>I’ll be impressed if they have 3 or 4 kids instead of “his and hers” dogs.
They won’t. Once women’s liberation gets this advanced the birth rate never recovers without rolling back women’s rights which we’ve very unlikely to do.
“They won’t. Once women’s liberation gets this advanced the birth rate never recovers without rolling back women’s rights which we’ve very unlikely to do.”
I’ll never forget back in Rush’s very early years, when it seemed that Japan was taking over America by buying us up. Rush had the solution! Export liberalism over there.
And so we did. The women are now ‘liberated’ (i.e., in the workplace) and the population is in a death spiral (and Japan is a non-threat economically).
Ironically, though, Japan will come out best of all the countries that have feminism - as they refuse to repopulate with people who want to exterminate them. Instead they’re simply automating...to the point, soon, of having robot caretakers for their elderly.
"Rolling back women's rights"? Which "we" aren't likely to do? Odd choice of language.
American women can make the choice to have several children (which I did), and still retain their "women's rights."
And if they are traditional and conservative women (which I am), they might very well choose to postpone careers, and stay home with their children. They might even choose to homeschool their own children and not allow them to be raised by the government schools.
I don't see any loss of "women's rights" in any of that.