Equality Doesn't Increase Fertility

I noticed this last week Facebook COO Sheryl Sandbeg making her rounds in the media to promote more of her #hashtag feminism, just like Emma Watson’s #hashtag feminism. [There is nothing more eye rolling than privileged millionaire/billionaire celebrity women lecturing poor men, overtaxed men, or homeless veterans about ‘equality.’ ]

Lets assume for argument’s sake that the world needs improvement in ‘gender equality’ [Which is not the case in this country. Legally in the United States it is against the law to discriminate based on gender already. Feminists conveniently ignore that fact as it would require them to take civic responsibility. A movement that has nothing to complain about generally ceases to be a movement.]

If you look at the World Economic Forum’s site [ http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/rankings/ ] an equal nation has a score of ‘1.0’, The highest score listed is Iceland with a .8594; so no country has achieved ‘true equality’ yet.I doubt any nation will achieve a ‘1.0’ due to  another metric called the “Fertility Rate”. As outlined in my earlier posts; more agrarian societies with less access to birth control will produce more children; they are an asset. In more advanced societies children become economic liabilities, hence the rate goes down as they are a liability.

Feminism does not have a direct causation, but it does have a correlation to the birth rate.  Women prefer men they perceive as higher status [Alpha]  over men of perceived lower status [Beta]. Displacing males for females economically, legally, and socially is a contributing factor to an increased amount of men being categorized as ‘unmarriageable’. This ultimately means fewer marriages and that contributes to fertility rates staying below replacement.  [Manosphere sites such as the Rational Male or Dalrock are far more knowledgeable than myself on red-pill topics regarding Hypergamy and sexual dynamics.]

In any case, an organism either reproduces and continues its genetic code or it doesn’t reproduce and that code goes extinct.  A nation either replaces its population or it gets replaced..Here are the five most ‘gender equal’ nations listed with their Fertility Rate.

1. Iceland – 1.88 children born/woman (2014 est.)

2. Finland – 1.73 children born/woman (2014 est.)

3. Norway – 1.86 children born/woman (2014 est.)

4. Sweden – 1.88 children born/woman (2014 est.)

5. Denmark – 1.73 children born/woman (2014 est.)

The most equal countries are all below the 2.0 child per woman replacement rate needed.  These countries sadly are destined to become ‘losers’ in the long run. The great Scandinavian nations whose Viking ancestors were feared conquerors, explorers, and traders likely will one day go extinct.

These are the most important, populated, and powerful nations currently.

20. United States – 2.01 children born/woman (2014 est.)

75. Russian Federation – 1.61 children born/woman (2014 est.)

87. China – 1.55 children born/woman (2014 est.)

114. india – 2.51 children born/woman (2014 est.)

The United States; which is in the upper side of gender equality is barely at replacement, but this is due to immigration which will decline in several decades, as Mexico falls below replacement [Mexico currently is only at 2.29 children born/woman.]

Russia and China according to the World Economic Forum are in the lower middle of gender equality. Both are well below replacement. China has a huge male gender imbalance due to their “One Child Policy” and societal male child preference [which was foolish, healthier ratios would be equal or slightly more females.] India is growing and keeping above replacement, which is expected given a larger rural population compared to the United States or Russia, but their fertility rate will decrease as their development continues.

The United States, China, and Russia are certainly going to end up as ‘losers’ over time, they will bank on innovation and productivity to become winners’, but that is a risky gamble. Nations whose GDP is spent on education will do better than nations whose GDP is spent on healthcare for elderly people. Better to be a “Nation of Life” than a “Nation of Death”.

Finally there is the most “misogynistic” list; which also tend to be the most fundamentalist Islamic nations and/or the poorer nations. These aren’t great places to live but their populations will be around for centuries to come, something that cannot be said for nations like Japan or Italy.

138. Mali – 6.16 children born/woman (2014 est.)

139. Syria – 2.68 children born/woman (2014 est.)

140. Chad – 4.68 children born/woman (2014 est.)

141. Pakistan – 2.86 children born/woman (2014 est.)

142. Yemen – 4.09 children born/woman (2014 est.)

These nations that are for the most part keeping above replacement; they have higher child mortality rates, a poorer populace, and greater dependency on agriculture. You can detest these governments for many reasons, but they are growing their populations and will likely endure [unless they are wiped out in war or by natural disaster.]

It might be too late in any case for solutions, as the process is likely irreversible. Those who benefit from the current economic system (like Facebook COO’s) won’t suggest any meaningful changes.  Any solution depending more on male breadwinners and allowing  women more flexible time to be mothers would be utterly contemptible to Feminists.

They would rather go extinct.