this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
229 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
98 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It isn't. They will simply import women from other countries. And this election alone proves the fact that all women are not a monolithic group. You're not going to get a majority to follow this trend.
It seems to have had the desired effect elsewhere. Also I'm not sure if it's required for women to be a monolithic group. This assumption is based on the gender divide in the current election. Regardless, Trump's policies are going to have a natural impact and decreasing birth rate just due to financial strain so if there are multiple factors that are impacting the numbers that's all the better right?
https://www.iar-gwu.org/blog/iar-web/south-koreas-4b
Korea IS A monolith when it comes to a number of factors. Culturally Korea is the antithesis of "diverse".
My point is that America is nothing similar to Korea culturally to pull this off.
Yeah no. Continuing this rhetoric is exactly how the Democrats will continue to lose elections. Making vast assumptions about men and telling them they're lesser is what drove away voters for the past 4 years. The vast majority of men have no desire or whim to do any of what you claim.
Edit: Just realized the swipe typo. Corrected.
Doesn’t need to be vast. You saw how a tiny group called MAGA got control of the government and people’s minds. You underestimate their plan. The next four years is going to be a lot of, “but… they can’t do that?!” for a lot of people.
Once again. No. What lost the democrats the win was Kamala. Biden refusing to step down earlier so proper primaries could be done (not sure why they didn't just hold primaries ANYWAY). The democrat party proved in 2020 that nobody wanted or even like Kamala (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20953284/kamala-harris-polls-2020-election or lookup any poll from 2019). Her inability to actually talk about her platform (and how she'll attain her actual goals) and answer the question being asked lost her a lot too. A hard focus on issues that were not "top of mind" for the majority of the country didn't help either. Not some conspiracy that a handful of republicans are pulling the strings everywhere. People were simply unmotivated to vote for someone who couldn't answer how she'd do any of what she claimed to want to do.
Regardless of what you think the border IS a valid problem.
Now there's some magic plan? Either they're stupid or masterminds. You can't really have it both ways. Nobody is out there convincing people that women aren't human and have no rights. Stop with your nonsense.
Total votes cast: 143,000,000
Percentage of voters who are women: 54%
Number of female voters: 143,000,000 × 0.54 = 77,220,000
Percentage of women who voted for Harris: 54%
Estimated number of women who voted for Harris: 77,220,000 × 0.54 ≈ 41,698,800
This is a rough estimate. More complete data will become available later.
I think that's enough people to have an impact
We assume that 41.7 million women strictly adhere to the B4 movement.
This group represents a significant share of women of childbearing age (usually defined as 15-44 years in demographic studies).
We estimate the average U.S. woman has around 1.7 children over her lifetime, aligning with current U.S. fertility rates.
41.7 million women choosing not to have children would mean approximately 1.7 fewer children per woman, over their lifetimes.
This would potentially prevent around 70.9 million births (41.7 million x 1.7) in the long term, assuming these women otherwise would have had children.
Spread over an average reproductive lifetime (roughly 30 years), this impact would reduce the birth rate by about 2.36 million births annually (70.9 million divided by 30 years).
Annual U.S. births could drop from 3.6 million to approximately 1.24 million, which is a ~65% decrease in the birth rate.
You cannot make that assumption. That was the point of my post some 5-6 posts up.
Further just because they voted for Kamala is not a marker or evidence that they would even be on board with this type of response/campaign. So your number is flawed from the get go.
And the premise is self defeating. If you're refusing to have kids and teach them your beliefs, all you'll have are kids that belong to the other party. You will effectively just breed your ideals out of existence. This is one of the primary reasons that most religions are still around, they tend to (statistically) have van loads of children.
This also ignores the fact that those who would be willing to participate in such a campaign were likely to never have or have few children. Where-as those who disagree with this type of stance are going to be the religious types that statistically have more children anyway.
So let's take your example and apply more relevant controls on it... You'd at best get maybe 30% participation. And that 30% would be most likely to only represent 0-2 children over their lifetime. I bet after accounting for that you're closer to maybe a decrease of 10-20% birthrate... and you'd simply breed your ideal out of society in a matter of a generation or two.
Maybe.