Angry Harry : ‘Feminism and Falling Birth Rates’

Angry Harry responds to objections to his previous article on the Islamification of the West :

http://angryharry.com/Feminism-And-Falling-Birth-Rates.htm

In one of my recent pieces – Say Goodbye To Your Country – I stated that feminism was responsible for the catastrophically low birth rates in the indigenous populations of western countries – particularly those in Europe.

And I received a few emails suggesting that the low birth rates were mostly due to other factors rather than feminism – most notably stemming from the notion that the richer do people become, the less do they desire to have children.

However, I was, in fact, well aware when I wrote the piece that I was probably over-egging the case and that I would probably have to re-write parts of it upon further reflection.

And yet I find it almost impossible to believe that feminism has not caused a significant downturn on our birth rates.

After all, feminism has surely been one of the most influential ideologies on the western mind over the past three or four decades.

Furthermore, it is mostly concerned with inter-gender relationships, marriage, families, children and women in the workplace.

So how could it not have had a major influence on the declining birth rates?

Has it had no effect on them?

20 thoughts on “Angry Harry : ‘Feminism and Falling Birth Rates’”

  1. @theantifeminist,
    Another good analysis by our ‘father’, but I nearly burst out laughing at this advert located at the top (right side) of the new post.

    It’s a dating site for those who want a local femihag ‘mature woman’ for a girlfriend!
    I don’t think it was anything AH can actually control (I often see similar ads in the same place for HOT, young Filipinos and Thais), I think they are rotated or just randomly appear with each new hit, but it did seem appropriate as a good joke to the likes of us..

    Well it might be a useful ad for those mRA’s older than 35, who are afraid of being called a paedophile, if someone sees them with a girl as young as 26… LOL!

  2. As I have said before: men no longer have anything to gain from marrying and generating offspring.

    Or rather, the risks outweigh the benefits.

    Thanks to feminism, you may very well get to pay for your children until the age of 18 without ever seeing them again because your woman ditched you for another man.

    Or you may be raising somebody else’s children because your wife cheated on you, and you don’t even have a right to have a secret DNA test carried out.

    And if you decide on your own terms that you want to leave your wife and kids, the divorce and alimony payments will break your back.

    But it doesn’t stop there. Who seriously still wants to date women, with a view to maybe bedding them on the third or fourth date, if date rape legislation (particularly around U.S. college campuses as of late, but also more generally in countries like Sweden, see the Assange case) means endless pitfalls and the risk of being called a rapist because the woman simply changes her mind the next day about whether or not she wanted your little nookie.

    All of this is thanks to man-hating feminists who have tipped the scales insurmountably against men. It should be something to think about for all the slowly desiccating mid-30s single women who are more and more discovering feminism as their new spiritual home.

  3. @inclinedreader
    Everything you’ve said couldn’t be any closer to the truth if you tried.
    However, after reading your comments I’m now becoming more curious about the advert I mentioned yesterday, or more: how it was chosen and placed at the top of Harry’s new post..?

    I don’t know an awful lot about web advertising, but I know that search providers do play a huge part in it, where they record the ip address of users and the keywords they enter into the search engines, then they place ads into ad spaces on web pages displayed in the browser of that user’s ip address, relating to the keywords he entered.

    It appears to me that whoever owns or administers AH’s website, monitors the hits of all visitors and from the stats it gathers, ‘knows’ that most of those hits are from men (obviously) over the age of say 45.

    It almost looks as though the gynocracy have hi-jacked the hit-counter (or whatever it is that records the stats), and are now trying to use the technology to convert us to the ‘new (feminist approved) normal’!

    They are trying to brainwash us with those ads like the one I pointed out above, to a ‘mature women’ dating site, rather like the new ‘MILF’ genre tried to hi-jack the porn industry; or their BBW nonsense – where Fat ugly old bags are supposedly ‘curvy’ and curvy is ‘beautiful’!

    They are serious: they really think they can convince us to believe that HOT young girls are dull and boring, but fat, ugly 40+ yr old femihags are highly desirable sex-objects!!

    They’ll try anything they can think of now to try and divert our attention away from their competition (HOT young girls), but trying to indoctrinate visitors to Angry Harry’s site with this ridiculous propaganda is a truly desperate act!
    LOL!!

  4. AH writes:

    “And when it comes to having babies, responsible couples need money.

    “In the old days, the men went out to work and the women stayed at home.

    “Now they both need to go out to work in order to make the same money that is required to raise a family in decent circumstances.

