Feminism and the birth rate

Human partnering behaviour

Women generally prefer to partner equal and up, e.g. a man who is same or taller, equal or higher socio economic status (e.g. Jane Austin's famous opening line in Pride and Prejudice describing a suitable husband 'a single man with a good fortune') while males generally prefer the reverse e.g. a woman who is equal or shorter, equal or lower socio-economic status.

In Australia's patriarchal society of the 1950s and early 1960s, where males had higher socio-economic status than women, there were many suitable partnering opportunities for young women to partner equal and up. This provided the social conditions for a marriage boom and a positive birth rate. However feminism in the 1960s changed the role of women in society to one of sexual equality. As a result there were fewer suitable partners for high socio-economic status females and vice versa for low socio-economic status males and the birth rate fell. As it is women who have the babies, it is hardly surprising that, if you change the role of women in society, the birth rate changes.

Therefore a socio-economic gradient between men and women would seem to be needed for a high partnering rate and consequently for a higher birth rate.

Hence the causes of Australia's negative birth rate are cultural (i.e. feminism), not economic, though the consequences of the negative birth rate do have economic implications. Economists should not be surprised that the baby bonus does not work. It does nothing to increase partnering. Economists who promote increased labour participation by young women to offset reduced labour supply due to the negative birth rate only exacerbate the problem of the negative birth rate.

When a society uses its young women for wealth creation, rather than procreation, it eats the seed corn of its future. As a result of feminism women are no longer pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen but now are increasingly well heeled and childless in the boardroom.

The change in the role of women due to second wave feminism in the 1960s is the key cause of the Australia's negative birth rate and the ageing of the population. On this basis feminism is biologically dysfunctional whilst Patriarchiality is biological functional. This has implications for government policy. Countries wishing to reduce the birth rate should promote feminism and those wishing to increase the birth rate should promote Patriarchiality. For Australia the promotion of feminist sexual equality in politics, business and society in Australia is not the way for the greatest number of young women to find happiness in marriage and children or in the best interests of Australia.

So how do we change our currently biologically dysfunctional feminist culture to one in which the maximum number of young women can find happiness in marriage and children and restore a positive birth rate? I don't know the answer, but if there is one, I suspect it will come from women, not men – and from women born in the 21^st century.