Feminism as Natalism
Michelle Goldberg wades into the debate I’ve been having with various people about the macroeconomic implications of population decline with an observation I definitely agree with:
get why liberals have shied away from this discussion, since there’s so many uncomfortable issues involved. But they really shouldn’t, because the only solutions to the problem are liberal ones! Basically, the societies where birthrates have plunged to dangerous levels – Russia, Catholic countries like Poland, Spain and Italy, as well as Japan and Singapore – are all places that make it very difficult for women to combine work and family. In countries that support working mothers, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway and France, birthrates are basically fine – they’re either just at replacement, or shrinking in a very slow, totally manageable way. (The United States is the exception, for a whole host of reasons – some intuitive and some surprising – that I’ll elaborate some other time.) That’s why the Tory MP David Willetts, in a very smart 2003 report on the threat low birthrates pose to Europe’s pension systems, wrote that “feminism is the new natalism.”
I actually agree with both of the points here. It’s clear that very low birthrates imply cuts in pay-as-you-go pension systems, and I also think it’s clear that the most reasonable policy response to low birthrates is basically an agenda of family-oriented feminism. As longtime readers will know, I’m a great admirer of the social policy framework in place in your small northern European countries, hence I have a photo of a school in Finland on hand with which to illustrate the point. That said, “X makes it easier to avoid cuts to pay-as-you-go pension systems” and “X promotes higher overall levels of well-being” are not equivalent claims, and I remain fairly skeptical about the latter.
Now, the more I write about this the more I don’t really know why I’m writing about it. Not only do conservatives think low birthrates are a problem, but the smarter brand of liberals recognize that family policies that are necessary for reasons of justice and equity are probably the best solution to the problem. So everybody wins! But I’m still not sure it’s true. Indeed, Goldberg’s post seems to implicitly indicate that modestly paced population decline is perfectly fine. And I think it’s easy to see why extremely sharp demographic shifts of any kind would be problematic. So perhaps we’re not really disagreeing at all.
40 Responses to “Feminism as Natalism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Population decline? Jesus fucking Christ. Global population’s on track to hit nine billion by 2050, and we’re already exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity at six-and-a-half billion. Yes, standard economics demands an ever-increasing population to supply an ever-increasing cycle of production and consumption – but standard economics is completely insane. In the real world, we’re running out of fresh water and topsoil while our oceans acidify, the planet heats up, arable land turns to desert, and more and more species go extinct.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Way to hijack the thread there, stras. The topic of Matt’s post was the effect of population decline on the economic well-being of an individual country.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am
And everyone knows that individual countries don’t need to worry about sustainable carrying capacity…
April 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Depopulation is a phony issue in the U.S. because so many foreigners want to live here Expand the number of legal, tax-paying immigrants and you ensure a proper level of support for retirees nationwide. End of problem.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Iran is an even more extreme case: birth rates well below replacement level, and women scarcely considered human.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Expand the number of legal, tax-paying immigrants and you ensure a proper level of support for retirees nationwide. End of problem.
And you can do the same in Russia, Poland, Spain, etc., without lunatic calls for a natalist population surge. But somehow every time this subject comes up, pundits like Yglesias start squawking about “low birthrates,” as if it’s our economic duty to start producing more children when this planet’s human population is already way too high for its own good.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Spain might be able to expand immigration to solve population decline problems. I don’t see that there’s large groups of people who want to immigrate to Russia and Poland
April 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
How does anyone concerned with limited resources or environmental deterioration (such as the greenhouse effect) even think that increasing population might be a good idea?
Social Security and medicare benefit levels have been based on an increasing population. This, along with many other things, will have to be changed when the population stops expanding. It might be a good idea to stop the expansion in a controlled rational way before it is done in an unpleasant way by resource limits – before everyone’s share is reduced to the absolute minimum survival level.
As strasmangelo says, the long-term problem is not one which current economics can solve. Free-market economics is part of the problem, not the solution.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Maybe it’s just possible that societies that make it possible for people to make their own decisions about fertility–Ie, by neither preventing women/couples from controlling their fertility, nor imposing tremendous burdens/labor market penalties on parents (read: women) who do have children– while also supporting the well-being of all citizens, aggregate choices will naturally lead to the “right” rates of reproduction to keep society running well?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I understand where Matt is coming from and why a liberal committed to pension security would be worried about de-population. However, if you allow a market mechanism to work in this instance, real wages for the lowest paid in our society will rise due to a labor shortage. This should partially compensate for pension-fund shortages. No one wins when birthrates nosedive unexpectedly, but the WORST thing a government can do for the poor is invite more immigration so that low-skilled labor never sees a benefit (and high-skilled labor for that matter). Add a bit of unionization to the mix and you’ll see a much more sustainable wage structure (Volcker would call it inflation).
