The Rise of Birth Control & the Decline of Civilization

[+OverSword]

36 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And by greater freedom I mostly mean 'equal freedom that men always had'. 

I can’t agree with that because when it was more normal to get a commitment including marriage before sex they had the same freedom. Actually I would say women had more choice in the matter than men because it was their place to say yes or no. Sure that’s in a perfect world but just because that didn’t happen every time doesn’t mean it wasn’t most of the time. I was born in 64 and 90% of my friends came from large two parent homes and that was the norm. It wasn’t the slavery that you are picturing. My parents started dating when they were 14 and 16 and remained married for 57 years until my dad died. Relationships like that were normal and society was more stable than it is now imo because of that stable base. 

edit to add as I think about it all of my friends parents and all my aunts and uncles are still married. The people I know whose parents are divorced were divorced when I was a kid.

Edited September 28, 2023 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

(Using this post to ask an unrelated question).

I was curiously looking up single parent stats because of your post. And sadly around 50% of black kids live in a single family home. It was like 21% white, and 28% Hispanic.

How does the disparity in rates of minority single families fit into your birth control narrative? 

I feel I’ve already explained that in a general sense. I can’t say why these communities deteriorate faster but the reason is largely the same I think.  But I will say that if you research this further you will find that was not the case in these communities prior to the introduction of the pill. I have heard people quote the stats in interviews on podcasts and during debates about systemic racism particularly as it concerns the black community. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by OverSword

[+Liquid Gardens]

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

I can’t agree with that because when it was more normal to get a commitment including marriage before sex they had the same freedom.

It was also more normal to view women who did not wait until marriage before sex far more negatively than men who did the same; men who had premarital sex were 'just being men', women who did the same were often referred to with one of the many alternate words for prostitute. That's not the same freedom.

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

Actually I would say women had more choice in the matter than men because it was their place to say yes or no.

Which means that it was not their place to ask in the first place, not sure that's 'more choice', just different.

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

I was born in 64 and 90% of my friends came from large two parent homes and that was the norm. It wasn’t the slavery that you are picturing.

I don't know what 'slavery' you think I'm picturing.

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

My parents started dating when they were 14 and 16 and remained married for 57 years until my dad died. Relationships like that were normal and society was more stable than it is now imo because of that stable base. 

We are essentially the same age.  My parents and all of my aunts and uncles I believe except one went through a divorce and most have been remarried for a long time, which was also 'normal'.  But of course when we were young, women were also in a much different situation than men were, women's advancement and employment opportunities were more restricted and there was a lot more pressure to conform to 'gender roles' so even if they wanted to get a divorce it was a more impactful decision for them. From wiki on the Women's liberation movement:

Quote

Socially, the baby boom experienced after the Second World War, the relative worldwide economic growth in the post-war years, the expansion of the television industry sparking improved communications, as well as access to higher education for both women and men led to an awareness of the social problems women faced and the need for a cultural change.[23] At the time, women were economically dependent on men and neither the concept of patriarchy nor a coherent theory about the power relationships between men and women in society existed.[24] If they worked, positions available to women were typically in light manufacturing or agricultural work and a limited segment of positions in the service industries, such as bookkeeping, domestic labor, nursing, secretarial and clerical work, retail sales, or school teaching.[25][26] They were expected to work for lower wages than men and upon marriage, terminate their employment.[27][25][26] Women were unable to obtain bank accounts or credit, making renting housing impossible, without a man's consent. In many countries they were not allowed to go into public spaces without a male chaperone.[28]

As women became more educated and joined the workforce, their home responsibilities remained largely unchanged. Though families increasingly depended on dual incomes, women carried most of the responsibility for domestic work and care of children.[36] There had long been recognized by society in general of the inequalities in civil, socio-economic, and political agency between women and men. However, the women's liberation movement was the first time that the idea of challenging sexism gained wide acceptance.

When we were young kids in addition to the above going on, blacks were getting firehosed in the street, protesting students were shot on campus, the Cold War was in full swing including an extremely close call a few years before, gay and trans people were almost invisible (for their own safety), and we were shipping a steady supply of young people to Vietnam to fight in a very questionable war.  Not only was that not as 'stable' as today it again reflects the lack of freedoms for people at the time; if that's the cost of whatever 'stability' is being defined as then again not sure that's something to laud.

