Feminism and the birth rate

It is now around 50 years since second wave feminism changed Australia's culture from a patriarchal society, where the roles of men and women were separate and complementary, towards a feminist society where the roles of men and women are equal and competitive. With the benefit of five decades of feminism we can now assess the impacts of feminism on the birth rate. Having a baby is not only important for an individual woman, but aggregated as the birth rate, determines the power and future of nations.

In 1960, in Australia, the birth rate (total fertility rate) was an average of 3.5 children per woman. This was the baby boom, which the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has shown was actually a marriage boom, rather than a dramatic increase in family size. It was due to more women marrying and as women overwhelmingly only have children if they are partnered, this resulted in the baby boom. This all changed with second wave feminism during the cultural revolution of the 1960s and early 1970s. Over this period the birth rate declined progressively until it fell below the replacement rate of 2.1 in 1976. It has stayed below replacement level every year since then, varying between 1.7 and 1.9 children per woman, a period of over 40 years.

Australian women, who have children, now have an average of 2, but the ABS estimates that 25% of young women will now experience lifetime childlessness. Hence our negative (or below replacement) birth rate of 1.7-1.9. Modern contraceptive devices can prevent unintended pregnancies but they are not the cause of the women's deliberate decisions to limit family size to an average of two. Nor are they the cause of low and late partnering rates which result in lifetime childlessness for around 25% of women.

A negative birth rate can have adverse consequences, such as the ageing of the population with fewer younger workers. This is where we are now. The negative birth rate can also affect the electorally acceptable level of immigration. The post war compact was one immigrant landed for every baby born in Australia to avoid electoral backlash; a key consideration in a democracy. Hence a reduction in the birth rate can reduce the level of immigration that is electorally acceptable. This is important because Australia's post war immigration policy is primarily a long term defence policy.

So why is Australia's birth rate below replacement level, why has it stayed there for so long and why do around 25% of Australian women face lifetime childlessness? Australian women, like women everywhere, have an inherited maternal instinct to want to have a baby resulting from evolutionary selection over millions of years. What has gone wrong?

How has feminism affected the birth rate.

The key factor in studying the birth rate, an obvious factor sometimes overlooked by men, is that the birth rate is all about women having babies and that it is women, not men, who decide;

• if they will have a baby;
• when they have a baby; and
• how many babies they will have.

Hence any change in the role, attitudes and opportunities of women can affect the aggregate birth rate. feminism has changed the attitudes and role of women in society and the birth rate has crashed. So how has feminism affected a woman's attitudes and opportunities to have a baby?

In our modern feminist society high socio-economic women (e.g. with a university degree) have a very low average birth rate with an average of only one child per women. The low birth rate of high socio-economic women is not new. In 1776 Adam Smith noted "luxury in women weakens, if not altogether destroys, the powers of generation". Yet some economists and feminists persist in promoting policies such as increasing participation of women in the workforce, baby bonuses etc., all of which increase the socio-economic position (Adam Smith's "luxury") of women.

Interestingly low socio-economic males also seem to be disproportionally less reproductively successful. This may explain why there appears to have been no overall loss of net genetic capability in the population.

The low reproductive success of these two groups would seem to be due to inherent partnering behaviour of our species. The overwhelming majority of women only allow themselves to become pregnant if they are partnered at the time of conception, so partnering is critical to 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.