In keeping with the theme of the OP, I think there is-will be–a political motive for this. As R Sundstrom pointed out in “the Browning of America”, the demographics are skewing diversification (i.e. people-who-don’t-look-like-us are having too many babies) There’s the fear of Whites losing majority status, since so many couples are DINK (double income no kids) or having fewer kids, while POC tend to be more fertile, hence loss of hegemony. Note that MO idiot AG, Bailey, is Trumpeting need for more children, hence more voters. With Trump’s "Ethnic Cleansing program, and loss of abortion so more babies being born, I could see them banning contraceptives as part of it. Handmaids Tale anyone?
Also, American white nationalists tend to be of the “one drop rule” persuasion.
The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry (“one drop” of “black blood”)[1][2] is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.
This artificially lowers the birth rate for “white people” because they arbitrarily define those births as not counting as white people. You could theoretically end up with a society that ethnically looks exactly like the modern US does in a few hundred years, but hasn’t a single person in it they’d consider “white”.
It’s all very stupid, but they believe it so it’s also dangerous.
There is very definitely a slice of White Nationalism that is actively anti-contraception.
Yeah, but also they’re stupid and tend to forget where they drew their lines in the sand a few decades ago.
Observe, for example, the eventual “whiteification” of ethnic groups like Irish and Italians, whom a lot of early-20th-century white nationalists would have sworn up and down didn’t count as “white people”. And look at how German and Scandinavian surnames are now accepted as “normal” white American nomenclature, when 150 years ago or so they would have automatically triggered a bunch of dialect-accent “comedy” about “Yumping Yiminy” and “mine vife”.
My WAG is that the next “whiteification” shift will be that of South Asian-Americans, maybe in tandem with the “white of Hispanic origin” category. Today’s white nationalists will fume and bellow that those “aren’t real white people”, but their great-grandchildren will be lumping “Rivera” and “Patel” in with “Schmidt” and “Jensen” as completely characteristically American names.
It took longer than you think for such groups to be fully accepted, as is shown in the 1970 movie Love Story which showed a man from a rich English-ancestry man being rejected by his father for marrying a working-class woman of Italian ancestry.
Wellllll, that’s complicating the issue with religion and social class, as well. As the protagonist asks his father in that movie, “What irks you the most, that she’s Catholic or poor?” Nobody makes any claims about her not being white.
Or there just won’t be anyone left who isn’t “white” according to them after they are done with their ethnic cleansing campaign.
have you read “The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race’ by Bruce Baum which tracks this classification path?
No, looks very interesting!
Reviving this long running thread to cite something I posted in another thread that in turn cites a post by somebody else in a third thread …
I just heard of that study on Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me." I might well point to one part of the phenomena.
One thing that occurred to me in recent times is that there appears to be a not-insignificant number of women who do not want to have children, because they would view their daughters as future victims, and their sons as future perpetrators, of violence, sexual or otherwise.
Sad but true.
Cite?
When I ask Google if this is true, it says that it’s not. There are more significant things that affect the number of children born. It says that it has more to do with economic insecurity, with unequal domestic burdens on women, with concerns about climate change, and with not having children be a social stigma.
I mean, in traditional patriarchal and otherwise oppressive societies, it has always been somewhat reasonable to worry that one’s daughters will end up being victims of violence and one’s sons will end up being perpetrators of violence. Those are by no means the only, nor in many cases even very likely, outcomes for children, but in a brutal world it isn’t absurd to worry about it.
The current state of society in developed countries is arguably less conducive to such outcomes than it’s ever been in the past. So I likewise don’t buy the claim that these fears are playing a significant role in contemporary birthrate declines.
A Pew poll on why people didn’t or don’t intend to have children. Notably, personal finances, the general state of the world and the environment are major reasons why the younger generations don’t intend to have children.
The top one being “I just don’t want to”. That does make most attempts to raise the birth rate by making having children easier problematic, since making something people don’t want to to do at all in the first place easier won’t change much.
There are three fairly famous actresses in their early forties who announced recently that they are pregnant - Aubrey Plaza at 41, Natalie Portman at 44, and Anne Hathaway at 43. Hathaway has been married for 14 years. She already has two children with her husband. Apparently she and her husband decided that they would like to have another child, so she went off birth control and became pregnant. Natalie Portman was married for 12 years and had two children with her husband, from whom she’s now divorced. She announced two months ago (before turning 45) that she was pregnant with a child with her new boyfriend. Aubrey Plaza was married for several years. Her husband had mental problems and eventually committed suicide. She has announced that she and her new boyfriend are expecting a child.
The people who have the most children now are those in the top 1.3% of the income spectrum. They have more than three children on average. Truly poor people tend to have a little more than two children on average. The average number of children slowly decreases with larger incomes up to the top 1.3% in income. Then it jumps up to a little more than three. So what do the poorest people and the richest people have in common? Free time, that’s what.
A poor person isn’t likely to have a good job and may not even have graduated from high school. They have children quickly and average a little more than two children in their life. The group with the least children are those just a little below truly rich. They have less than two children on average. They have to think about nothing except college and graduate or professional school for a while. Then they have do so well in their profession that it takes up all their time. By the time they are well established enough that they can have children, it’s too late to have any or at least any more than one. If you want women to have more children, give more money and free time to those that aren’t rich.
Also, give all the young people concrete plausible reasons to believe that having more children isn’t going to do more harm than good in terms of environmental load. Reasons other than ”a bunch of pronatalist billionaires are promoting population growth as a means to continued economic growth that will keep enriching themselves,” that is.
Increasing population, especially in the richest nations, is indisputably one of the most significant drivers of climate change, which nations still haven’t agreed on how to mitigate effectively. Pronatalists are basically telling young people not to worry about all that while they focus on boosting population for near-term economic benefit, which is not a credible pitch.
Let’s get our ecological issues sorted out so we have realistic positive projections for the environment that the new babies we’re trying to recruit today will be able to leave to their great-grandkids a hundred years hence.
The population doesn’t need to be increasing to be a significant driver of climate change. Even if it is decreasing, the population will continue to be a driver for a long time.
The population isn’t increasing much in the richest nations. Look at this chart. Click on net change to bring the countries whose population is increasing to the top. Look how relatively few nations are increasing in population. The U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, Israel, Palestine, Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Vatican City are the only well-off ones increasing in population, and only by a little in most cases. The countries where the population is increasing in almost all in poorer countries. To make the population decrease there, it will be necessary to make them well off.