While you’re very determined about your point of view, I can only cite demographics that say otherwise. It is not culture that reduces birthrate, but prosperity. A level of prosperity unique to that nation, time and again, accomplishes this, no matter the cultural changes or lack thereof.
Once that birthrate has dropped to sustainable, only then can culture, and government, limit it further. And usually by raising the quality of standards for care of children.
In demographics, this is explained that in more primitive agrarian societies, there is a very high child mortality rate, and prior to the use of antiseptics about one in four women died in or shortly after childbirth, whether or not the child survived. Likewise, larger families are associated with prosperity, as only they will provide either insurance or retirement to their parents as they get older.
Importantly, this close family cohesion and caring for the elderly is still seen in Mexico, though its birthrate has plummeted, and the vast majority of women still occupy traditional family roles.
What does cause demographic damage to a population is not the masculinity of females, but the embrace of sex outside of socially enforced marriage. This is happening to slave descended black Americans and its demographic damage is extraordinary.
In mammalian biology, the male prerogative is to spread their DNA to the offspring of as many children as possible. But females have a double prerogative to get both the best sperm for their offspring, and the best provider male to help them raise their offspring.
However, humans have innovated socially enforced marriage as something better for men, women and their children. Children raised by such couples are oriented to success; whereas children raised by single parents are oriented to survival. Men give up multiple partners for greater assurance that the children have their DNA. And women give on having the best sperm and best provider male, on condition that the same male will only provide for her offspring.
Marriage as a system can be corrupted by dowry, which has led some to imagine it as being an unneeded social fabrication. Likewise they imagine sex as being for fun, not procreation. But the ramifications of this are very destructive.
They require long term birth control, in the limited window of time when it is best to have children, abortion for unwanted children, and results in survival oriented children 60% more likely to become criminal offenders.
So, in a manner of speaking, it is not the masculinity of females that is demographically damaging, but unbridled sexuality, of sex for fun instead of for the serious purpose of reproduction.
Yes, there are many factors, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that the masculinization of women and their embrace of careerism don’t play a role. Demographic Winter even mentions this, citing the working-woman phenomenon as one of six factors that reduce birth rates.
Anyway, there are many reasons why deviation from traditional roles is destructive, not the least of which is that it has led to the sexes becoming competitors.
And it’s not just that I’m determined about my point of view, but also that I have little patience for men who accept these ridiculous, evil feminist norms. They were, by the way, established by the liberals of yesteryear, but now conservatives mindlessly accept them. It’s pathetic.