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It was also more normal to view women who did not wait until marriage before sex far more negatively than men who did the same; men who had premarital sex were 'just being men', women who did the same were often referred to with one of the many alternate words for prostitute. That's not the same freedom.

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

And men DID go to prostitutes, back in "the day" there were districts for them that the police didn't touch I hear.

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Which means that it was not their place to ask in the first place, not sure that's 'more choice', just different.

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

Women didn't ask for sex?  Ever met a woman?

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

We are essentially the same age.  My parents and all of my aunts and uncles I believe except one went through a divorce and most have been remarried for a long time, which was also 'normal'.  But of course when we were young, women were also in a much different situation than men were, women's advancement and employment opportunities were more restricted and there was a lot more pressure to conform to 'gender roles' so even if they wanted to get a divorce it was a more impactful decision for them. From wiki on the Women's liberation movement:

Quote

Your whole family being divorced is not even normal today

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

When we were young kids in addition to the above going on, blacks were getting firehosed in the street, protesting students were shot on campus, the Cold War was in full swing including an extremely close call a few years before, gay and trans people were almost invisible (for their own safety), and we were shipping a steady supply of young people to Vietnam to fight in a very questionable war.  Not only was that not as 'stable' as today it again reflects the lack of freedoms for people at the time; if that's the cost of whatever 'stability' is being defined as then again not sure that's something to laud.

Regardless of civil rights violations, anti-war protests, the cold war...man you are just covering every base here aren't you ... I believe my initial assertion stands and I really only have had one point the whole time: 

Birth control changed an age old compact between males and females, that change has weakened the family unit and a weaker family unit has led to a less civil society.  It's not the only thing but the family unit is a big one.

You can bring up suffrage, racism, war, unequal employment opportunities or any of the other thing I feel are irrelevant to my main point and I feel my main point still stands.

edit: I suppose you could argue that the freedom afforded women by birth control has led to a better society because women now have the choice to have sex and not have children but I don't get how. It assumes that sex is what makes a person happy but we know that's not true and you can have choice without getting laid.  Married women with children rate happier than their single professional counterparts so I don't see how that argument could hold water.   

Edited September 28, 2023 by OverSword

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

And men DID go to prostitutes, back in "the day" there were districts for them that the police didn't touch I hear.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, what I pointed out was that women who did what men did too, have premarital sex, were referred to as prostitutes and worse even though they were not.  Don't know about you but for me that attitude persisted somewhat into my high school years, and I'd bet yours also since it was about the same time.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Women didn't ask for sex?  Ever met a woman?

How about you read first what I'm responding to, which was "I would say women had more choice in the matter than men because it was their place to say yes or no.".  I'm glad you realize that once we move beyond stereotypes that women back then did ask for sex, so that doesn't jibe well with it also being 'their place' to say yes or no, apparently it's also men's place to say yes or no also.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Your whole family being divorced is not even normal today

40% of marriages in the US end in divorce, I'll bet it's even higher for couples who marry young like almost all of my divorced/remarried aunts and uncles did, so you're wrong, it's quite normal.  And the pressures that existed around the former 'more stable' days you are referring to probably had something to do with them getting married too young.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Regardless of civil rights violations, anti-war protests, the cold war...man you are just covering every base here aren't you ...

I believe you are the one who has been referencing social stability, kinda leaving some relevant things out concerning that if you just focus on birth control of all things in isolation?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I suppose you could argue that the freedom afforded women by birth control has led to a better society because women now have the choice to have sex and not have children but I don't get how.

Really?  You're a libertarian I thought, usually personal liberty has value on its own in that framework.  It is a better society because the alternative is worse, at least until you offer up that better alternative to women having the freedom to use birth control.  How is it not a better society for women who don't want to have children?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

It assumes that sex is what makes a person happy but we know that's not true and you can have choice without getting laid.  Married women with children rate happier than their single professional counterparts so I don't see how that argument could hold water.   

