I might not agree with all the points she is making, but at lest someone from that, uhh, "side", is talking about this...
Perhaps the most salient points are towards the end:
Take the UK, which is likely to face enormous demographic changes as a result of uneven fertility rates. For instance, it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the strongest predictors of fertility is religiosity: more religious people have more children, and a tendency towards religiosity is moderately heritable. Having suffered the humiliation of the atheist revolution, it seems that believers are set to have the last laugh. Which is bad news for secular feminists, among others, given the very direct conflict between their values and those of the ancient religious traditions that are set to surge.
But then here’s the thing: the future belongs to those who show up, which means that the South Koreans who hope that the whole country will “simply disappear” are likely to get their wish. The question we have yet to answer is whether it is possible in the long term to sustain the kind of affluent, urban, secular culture represented by South Korea, or whether we will always revert back to the poverty, parochialism, and rigid control of women that characterised most of human history. In other words, is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
Lol. "Liberalism" and "secularism", and their consequences...
is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
is it possible to be feminist and fertile. So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.
I might not agree with all the points she is making, but at lest someone from that, uhh, "side", is talking about this...
Perhaps the most salient points are towards the end:
Lol. "Liberalism" and "secularism", and their consequences...
This is so good.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.