    “But if the women are out at work, then it is not very easy for the couples to bear and raise children.

    “The result is that they do not have has many children as they used to do.”

    That’s it in a nutshell. You need say no more.

    But it doesn’t mention feminism. It doesn’t need to. It’s an explanation based on market forces only.

    There’s no doubt that the rise in feminism is correlated with all this. It’s notoriously difficult to separate cause and effect when there are many correlates.

    In my opinion, the seeds of feminism – basically, preference for women – were always there, but held in check by unfortunate reality. A brave cavewoman striking out for a glorious independent existence would likely be eaten by a bear. These days though, she can get away with it; the reality check is gone and we see the ludicrous manifestations that form modern feminism – as a result, not a cause.

    An extra piece of evidence for this is the number of different feminisms there are. This feminism; that feminism; this wave; that wave; and, of course, NAFALT. To my mind, that’s evidence of it simply being made up on the spot to take advantage of local conditions, rather than being a thought through consistent philosophy.

  5. ‘The notion that the richer people become, the less children they have.’

    Here are some of our wealthiest pre-feminist US presidents, and the number of children they had:

    General Grant (4); Rutherford Hayes (8); James Garfield (7); Grover Cleveland (5); Theodore Roosevelt (5).

    The top two were General William Harrison (11) and his VP and successor, John Tyler (16). Both of them were extremely wealthy men.

    Back in pre-feminist times, a large family and wealth often went together. The poor didn’t have large families, since they couldn’t afford them. The situation is reversed today, because ‘heroic single moms’ can knock out feral offspring with thugs and get welfare checks for it.

  6. In my opinion, the seeds of feminism – basically, preference for women – were always there, but held in check by unfortunate reality. A brave cavewoman striking out for a glorious independent existence would likely be eaten by a bear. These days though, she can get away with it; the reality check is gone and we see the ludicrous manifestations that form modern feminism – as a result, not a cause.

    No disrespect Ted, but your narrative, which no doubt is the most popular in the men’s rights world, just seems too simplistic to me.

    I see that there is a lot of truth in the underlying premise, but really – reliance on male muscle probably diminished greatly the day we settled down to live in agricultural societies 5-7 thousand years ago.

    Another problem with the ‘muscle value’ theory is that it absolutely ignores the Social Purity roots of the feminist movement in the 19th century. In fact, your theory (which the Misandry Bubble is a form of) largely validates all pre-second wave feminism as about women fighting for equality (but feminism has ‘gone too far’ since).

    It has little or no explanation for the timeline of feminism, and in particular the bursts of feminist activism we call the first, second, and third waves.

    You haven’t mentioned it outright (I can’t remember) but presumably you subscribe to the ‘labour saving devices’ theory as part of your narrative.

    Again, the problem with blaming feminism and the decline of men on the invention of the washing machine etc, is that it again fails to synchronise with the actual rush into employment, education etc (though no doubt such household devices did facilitate that).

    Given that the need to obtain a sexual mate and provider/protector for herself and her children, is clearly the most dominant imperative hardwired into the female mind, don’t you think that sexual market forces need to be included, at least, into the narrative?

  7. @Eric – Osama Bin Laden came from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia – I think he had over a dozen siblings, and a similar number of children himself.

    Back in pre-feminist times, a large family and wealth often went together. The poor didn’t have large families, since they couldn’t afford them. The situation is reversed today, because ‘heroic single moms’ can knock out feral offspring with thugs and get welfare checks for it.

    Spot on Eric. I’ve mentioned this here before.

  8. I don’t know an awful lot about web advertising, but I know that search providers do play a huge part in it, where they record the ip address of users and the keywords they enter into the search engines, then they place ads into ad spaces on web pages displayed in the browser of that user’s ip address, relating to the keywords he entered.

    It appears to me that whoever owns or administers AH’s website, monitors the hits of all visitors and from the stats it gathers, ‘knows’ that most of those hits are from men (obviously) over the age of say 45.

    It almost looks as though the gynocracy have hi-jacked the hit-counter (or whatever it is that records the stats), and are now trying to use the technology to convert us to the ‘new (feminist approved) normal’!

    @Alan : the advert at AngryHarry you refer to is from Google. Google is tracking every single thing you do online – in fact, a lot of companies are, but obviously Google knows pretty much everything about you.

    For example, I’ve just visited a medical healthsite because for some reason I’ve woken up this morning with a completely bloodshot right eye. Now I’ve just re-visited Angry Harry and the advert is asking me if I want to apply for medical insurance.