It does not assume that, it assumes that women have rights which does tend to make people happier.  You don't know nearly enough people to be able to say that sex doesn't make people happy. "Ever have sex?"  It's pretty fun, but YMMV. 

Perhaps the reason married women with children are happier is because the single people who were not happy being married are no longer married, since they have more freedom to do that now?  Again, 40% divorce rate, that's not a very favorable data point for the happiness overall of people who have married. 

[Kenemet]

On 9/24/2023 at 11:06 AM, OverSword said:

I stick with my statement. The deterioration of the family unit is a primary driver for a decline in our society. The statistics associated with criminals and fatherless homes bears out my assertion. There is so much crime that we now ignore a great deal of it because there simply aren’t the resources to deal with it, so don’t try to say that there is no decline.  The fatherless homes are driven by society viewing sex as having fewer consequences and responsibilities due to effective birth control changing what sex is to society.  Don’t get me wrong there are certainty more factors than the change of what sex is that contributes. 

Crime rates in the US and elsewhere are trending down (Covid did a temporary change, though)  U.S. Crime Rate & Statistics 1990-2023 | MacroTrends

And I think that "men wanting sex (but not a relationship) and not wanting to use condoms" is a really big contributor to fatherless households.  The poverty in those family units is often due to a father not paying child support (for a number of reasons.)

[+OverSword]

31 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I believe you are the one who has been referencing social stability, kinda leaving some relevant things out concerning that if you just focus on birth control of all things in isolation?

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I'll be more specific then.  Rising crime rates, incels, and single mothers.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Crime rates in the US and elsewhere are trending down (Covid did a temporary change, though)  U.S. Crime Rate & Statistics 1990-2023 | MacroTrends

And I think that "men wanting sex (but not a relationship) and not wanting to use condoms" is a really big contributor to fatherless households.  The poverty in those family units is often due to a father not paying child support (for a number of reasons.)

Down? 

• Quote

   

  • U.S. crime rate & statistics for 2021 was 6.81, a 6.02% increase from 2020.
  • U.S. crime rate & statistics for 2020 was 6.42, a 28.78% increase from 2019.
  • U.S. crime rate & statistics for 2019 was 4.99, a 1.14% increase from 2018.

   

  The fatherless households, and I'm not saying you are wrong, but the amount of women willing to have pre-marital non committed sex with these men is a phenomenon unseen at these rates in the past because the introduction of sexual freedom brought on by the pill has changed standards of behavior.

[Tatetopa]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The fatherless households, and I'm not saying you are wrong, but the amount of women willing to have pre-marital non committed sex with these men is a phenomenon unseen at these rates in the past because the introduction of sexual freedom brought on by the pill has changed standards of behavior.

So, men want sex and not relationships?  If a woman traps a man into a lifetime relationship because that is the only way he can get sex, do you think he will somehow become a responsible parent and father?  Is that going to make for a content productive society or a bitter unhappy one?

If you were into human genetics an preservation of the species into the future, you might argue that the rise of incels is a good sign.  It means fewer are breeding and as Uncle Scar would say contributing to the shallow end of the gene pool. 

[spartan max2]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Down? 

• The fatherless households, and I'm not saying you are wrong, but the amount of women willing to have pre-marital non committed sex with these men is a phenomenon unseen at these rates in the past because the introduction of sexual freedom brought on by the pill has changed standards of behavior.

The crime rate has trended down. Like Kenemet said, there was a temp uptick during the covis pandemic. An exceptional factor.

[+OverSword]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

If a woman traps a man into a lifetime relationship because that is the only way he can get sex, do you think he will somehow become a responsible parent and father? 

Funny way to ask that.  Traps?  But yes I believe that a guy with a kid will become a better father since the guy with no kids....

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The crime rate has trended down. Like Kenemet said, there was a temp uptick during the covis pandemic. An exceptional factor.

Temporary is yet to be determined.

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I'll be more specific then.  Rising crime rates, incels, and single mothers.

Crime has risen countless times and was worse in the past yet 'society' somehow survived it. 