April 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Russia must remain Russian, now and forever. She is the defender of all Christians of the East, damnit, and she shall not be Islamicized by immigration- not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Of course, Russia doesn’t need immigration. Her birth rates are already rising, and do you know why? Because Putin and Medvedev, unlike U.S. politicians, are men of destiny who do not wring their hands like a couple of English governesses at a tea party. None of this dicking around with ‘emanations and penumbras’, ‘right to privacy’ BS – Putin signed a law to limit second-term abortions, period. If Dmitri and Vladimir decided- and they will, mark my words- that they wanted to eliminate most first-term abortions, they could do that as well tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. Of course, Russians have the good fortune to live in a country not hamstrung and crippled by all this English-governess hand wringing. ‘Gender studies’ and ‘emanations and penumbras’ do not get you through Russian winters, Mongol invasions or through titanic struggles with the Nazis.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Russia is a very strange example, both for MY and John @#7.
It is not clear to me in what sense they “make it very difficult for women to combine work and family”. As a soviet holdover, there is a hugely subsidized and nearly universal preschool system, and a very long paid maternity leave (up to three years). Basically, since 1960s, they took the Swedish/French public policy prescriptions. I agree, that all else being equal, it is easier to live in a rich country, but as far as public policy is concerned, I don’t know what MY is talking about.
As for John, Russia has huge issues both with immigrant workers (legal and illegal, mostly from the exSU republics), with right wing rhetoric sounding exactly like the anti-Mexican sentiment in the US. So there is no shortage of the would-be immigrants, but there is serious nationalist backlash.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
…men of destiny who do not wring their hands like a couple of English governesses at a tea party.
How could liberals reaching out to religious wackos ever be considered a bad idea? There’s only a little misogyny and a bit of an authoritarian streak in the “progressive” christianists that we can surely overlook in return for their overwhelming influence at the polls, right?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Wide space for our dreams and for our lives
Which Is opened up more each year.
Loyalty to the fatherland gives us power.
Thus it was, is, and always shall be!
Here’s the last stanza of the Russian national anthem. The tune is quite stirring, it’s a much better song than ours. Look at that line- isn’t that a powerful echo of the ‘Gloria Patri’; ‘As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.’ Just another example of the deep Christian roots and destiny of the great Russian people.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Wow, I was anticipating a bitter vague accusation about decadent cosmopolitan hipsters, and Hectors comes out of left field with an overwrought Paean to Russian authoritarianism. Way to mix it up and keep it fresh, Hector.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am
DJW,
Who are you to tell the Russians that they have to be good little Westerners? Why does it bother you so much that Russia is ruled by men of destiny rather than by a bunch of p*ssified late-capitalist Eurocrats?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
jesus: “…my Kingdom is not of this world.”
Hector’s anthem for non-pussies (Look, Mom! No asterisks!): “Loyalty to the fatherland gives us power.”
Why do you hate jesus, Hector?
April 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
#12 is right about Russia. And culturally the widespread reliance on grandmothers to raise children would also, one might think, make it easier for working women to have children in Russia then in other countries. I think the low birthrate is due to a number of factors – easy access to abortion, unpleasant birth clinics, lack of commitment by Russian fathers, and simply lack of space – most Russians live in small urban apartments – that’s a pretty critical factor for modern people thinking of having children. The 7 people in 2 rooms model isn’t something modern people want to accept.
I think Michelle Goldberg, and a lot of liberals, are misleading themselves if they think the US is not friendly to working moms. I’d argue in a number of important cultural ways it’s much easier to be a working mom here than in most of Europe. First of all – we simply have more space and bigger houses. True, we don’t have that government subsidized preschool network MY dreams of, but we do have a public school system that in most towns is willing to watch your kid from 8 am until 4 or 5 pm, sometimes later. In Germany by contrast the kids get out at 1 pm and mothers are still expected to have a hot lunch waiting for them when they get home. So in the US you have to shell out a few bucks early on for child care but you know that by age 6, more or less, you can basically hand your kid off to the state. We also have fairly cheap and easily available immigrant labor to watch our kids. And in the US we also have a host of fairly cheap activities kids can do – sports teams, scouting, clubs, after school classes, that are less accessible and more expensive in Europe. And social networks for new mothers, and support groups, etc. etc. More parks, more children’s museums, etc. etc. I’ve heard from a number of Germans how easy it is to raise kids in the US compared to Germany. Working mothers in Germany or Italy are also regarded as “bad moms”, much more so than in the US, so don’t disregard the psychological component.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Moreover, why does Hector hate pussies? Misogynist much?
April 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
While the rate of population decline in Russia has slowed in recent years, it still hasn’t reversed. Unlike other Western countries, Russia has a bigger problem with its death rate than its birth rate. It must be all that manly manliness that causes Russian men to kill themselves through alcoholism, bad living, and execessive risk-taking..
April 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Here is a recent article on the demographic situation in Russia:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Spring/full-Eberstadt.html
It does not look good.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The total fertility rate in America is above replacement level.
So, why do we need so much immigration?
One obvious way to reduce global carbon emissions is to lower the number of poor people moving to America so that they can afford to buy a huge vehicle.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I’m not telling anyone to do anything. I’m congratulating you on keeping your trolling fresh and unpredictable. Learn to take a complement!
