Reading Time: 4 minutes

How feminism and cultural transformations are leading to falling birth rates

Bruce DowbigginDo you know how you can be sure that Bill Gates is bullish on reducing the world’s population? Just put Bill Gates “de-population” into your search engine and stand back. You’ll get an avalanche of Fact Check, Myth and Right-Wing Disinformation articles insisting that, when Gates said he could reduce the world population by a billion or more, he was misunderstood.

Many people in official circles are highly invested in clarifying that Bill is not a de-population nut. Principally, it’s because Gates’ money sloshes through so many of their bank accounts – directly or indirectly – that the hustle must be perpetuated. They point out that his claim to reduce world population 10 to 15 percent was a reference to vaccines fighting global warming. Thus, making life more stable.

Right. As General Buck Turgidson said in Dr. Strangelove: “Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.” Ask the Chinese and their one-child policy disaster how top-down fertility suppression worked out.

falling birth rates population

Photo by Anthony Tran

Related Stories
Canada has a baby-making problem

Why marriage matters to Canada’s sagging fertility rate

Time to stop feeling sorry for yourself

What is unsaid in all the doomsday downsizing (perhaps concocted aboard Jefferey Epstein’s Lolita Express) is the fact that, in the West at least, de-population is already cutting through the population like a scythe. Who needs Gates and needles when we have collective self-elimination of the species?

In 2022, Canada had its lowest birth rate in 17 years, part of a dramatic decline in fertility that leaves it well below replacement levels. Only the Liberals’ mass immigration policy has prevented a total collapse of the replacement rate.

In the U.S., the numbers are similar – and shocking. The nationwide birth rate fell significantly between 2007 and 2022, dropping from 14.3 births per 1,000 people to 11.1, or nearly 23 percent, per new CDC data. Again, some of this is mitigated by the flood of immigrants flowing non-stop across the southern border.

It is a unique time in the West. Since 1900, the male population has been decimated by wars and disease. After the First World War, Britain’s population was left with 1.7 million more women. For every 1,000 men, there were 1,096 women – the highest discrepancy between the sexes ever recorded since the census started in 1801. Read about the ghost towns for women in England and France after the First World War, where the male population simply disappeared.

The results post-Second World War are not much better. If you were in the market for a partner you had to take what you got, when you got it. Even then, the men might be either physically or emotionally crippled by their experiences.

But since the 1970s, a balance has been restored. Men are plentiful. Women, emboldened by feminism, can pick and choose. There is no rush to avoid “spinsterhood” – the dreaded fate of many post-war women. They can now find partners at their choosing – or never.

The drop in birth rates is not pessimism for humankind. It’s simply a lack of urgency. Also, when pickings were slim, women often denied their private desires. Now, in the thrall of self-empowerment, they can indulge in whatever psycho-babble tells them is “acceptable”. Children? I’ll take a rain check.

As a result, men are a lost herd, a secondary impulse. The result? Many women have found the responsibilities of balancing two lives – motherhood and career – to be onerous.

How did this dissatisfaction occur? The second wave of feminists made common cause with the diversity left wing, meaning victimhood first, last and always. So the movement went from the joys of bra-burning, sexual freedom and a hedonistic script to the tedious chore of finding oppression in every corner of their personal and professional lives.

They found disappointment in men’s cavalier response to their new sexual liberation – epitomized by Donald Trump and Bill Clinton’s libertine hooks-ups. Available women found themselves disposable women in the free-for-all of sexual freedom. In changing the standard of sexual permission from No to Yes, it told men that a woman now had to explain why she was not obliging when sex was in the offing.

Free abortion meant no lingering responsibility for men.

Author Heather Mac donald describes in her book, The Diversity Delusion, how women have now, in response, retreated from the hedonistic Sex In The City of the 1970s and 80s to Victorian standards for ceding sexual permission to men. “Liberated” feminists are now assigning men all the responsibility – and hence blame – for any sexual encounters gone wrong. So get drunk, spend the night with a stranger, have a relationship end badly – none of it is the fault of the “modern” woman.

That abdication of women’s responsibility, says Camille Paglia, extends to the politics of the office. “What troubles me about the ‘hostile workplace’ category of sexual harassment policy is that women are being returned to their former status of delicate flowers who must be protected from assault by male lechers.” writes Paglia. “Women infantilize themselves when they cede responsibility for sexual encounters to men or after-the-fact grievance committees.”

Worse, having joined Team Victim, women have discovered that while they may gain equality with men, they have been placed miles behind other grievance groups in the Woke hit parade.”

While radicals tell you this shift is a good thing, generations of childless, partner-less women is not progress. It is a death watch brought to you by chaos agents.

Bruce Dowbiggin is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the eighth best professional hockey book by His 2004 book Money Players was voted seventh best.

For interview requests, click here.

The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.

© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.