I don't know why incels are even being mentioned, how do they make society significantly less 'stable', by buying up all the fedoras?  Are there more incels now than there have been, or is it just that they now have a label and community?  More confusing, is the theory that without birth control incels have a better chance of getting laid or something?  That sounds opposite to me, incels can't get laid despite women no longer needing to worry about getting pregnant from them.  Isn't the solution to incels to encourage women to be more promiscuous?

[+OverSword]

Here is a paper titled: THE PARADOX OF THE PILL: HETEROGENEOUS EFFECTS OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE ACCESS

Quote

 

Abstract

The twentieth century saw dramatic increases in nonmarital births, concentrated heavily among poor and working-class women. In this paper, we investigate whether the oral contraceptive pill played a causal role in the rise of nonmarital births. Exploiting exogenous variation in laws governing access to the pill, we find that changes in marital access to the pill increased the nonmarital birthrate by between 15% and 18%, accounting for about one-third of the overall increase in nonmarital births. These effects are concentrated almost entirely among women whose fathers did not graduate high school and among minority women. We also document that the pill increased spacing between first and second births, and lowered the probability that a woman obtained a high-school diploma, consistent with increases in nonmarital births. We find no evidence that postsecondary education levels were influenced by pill access, and no evidence that nonmarital births move with male employment patterns. Our findings add to a growing literature which documents the power of the pill to shape women's lives in broadly heterogenous ways, with minority and less-well-educated women bearing the brunt of the losses, a phenomenon we call the paradox of the pill.

 

Another long read (very long)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecin.12757#:~:text=Goldin and Katz (2002) argued,less attainable for some women.

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Here is a paper titled: THE PARADOX OF THE PILL: HETEROGENEOUS EFFECTS OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE ACCESS

Another long read (very long)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecin.12757#:~:text=Goldin and Katz (2002) argued,less attainable for some women.

Also from the link: "Taken together, these findings suggest that the pill has had not one but two effects on the lives of American women. The first effect may have been to improve the educational and career outcomes of women in the middle to upper socioeconomic brackets.".  You don't seem to have said much about the positives of birth control which should be factored into the analysis. 

Given also that, "These effects are concentrated almost entirely among women whose fathers did not graduate high school and among minority women.", it sounds like what we need is more effective birth control, since the bad effects are isolated to only certain groups which again seem to be most vulnerable to the other factors that have already been mentioned.

[+OverSword]

22 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't know why incels are even being mentioned, how do they make society significantly less 'stable', by buying up all the fedoras?

I would say the rise of the incels is based on lower expectations/ability of being able to enter a marriage relationship for kappa males which has turned to extreme unhealthy bitterness.  

By the way I own a couple of fedoras 

[+OverSword]

22 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Also from the link: "Taken together, these findings suggest that the pill has had not one but two effects on the lives of American women. The first effect may have been to improve the educational and career outcomes of women in the middle to upper socioeconomic brackets.".  You don't seem to have said much about the positives of birth control which should be factored into the analysis. 

Given also that, "These effects are concentrated almost entirely among women whose fathers did not graduate high school and among minority women.", it sounds like what we need is more effective birth control, since the bad effects are isolated to only certain groups which again seem to be most vulnerable to the other factors that have already been mentioned.

That's a take.  Mind you I have never advocated for removing birth control.  I have only observed that IMO, the unwritten compact between men and women which is the basis of society and even civilization has changed.  Maybe that change was good for privileged individuals or for big business but I think it was not more healthy than the alternative for humanity in the big picture.    

And to the part I bolded, Married women with children report higher happiness than their career shackled counterparts.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey

So is that really better?  Better for capitalist big business certainly 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by OverSword

[Michelle]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So is that really better?  Better for capitalist big business certainly 

Better for us small businesses too. Try finding a soft spot in a welding shop for a baby. 

[spartan max2]

19 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's a take.  Mind you I have never advocated for removing birth control.  I have only observed that IMO, the unwritten compact between men and women which is the basis of society and even civilization has changed.  Maybe that change was good for privileged individuals or for big business but I think it was not more healthy than the alternative for humanity in the big picture.    

