Declining birth rate

[Lila9]

6 minutes ago, Basman said:

Israelis are pumping out babies not just because they have generous benefits.

This is because of cultural pressure and tradition (patriarchal), which is not good either. It just creates more traumatized and poor children.

Statistics show that 1 in 4 children in Israel is poor. 

[Lila9]

On 07/03/2026 at 2:36 AM, Jordan of the Shire said:

I don't know enough to agree with you entirely. Are these qualities an absolute inevitable outcome of patriarchy, or a result of corrupted spirit and ethical/moral ignorance?

It is possible to run a patriarchal household which has structure, stability, success, love, patience, tolerance, accountability, etc. I think depending on the scale, the people within it, and the quality of spirit, ethics, morals, wisdom... that will determine the quality of patriarchy... if we are to create a binary between governing systems.

What about a system that fluctuates between matriarchal and patriarchal values? I'm not sure what that would look like. But character is a thing cultivated mindfully and with consistency, and it requires a genuine desire to do so. With people who don't do this, who let their desires and mind run rampant—whether matriarchal or patriarchal—you'll always find an imbalance, deviation, or extreme. Actually, this feels like the inevitability of anything we try to control.

Yea forsure Lila, thanks for asking 

This is more coming from the viewpoint of Neigong systems which say the spirit is a steel-hardened quality of father-like, no-bs firmness. And the soul is cozy, loving, nurturing, etc. The idea comes from a lecture I listened to on the topic last year. The idea was that when you touch the spirit, it's loving, but in a firm and possibly unpleasant way. When you come in contact with the soul, it is loving, caring, and not so strict. But... both these exist in the universe. What I was saying was that there is a place for both these structures, and their subsequent organizations and manifestations.

Outright banning one or the other seems like a way to miss the universality of things. But... this is a bit away from the topic of having children and how to increase birth rates hahahaha... fuck.

All I'm saying, Lila, is that trying to control things too much leads to an extreme. I'm not smart enough to know exactly how societies should be organized. But I think birth rates would benefit from social support, safety, structure, ethical and moral people who reflect on themselves, and tribe... but you know... not the appropriation of tribe... but an actual breathing, qualitative, self-recursive, reflective group of people who don't bullshit themselves with their own holiness. Tall order though haha... we can only have second best... no one's perfect. No body of people will be.

How to increase birth rates... yeah, complex question. But likeable people, security, social supports seem like things I might add... not much that other people haven't said already.

Patriarchy values hierarchy and dominance, which fuels the corrupted spirit you are talking about. People with those traits, like narcissists and psychopaths, are rewarded in such a system- unsustainable for life.

Maybe when patriarchy was “young,” about 10,000 years ago, during the transition from a more matriarchal structure to a patriarchal structure, it was more sustainable for life. There are still cultures with traces of this era that preserved some matriarchal values.

But as the dark ages came and it evolved into what we know today as neo-liberalism, it is no longer sustainable for life.

We can create something hybrid, something unique, but it requires more “stage yellow and above” individuals in positions of power.

As of today, however, we need more matriarchy.

I have idealistic and visionary qualities, so I can imagine a better world vividly. My goal is not to go to extremes for the sake of it, but to think about systems that are beneficial for all and practically resolve the problems we are dealing with, like declining birth rates.

I understand that you, like many men, may have some rejection of the word “matriarchy” because of unresolved misogyny.

But I would like to clarify that this does not mean women rule. Often, men are just afraid that women will treat them the way men have treated women for the last thousands of years. However, please refer to the work of the woman I posted earlier, and you will see that matriarchy is not about women ruling. It is simply an acknowledgment that mothers are the beginning, and that building a community around raising healthy, strong, and educated children creates a stronger and better society.

This also includes wise women and men in positions of leadership who are pro-communal and true leaders, not anti-social. It does not force women or men to conform to strict gender roles. It does not force women into motherhood but provides all the conditions necessary for those who do choose to become mothers.