    Now I’m not suggesting that you have been visiting dating sites searching for cougars (which would make you the opposite of a paedocrite? LOL), but maybe even just typing the words ‘older women’ could be enough for you to be ‘identified’ as somebody who might purchase a membership to a dating site for men seeking older women.

    When you consider this, how much info advertising companies have about you, then just think about what government agencies will have.

    And it goes without saying that none of this has anything to do with Angry Harry – he just puts up a google adsense banner on his site to pay the webhosting (Google will be tracking you independently of that).

  9. > don’t you think that sexual market forces need to be included, at least, into the narrative?

    Older women jealous of the younger competition? Yes. I think there’s more to it than that, though. A woman doesn’t have to rely only on her sexual attractiveness; she can also use indirect pressure on the man to get what she wants. Shaming tactics, and manipulating other men to exert pressure on the target. Indirect suggestions of pedophilia are useful here. Raising the age of consent reduces her competition, but only for a while (the young woman will age beyond it); but the shaming is good for ever.

  10. @theantifeminist
    I understand what your saying there, but I honestly haven’t typed anything like that into google or anywhere else, however I have clicked the ads on Harry’s site for the Asian dating sites, out of curiosity, but it was a fair while ago.
    Maybe my clicks on his ads to those (Asian dating) sites means to google that I’m interested even in OLDER women? If it’s only that, well its nothing…

    What I feared was another form of sexual trade union social engineering (as I’d suggested or theorized) and that they’re becoming more sophisticated:
    I realize that this makes me appear to be a bit paranoid, but what I was thinking along the lines of was, the sexual trade union have put in some sort of script for those users who click the ads for the YOUNG and sexy Asian sites, to be offered a (sexual trade union approved) alternative, i.e. 40+ divorced and ugly femihags.
    However, I hope that your theory is the more likely explanation for it.
    🙂

  11. @Eric
    “Back in pre-feminist times, a large family and wealth often went together. The poor didn’t have large families, since they couldn’t afford them.”

    The rich family was large because more children survived. Poor families were not so lucky.

    Although it isn’t usually thought of as high technology, the invention of effective sewers cut child mortality sharply. In the 1850’s they were still arguing about whether cholera outbreaks had any relation to sewage. London sent untreated sewage directly into the Thames. In those days, a woman typically birthed eight or so children so enough survived to keep the parents in their old age. That took up a large part of her life. Compare that to the situation today. The economics of her situation were radically different.

  12. I understand what your saying there, but I honestly haven’t typed anything like that into google or anywhere else, however I have clicked the ads on Harry’s site for the Asian dating sites, out of curiosity, but it was a fair while ago.
    Maybe my clicks on his ads to those (Asian dating) sites means to google that I’m interested even in OLDER women? If it’s only that, well its nothing…

    @Alan I mean’t rather that you might have typed the words ‘older women’ in the context of men’s rights. I didn’t seriously think you were looking for older women, lol.

    Google also most likely knows your age, so it just assumes that you want to hook up with ‘mature women’ (it could well be that there is some PC manipulation of its A.I. algorithm – after all, only ‘perverts’ and ‘exploiters’ want to date females younger than themselves!). I recently signed up for a social network (first time in ages). After signing up, it immediately gave me a list of females I ‘might be interested in’. LOL. They were all 40 y.o. chubby divorcees. F*** that!! Who are they kidding??

    Something else I’ve noticed about social network sites is they won’t even allow you to search anymore for nubile 16 and 17 year olds, even when the sites are European and no European country (apart from Malta and Turkey) has an age of consent higher than 16 (and I’m talking about social sites, not dating sites).

  13. A woman doesn’t have to rely only on her sexual attractiveness; she can also use indirect pressure on the man to get what she wants. Shaming tactics, and manipulating other men to exert pressure on the target. Indirect suggestions of pedophilia are useful here

    Well exactly and I’ve been arguing that here for the last 5 years. And I assume you agree that all these things are easier for women to do when they have greater power.

    In fact, feminists in most countries have been spectacularly unsucessful of late in raising the age of consent itself (although they have been trying to raise it globally to 18 or 21 since the 19th century), and this is precisely why they have had to resort to these indirect methods (such as provoking paedohysteria and conflating paedophilia even with the attraction towards young women, or the desire for younger females).

  14. @theantifeminist

    (it could well be that there is some PC manipulation of its A.I. algorithm – after all, only ‘perverts’ and ‘exploiters’ want to date females younger than themselves!).