And to the part I bolded, Married women with children report higher happiness than their career shackled counterparts.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey

So is that really better?  Better for capitalist big business certainly 

 

I mean there are a lot of studies that report childless people being happy than people with children. Also studies showing parental happiness varies a lot by country. So we could pick out a study in whatever direction we want. 

I don't think that's an easy thing to measure.

Quote

And to the part I bolded, Married women with children report higher happiness than their career shackled counterparts.

Also you're making an assumption that a married woman having children means she isn't working. Which isn't exactly the norm on today's world.

Edited September 28, 2023 by spartan max2

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Also you're making an assumption that a married woman having children means she isn't working. Which isn't exactly the norm on today's world.

You're right and although the mom's are happier it turns out the stay at home mother and the part time job mother report about equal life satisfaction.

Is it really about how happy women are or is it their children that the focus should be on?  I mean if I'm arguing that traditional families lead to a healthier society then that would be the real focus I think.

Edited September 28, 2023 by OverSword

[Tatetopa]

55 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Funny way to ask that.  Traps?  But yes I believe that a guy with a kid will become a better father since the guy with no kids....

Its what I can understand of your argument.  You are advocating that easy access to sex destroys families.  I use trap because in these arguments, it is maintained that if a man can get free sex he avoids relationships. I am saying that men who want to be fathers will become fathers.  I remember a conversation with my dad when I was about 30 when he said he always wanted to be a dad.  He did not sign up just for the free sex. 

So I could just as easily argue that free sex eliminates many bad parents who procreated just for the sex.    I grew up in the "Wait until you are married" generation.  By the time I was 30, most of those high school and college sweethearts were already divorced.  A lot of them had kids and it did not stop them from separating.  Many men now complain of being alone, isolated, and having no friends, even those with a spouse and children.  Maybe we have done a poor job of educating our young men on how to be aware and content. Maybe men are not well versed in how to participate in a relationship and how it benefits the male beyond carnal desire. 

I would also posit that survival was just as large an influence in marriage as free sex.  A single farmer or craftsman might stand less chance of success and survival without a partner. A partner helps with the workload, maintains the household and contributes to survival.  

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Is it really about how happy women are or is it their children that the focus should be on? 

Maybe the same question should be asked concerning the importance of the happiness of males compared to the well being of their children.  Do unhappy men become nurturing parents?

[spartan max2]

24 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You're right and although the mom's are happier it turns out the stay at home mother and the part time job mother report about equal life satisfaction.

Is it really about how happy women are or is it their children that the focus should be on?  I mean if I'm arguing that traditional families lead to a healthier society then that would be the real focus I think.

You're the one who made the argument that married women with children are happier than those without. I was responding to that.

As for your statement. It's sexist to put the responsibility of someone staying at home at the feet of the Mom when Dad's can also be stay at home parents.

For older people who are concerned about young people not having kids or of Mom and Dads working. They should focus more on making society more accommodating to parenthood instead of casting birth control in a negative light.

Historically one medium income working parent could afford a nice suburbans house, a car, and take care of 4 kids. That simply isn't the case any more. 

Instead of fighting things like work from home and a 4 day work week they should support it. Mandated parental leave. 

Wanting people to have kids when they don't want kids can be problematic. Surely happy parents are better for children than unhappy or regretful parents. 

The global decline in people not wanting kids isn't because of birth control. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by spartan max2

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I remember a conversation with my dad when I was about 30 when he said he always wanted to be a dad.  He did not sign up just for the free sex. 

That was before the pill so he knew what the results/cost of sex were.  Right?  I suppose he could have went to the ***** house and got the clap 

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's sexist to put the responsibility of someone staying at home at the feet of the Mom when Dad's can also be stay at home parents.

But in general stay at home parents are women and it's always been that way, no?

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But in general stay at home parents are women and it's always been that way, no?

Yeah. Historically woman didn't get advanced education or have careers.

In today's world that isn't the case. So either parent could be a stay at home parent if they wanted. It's not the Mom's responsibility anymore or less than it is the Dad's.

Edited September 28, 2023 by spartan max2