It also may work better in small communities of up to 100 people rather than in bigger numbers. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:44 PM by Lila9

[Lila9]

On 3/7/2026 at 2:24 PM, enchanted said:

You make interesting points and  much of what you say is largely true in that we could create a better world if we incorporated more perspectives including an especially the female perspective. 

This idea of everything would be perfect if there was a matriarchy could be just wishful thinking. Especially since you say it's never been tested on the large scale. Blaming all society's problems on a particular group is not a responsible or a conscious leadership trait. 

Under a matriarchy what is to stop the more greedy, aggressive, and corrupt women from running amok? What metrics would you use that would indicate that we are now living in a "matriarchy" and everything is finally ok? You could argue that the current system has become less greedy over time and more equitable and therefore it could be hypothesized that a better society can be run with a more conscious form of patriarchy too.

 

I didn't say that everything would be perfect. I said that there is a solution to the problem you mentioned in the post.

It is not about women ruling; it is just a replacement for a collapsing system. I am not blaming all the problems on men. Though men are largely complicit with the system that exploits women, this is not about hating men for the sake of it.

Please read my previous posts, I explained why patriarchy and matriarchy differ. Matriarchy is not about women dominating men, such thinking is just a myopic patriarchal projection.

 

On 3/7/2026 at 3:45 PM, enchanted said:

So patriarchy is cause both high and low birth rates? 

Is it legitimate to force women into motherhood? Women who may have other aspirations in life? Who may not want to be mothers? Who may be bad or harmful mothers? This is what happens in more primitive patriarchal societies like in the ME and Africa. this is wrong to force women to give birth. 

The point is, patriarchy is not sustainable for the lives of women and children. It either forces birth rates or creates unbearable conditions for mothers and children to live, because at its very core, it is about the father’s dominance over women, children, and everything else.

Why not create a society in which women are not forced to have children, but those who do want to will have all the conditions to do so?

Such a society would be more matriarchal by default, because it values motherhood and children over the father’s dominance and control.

That doesn’t mean the oppression of men, quite the opposite.

It allows men to truly be men and protect and nurture their communities, rather than stepping on them as they are currently encouraged to do in our patriarchal world.

Toxic masculinity is rewarded more than healthy masculinity today.

[enchanted]

@Lila9where does the idea come from that a long time ago humans were matriarchical? Is there any evidence for this?

[Optimized Life]

On 04/03/2026 at 2:40 PM, enchanted said:

And what are some possible solutions? 

HMM I WONDER???

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

5 hours ago, enchanted said:

@Lila9where does the idea come from that a long time ago humans were matriarchical? Is there any evidence for this?

Some of them were matrilineal, not matriarchal, meaning that the inheritance was moving throught the mother's line of the "family", and matrilocal; meaning that the hubby was moving to the mother's side of the family crib instead of the other way around. But there was no matriarchy; as soon as we developed our civilization a little, men naturally grabbed all the power; as I'm sure it's what women would have done as well if they were in the position to do so LUL

[Basman]

Mathriarchy has never existed (as in women having a dominating role) because the military defines the borders of a civilization and women aren't suited to make up the bulk of an army (men are physically stronger and more expendable relative to the reproductive fitness of a group). 

Patriarchy originally rose up to protect women and society from other men in my opinion. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

The birthrate cannot be reversed because the general public are too depoliticized too give a shit and unwilling to change. They feel no sense of duty for their state and are not willing to make acts of love for others in a way that impedes with independence. People are too independent, too broken off from any sense of community.

It's like the housing crisis. Everybody cries about unaffordable living but god forbid the value of your property depreciating. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians understand that policy that would effectively tackle the birthrate would be too unpopular and untenable with current culture.

[Basman]

18 hours ago, Lila9 said:

This is because of cultural pressure and tradition (patriarchal), which is not good either. It just creates more traumatized and poor children.

Statistics show that 1 in 4 children in Israel is poor. 