April 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
While Hector certainly provides no evidence for abortion restrictions as an independent causal factor, he is correct that Russian fertility rates are on the rise. They bottomed out at 1.15 in 1999, and are now up to 1.4. (I predict they’ll at least stall and probably decline for a few years in the current economic environment).
Of course, illegitimacy rates in Russia have also dramatically ballooned since the Soviet era, from about 10% under Gorbachev to about 30% now. I’m sure for Hector that simply means Putin et al are a good start, but not authoritarian enough…
April 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
DJW,
Better to be born illegitimate than to be butchered in the womb in the name of some ‘emanations from penumbras’ about the ’sweet mystery of life’.
They won’t stall if Putin has the good sense to outlaw all non-medically-necessary first term abortions.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
…in the name of some ‘emanations from penumbras’ about the ’sweet mystery of life’…
I’m sort of torn between asking what the hell this means and just basking in the sweet mystery of a Hector anti-penumbra rant.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I’m surprised that nearly all discussion of this (as well as economic models) ignore a really important point that seems to be reprehensible to everyone except freaks like me:
The world already has more people than it can support.
Until we radically change the way we live, we will continue to use up the world’s resources faster than it can replenish them. The way we do business is predicated on the idea that the amount of human capital is continuously growing (sortof a mirror of how the housing bubble happened). By assuming that the answer to the question of ‘is more people better for our society?’ is yes, your argument is takes on the tone of ‘the earth is the center of the universe.’
I love you, Yglesias, but again and again you ignore this point, or act like it’s beyond the pale acknowledge its existence. We need to stop having so many babies, and if the consequences are that we no longer get to have as many cable channels and high-tech products, I think we can still have decent lives.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
So without the children of immigrants, the U.S. population would be declining, which means we still need the immigrants themselves in order to have a growing population.
I doubt that we need a growing population of minimum-wage farmworkers.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
During the 60s, the GDP of Mexico grew by about 10% per year. So did Mexico become richer during the 60s?
No, of course not. Because the population was growing faster than 10%, it was the equivalent of a GDP shrinkage and Mexico became worse off, and a generation of Mexicans fled for greener pastures.
So should one be concerned about declining GDP in the face of declining population? Only if the GDP is declining faster than population. Much like you worry about your interest rates relative to inflation rates.
Which is why the whole population replacement argument quickly dissolves into racist rants from Hector and Steve Sailor.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Benny Lava,
I’m not white, genius, I’m considerably darker-skinned than Barack Obama, so how can I be racist?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
We should propagate knowledge and art, and preserve the world’s dying cultures, languages, and species. We don’t need more people to do that. Let’s take better care of those that are already here.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
IN his defense Hector’s natalism is rooted in a stance against the Islamisation and secularization that is HAPPENING AT FRIGHTENING OVERNIGHT AND DESTROYING CIVILIZATION AND MAKING JESUS CRY AND MAKING US ALL FAGS! That may be paranoid and hateful in other ways but not racist.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:02 am
@ 5
I always wondered about that, would Muslim woman in the modern era, as they increasingly come to know exactly how low their relative status is in comparison to women elsewhere, find ways to not give birth as an act of defiance?
When your value is considered 1/4 that of the other gender, there must be some resentment. It’s conceivable, even reasonable, to think Muslim woman would fight back with the only real weapon available to them, their wombs.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Hector,
1. I don’t necessarily believe whatever you say about yourself personally.
2. Racism has nothing to do with your race.
From Merriman-Webster:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Being black doesn’t mean black supremacists aren’t racist. No where in the definition does it mention being white, genius. Trying to argue that being Russian is racial rather than cultural, and that it is something that needs to be frozen in time circa 1800 is the sort of eugenics talk that smacks of ignorance of the development of race and culture that you have displayed before. You blithely spoke of wishing to preserve Ghanans, even thought the nation of Ghana is an artificial construction (like many nations in Africa) filled with many different ethnic grougs. You have this perverse desire to preserve Frenchness, even though the French themselves have decided that being French is cultural and not genetic, and that French culture is primarily linguistic. Even still, French is a relatively new language; a combination of Latin and German -two languages alien to the land of France some 2000 years ago when Celtic was the spoken tongue. So you’re also an idiot as well as a racist.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Benny Lava,
Don’t be ridiculous. I don’t want large numbers of Americans emigrating to Jamaica or Venezuela, either.
The problems I have with immigration come mostly because it undermines communal solidarity and unchosen identities. People who like immigration tend to be the ones who think we’re all basically the same, and should have no identity more valuable than whatever we arbitrarily choose for ourselves. I think differently. Immigration makes us think of ourselves as individuals rather than first and foremost members of collectives, and it undermines the differences between cultures. My perfect world would be a world of decentralized agrarian collectives, run by benevolent Guardians according to Christian, anticapitalist, antiliberal ideology, and interacting with each other rather little. And my definition of Russian identity is much more ideological and religious than racial.