    Yep and that was my whole point – just how far do these jealous old bags have to go to make total fools of themselves and of course to maintain that ridiculous narrative?

    Whether we’re right or wrong, your answer certainly gave me a good belly laugh! Thanks!

  15. @antifeminist:

    (such as provoking paedohysteria and conflating paedophilia even with the attraction towards young women, or the desire for younger females).

    well, to play devil’s advocate just a little bit, what else can these women do. They have to resort to these batsh*t crazy methods because men, no matter what age, are hardwired to be sexually attracted to women in their physical prime. These are desperate last-ditch attempts to go against (and even outlaw) what nature tells men to do. All the talk about how women supposedly gain “character” and “personality” over the years which is supposed to give them an attractiveness that transcends their fading looks all goes up in smoke when a fit, firm-breasted 22-year-old comes along and steals the show.

    Ageing women know deep down that they don’t stand a chance against such youthfulness, and it is no accident that it’s almost without exception middle-aged women (except for a few castrated manginas and white knights) who run all those children’s charities and women’s rights groups. These women are compensating for the emotional traume of us evil men no longer being interested in them. So they go out and propose to raise the age of consent to ludicrous levels and call a 50-year-old with a 21-year-old girlfriend a pedophile. And they fight prostitution and give men a bad name for supposedly “creating demand for human trafficking” (the latter of which is actually quite a rare occurrence within the love-for-hire business), precisely because legal prostitution gives middle-aged men the chance to get in the sack with nubile young women, no questions asked.

    And apparently even women who once themselves made a living off their youthful looks become bitter and jealous as they age. A while ago, German 1990s supermodel Nadja Auermann, now about in her early 40s, complained that men these days are only “attracted to 13-year-olds”… and she is pushing for legislation to raise the minimum age for fashion modeling to 17. No, Nadja, grown men almost without exception don’t have a thing for 13-year-olds by default… but they know attractive young women when they see one, and you are sadly leaving that age group as we speak.

  16. Here’s the breakdown in my opinion:
    Mid teens to mid twenties: most women are superhot provided they aren’t fat.
    Mid twenties to mid thirties: Most women still appeal to most men, but not as much as before. Plus more women in this age group are fat and frumpy.
    Mid thirties to late 40’s : a significant minority of women manage to stay sexually attractive to most males while in this age range : laser and other skin care treatments and surgeries have helped extend this somewhat; the big problem with most women 35 plus who retain their beauty is their fertility totally craters even faster than it did when they turned 30. Thus I’ve seen quite a few 40 plus women I’d take to bed for a one night stand, but not very many that I’d consider marrying (even if that was safe legally and financially) cuz I want a kid or two.
    50 plus women : with vanishing few exceptions (1 percent or less) helped by good genetics and all the surgeries and treatments one can buy a few can play at being sexually attractive to most men. 99 percent are now in their “sexually invisible” phase, unless one is married to them and she’s managed to keep herself in shape.

    Those are my thoughts of the effects of aging on women. Now should they ever “solve” these issues, I am in agreement with some on here that most women would go for the permanent “Barbie” look.

  17. I guess my main point in terms of age was that most women aren’t attractive to most men over age 35. I’m sure that hurts lots of women’s feelings, but it is the truth.

  18. Ted:
    There might be a difference in the relative wealth between England and America then. Remember that a lot of Americans, up until 1970, would have been considered ‘poor’ in spite of owning large farms capable of feeding and maintaining a large family.

    But another major factor is that American women then also considered a large family a blessing and a mark of being a ‘real woman’ to have and maintain a large household. Nothing like today where Amerobitches make a fetish of ‘abortion rights’ and being ‘heroic single mothers.’

    BTW, are you the same British commenter ‘Ted’ who used to go on Futrelle-baiting sessions with me at the Spearhead? LOL those were the good old days!

  19. @Eric
    “a difference in the relative wealth between England and America”

    Jack London wrote about that in “The People of the Abyss”. Coming from the relative affluence of the US, he just couldn’t believe what he found in England:

    “In his research Jack discovered that these people who lived in the slums did so not by choice and not through laziness, but because of old age, disease, or accidents that had reduced their labor value. Escape from the slums was next to impossible, for their tiny wages did not permit them to live elsewhere. They had no resources, no money, and no strength left. Slow starvation was the common end”

    “Futrelle-baiting sessions”

    I did make a few remarks along those lines at the time. I haven’t read the gentleman recently, though.

Comments are closed.