That is mostly haredi, AKA ultra orthodox jews, but it is much easier to have less children than more. It's a better problem to have than what S. Korea is dealing with because it is easier to solve. 1 in 4 is also a relative improvement because it used to be 1 in 3 just since covid.

But that is besides the point, because your sidestepping the substance of my argument entirely to make a feminist culture war statement. I never said that the solution is more patriarchy.

[Lila9]

10 hours ago, enchanted said:

@Lila9where does the idea come from that a long time ago humans were matriarchical? Is there any evidence for this?

I was about to respond to your previous message, but it disappeared.

There is archaeological and anthropological evidence that humans were more egalitarian for most of their history and that we evolved because of our ability to imagine and cooperate.

This is not to idealize pre-patriarchal cultures.

They were very collectivist and conformist, and they were brutal in their own ways, but they also appreciated motherhood and fertility. For example, after women gave birth, they rested and were taken care of by the family and tribe while others took care of the infant until she recovered. A child was raised by many adults and received a lot of attention, which helped to build a more rounded and healthy psyche. 

This is in comparison to the nuclear family, which is a more recent and patriarchl sturcture, in which only two people are taking care of the child, mainly the woman. She has to take care of the infant as soon as she gives birth. No wonder there are so many mothers with depression after they give birth. Giving birth takes a serious toll on the body and the soul. 

My mother had depression too and also had suicidal thoughts. This is very common among new mothers.

They don’t have the support system they used to have, they are dependent on the mercy of a man, basically hoping he won’t leave them.

Also, for a child raised in a nuclear family, childhood can feel like a prison, especially if both parents are traumatized or toxic, which many parents are.

On top of that, there may be a lack of attention because both parents are working, fueling the capitalist machine, while the child undergoes a kind of ongoing indoctrination from childhood to become a submissive follower who maintains the artificial order. If they were raised in a community, having unhealed parents wouldn’t be such a big deal because they would have access to various other healthier adults and role models.

But not every community is healthy. It requires conscious individuals with integrity, green and above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Optimized Life]

12 hours ago, Optimized Life said:

HMM I WONDER???

In case no one notice, solution very obvious

Make babies 

I'm having 40+ children 

Edited 10 hours ago by Optimized Life

[Basman]

Matriarchies, as in women dominating a society in an exclusionary manner, has never existed. There have been matrilineal societies, which makes sense in nomadic tribes. Mothers always know who their children are, but it's less clear for fathers. There's in general more of a communal approach to raising children and there's no inheritance, so there's no incentive patrilineality to the same degree as post-agricultural revolution societies. It goes hand in hand with the theory that humans are adapted for gang bangs, with how much longer it takes for women to orgasm and how loud they can moan during sex (mating call) as well as how penises are plunger shaped (removing competing sperm). Gangbangs would introduce greater reproductive fitness into mating. 

[enchanted]

19 hours ago, Optimized Life said:

HMM I WONDER???

You can laugh and I can think of some funny solutions too. But we actually need to find real solutions otherwise humanity will go extinct

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 09/03/2026 at 0:22 AM, Basman said:

Be careful with thinking that welfare alone is a sufficient solution to societal problems. The nordics spend the most money on education in the world yet their students achieve subpar results globally. Strategy must include consideration for culture. 

I never said it was a solution without issues. I never even said it was a sufficient solution. I just proposed it as an idea that I had not seen implemented.

Careful heh heh heh - those scary thoughts!

[Basman]

27 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I never said it was a solution without issues. I never even said it was a sufficient solution. I just proposed it as an idea that I had not seen implemented.

Careful heh heh heh - those scary thoughts!

He he he.

To be fair, I do think it can work, but it would be exceedingly expensive for the state, and it doesn't do anything to change the factors that got us here in the first place, like the dissolvement of communal bonds, public depoliticization, the affordability crisis, etc. It's probably why no country wants to do it even though it would probably be popular with voters.

It's like solving the problem of paddling up river by buying better paddles and paddling even harder. Politicians might propose it as a kind last resort before some kind of socio-political crash relative to population numbers.