjustly burdened over it. It's just one of those things that has to be done, like the draft is required for South Korean men and taxes are required of everyone.
Laws are so crucial to setting public moral norms. If there isn't a law against something, it quickly is viewed to not be immoral as well. It's just a lifestyle choice at that point, like comparing strawberry flavor to blueberry flavor ice cream. If there's no law impelling marriage and childbirth, it's only natural for women to view marriage and children as a neutral lifestyle choice as compared to staying single and working.
But if the law reframed it as marriage and children being a moral necessity and staying single and barren a public disgrace, shameful, shirking and derelict, a dishonorable desertion from society's necessary welfare -- things would change quickly. Women have an instinct to conform, get along, and stay out of trouble. If it is ironclad, if it is unquestioned, if it is impelled by law, then they'll make whatever intellectual adjustments are necessary to feel that yes, marriage and children are unquestionably part of being a good person.
As for people who are unfairly required to have children when they can't even support them, the citizen's dividend could easily solve any such quandaries. This is why the citizen's dividend, hand in hand with the mandatory marriage and children law and an immigration moratorium, are the three most important legal reforms needed in the world today. They would solve virtually every problem on Earth overnight.
No comments:
Post a Comment