Why Talking About Birth Rates Can Get You Cancelled
In a Nutshell
Discussing low birth rates invites accusations of right-wing misogyny due to the observed correlation between traditional gender attitudes, conservative ideologies, and higher fertility (conservatives average 1.67 children vs. liberals' 1.29), creating tension with gender egalitarianism that progressives prioritize over reproduction. Pronatalism is reframed as "panatalism"—supporting people who want kids to have them—without forcing anyone, countering fears of Handmaid's Tale scenarios while urging left-leaning individuals to reproduce to preserve their values. The core challenge is ideological self-defeat: if feminists and liberals opt out of parenthood, they forfeit shaping the future, but changing narratives could enable "pronatal feminism" without sacrificing rights.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Having this conversation is unpopular on the internet and immediately gets labeled as right-wing conservative misogyny or fascism. People understand there is tension between sustainable fertility rates and gender egalitarianism that most cherish. Speaker wants wife to vote, own property, and have police protection from abuse—basic egalitarianism. Many worry about low fertility but fear publicly supporting it because pronatalists want to force women to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Sympathetic to that fear, and some pronatalism plays into it.
Reality shows genuine tension: most sexist countries have the highest birth rates; within societies, people with more traditional gender attitudes have higher birth rates. Question is whether this tension is intrinsic or if there's a way through it. Goal is for progressive friends to have kids so their values survive.
Many feel trapped between low fertility future (which they don't love) and protecting women's rights. If low fertility is the only way to protect rights, they prioritize rights over fertility. Pronatalists haven't always communicated well that current feminism (broadly construed) is strongly negatively correlated with fertility on almost any metric, but it doesn't have to be. A future pronatal feminism could be invented, but most feminists won't try. Leah Sergeant has a great book trying to address this. Sympathetic to people feeling between a rock and a hard place.
Well, I think the other point here is that it's obvious what you need to give up now and it's not obvious what the costs will be in future.
Most people won't pay future costs personally, especially if not having kids. Society struggles with delayed gratification: value gender egalitarianism, have daughters, then fear far-right outbreeding and daughters living in Handmaid's Tale. People genuinely believe any kid they have will be governed by zealots, so they opt out. But if feminists stop having kids, there will be no feminists left.
This is why I'm like, be the change you wish. You can prevent forest.
Mean children by ideology: conservatives at 1.67 (up since 1980s); liberals from 1.44 to 1.29. Conservative to liberal ratio now 1.67 to 1.29. Well-put-together surveys show ~90% of people at some point have or want kids—not just right-wingers.
Left finds it challenging due to frictions with traditional beliefs to create a narrative enabling kids. Speaker is not pronatalist but panatalist: supports people having kids they want, respects those who choose not to.
Oh, we do too. That's great. I palis call that pronatalism, but no, we only want people who like kids to have kids.
Pronatalism interpreted as encouraging others to have kids. On the left, it's a fetish: women fearing Trump sending them to Mar-a-Lago breeding pens, wearing Handmaid's Tale costumes. Romance novels feature "don't breed me, sir" fantasies—it's not real.
No one asks progressive women to have kids. Far-right conservative men marry women from Latin America or Eastern Europe, not progressive white women. Return to Land colony in the Ozarks is whites-only but struggles to find far-right white nationalist men married to white women. The fear is fake: if you don't want kids, don't have them and forfeit inheriting the future because left has screwed it with toxic culture—wash hands of it and take to the stars.
What speaker calls panatalism is how they describe pronatalism: pro-natal (in favor of births). In practice, support things that help people have more kids.
I think the problem with that, Simone, is that there's it's all well and good kind of victim blaming people and saying you believe in ideology that's self-defeating because of your belief in it. you have been sighed or gas lit into not wanting something or having a life that doesn't permit you to have this thing despite the fact that 90% of women have or want kids.
Exhaustion from trying to change hearts and minds leads to giving up. But that condemns left-of-center women and men to a bad ideology. Stir the pot: beliefs good in many ways but have side effects even espousers don't embody, leaving others behind. Saying "if left doesn't want kids, go fuck yourself, my kids inherit earth" isn't accurate—continuing hearts-and-minds work could change that. Exhausting due to backlash (taking rights, Handmaid's Tale). To care about birth rates overall, scoop up as big a bucket as possible.
Keep Chris Williamson in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
