Which is the biggest reason college lowers women's birth rates?
Note :
An option that it does not lower birth rates is not included because I am limited to four options
I included that option in a previous poll which is no longer there because I deleted to include a different option
The fourth option would be a claim that if they discover sone true thing that is really true that is taught in colleges then they decide not to have children or have as many children
> Which is the biggest reason college lowers women's birth rates?
The option that makes the most sense is the one that's missing: time and energy.
College commits their time and energy to things completely unrelated to starting a family.
Those 2 fundamental things are a finite resource during a woman's most fertile period. It's simple displacement.
If pre-menopausal women were not allowed to attend college except during pregnancy or unless they gave birth less than two months before the semester they enrolled in for each individual semester and got kicked out of college for abortion then would college still lower birth rate?
Motherhood, especially early motherhood, is a full time job and that starts when she becomes pregnant.
The same problem therefore still obtains - college displaces the time and energy that mothers need to commit to their family.
On a macro level your scenario puts unnecessary financial, time and energy strains on families leading to broken families and more single parents.
There are 2 exceptions to college I can think of that don't also disincentivize women starting & maintaining families:
* female doctors. there will always be that need.
* women who are sterile or have no interest in motherhood
Arguably a 3rd are mothers with grown/deceased children, but that also takes money, time & energy away from her roles as wife/grandmother/aunt which again leads to more family dissolution, this time of mature family units. This causes generational chaos.
I was trying to limit my frame to OP's question of what disincentivizes birth rate with respect to college.
But actually you are 100% correct. I've met such women and their destructive impact on society is huge ,and often fuelled by their failings at motherhood or hate towards men.
I take back my 2nd exception. Good call.
"only women who produce sons should have any rights"
?
Should women who produce daughters who produce grandsons have rights?
look, we have to be realistic, we need man power, we dont need a cuntocracy, its proven to be a disaster to move the world to a gynocentric model
i'm not saying we abuse those who produce daughters but women need to be brought to heel
Why would you grant women rights if they produce sons?
But you could get man power for a militia without granting women whatever kinds of rights you think you should grant them for having sons
i dont mean i'd let them have a say in policy, ever
But they could have sons without giving them the right to own property and the sons could join the militia without giving their mother the right to own property
it also incentivizes the men to fight to defend their mother's home, which would make them deadly
How are you going to have the mother home school the children if she is not educated
She can learn the material without going to college & before 18 years old but she still needs to learn
Sending kids to public schools is worse for the family unit then women spending time becoming educated
College level math and science can be taught at around 12 years old before marriage at 18 years old or legal age
It is common for home schooled twelve year olds to know basic calculus
Your objection presumes that
* the public K-through-12 school system is a net good. it's not.
* children learn useful things at public school. they don't.
* mothers require graduate quals to teach their children the 3R's. they don't.
* fathers don't have a hand in teaching their children. they do.
It's entirely possible to educate a nation's children to competitive international standards at home and/or in communities.
I presume the public education system is a net bad
I presume learning chemistry, physics, calculus is a net good
I presume fathers will be stuck with 8 hour work days and women can teach while the men are at work instead of babysitting, cooking, cleaning and hobbies but not teaching
I said the women could learn what is today's college level material by being home schooled without going to college and then teach it when they are older
I think having stupider women is a net loss
My father was out of the house for longer than 8 hours a day and yet taught me basic calculus way before it came up on the public school syllabus.
Anecdotal, sure, but the larger point stands. Invested fathers have and always will teach their children.
More importantly we were taught how to learn, meaning neither parent needs to know everything. They just need to monitor and encourage progress in those subjects. Again, this is extremely common.
> I think having stupider women is a net loss
That statement is a fallacy since it makes no distinction between useful and useless knowledge.
Mothers not knowing calculus does not equate to them being stupid, nor does it mean her children cannot learn calculus.
they're women who can't fulfill their biological purpose, they're worthless and should be punished for it, you can't give them power to be spiteful over all of society, their rights should be stripped immediately
only women who produce sons should have any rights