According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australia’s fertility rate fell to 1.5 babies per woman in 2023. The ABS have an informative graph going back to 1935. Then it was 2.115, just enough to see the population edging up. It gradually rose to 3.548 in 1961 before falling to 2.148 in 1975. Since then it has fallen further and further behind the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman.
Start with one hundred people, fifty-fifty male and female, and a fertility rate of 1.5. Once the life span of the one hundred is done, there will be just seventy-one people living; and then, sad to say, there will be just fifty-one. This ain’t a small problem. But, never mind, Australia’s population is defying the odds and surging. A great replacement is going on. Aussies out, a thoroughly mixed and vast bag in. Here are the top ten countries of origin of permanent migrants in 2022-23, according to the Department of Home Affairs.
- India
- People’s Republic of China
- Philippines
- Nepal
- United Kingdom
- New Zealand
- Vietnam
- South Africa
- Pakistan
- Sri Lanka
I hope that makes you feel better about being replaced.
But it is not our quite awful non-discriminatory immigration policy, which a majority of people have never voted for and wouldn’t vote for, which I want to principally talk about. It is the role of women.
We should want to see women fulfill themselves as we should men. At the same time, let’s be clear, most people men and women do jobs which they do to simply pay the rent; that is, if the intake of migrants doesn’t crowd them out of the rental market. Such a relief that Albo and Jodie are fine. Most gals are not engaged in breaking the glass ceiling. Such talk is just elitist poppycock.
To cut to the chase. The first duty of a woman, if she is able, is to marry, have children, at least two and desirably three or more, and to nurture them. The first duty of a man is to marry and provide for and care for his wife and children. Without this, nothing works. Everything else in comparison is embroidery, including so-called women’s rights. Women’s rights effectively only begin when their first duty is accomplished, as do men’s.
So feminists can talk all they like about women’s rights but statistics don’t lie and can’t be set aside. Have your rights by all means but on average also have 2.1 children or we die out. Let’s not forget this amid the modern-day discordant din. It is as true today as it ever was.
Male and female God created them and said to them be fruitful and multiply. He wasn’t wrong.
Babies have been crowded out by State intervention. First it was pressganging women into the workforce. Next unrestricted immigration. Both destroyed the financial viability of the nuclear family. Birth has been outsourced to the third world, low IQ replacements.
The only alternative to a yellow-brown future is a reduction in both liberty and nominal wealth.
We are over the edge, and there’s no turning back, sadly.
Everything the left touches turns to shit, goodbye western civilisation it’s been a wild ride
Pace Peter…
I’m always wary of the “should” that indicates I have a duty to do or believe something beyond what God commands.
I’m even more wary of the humanist notion that self-fulfillment is the telos of a life well lived, whether for a man or a woman.
It’s where the rot began.
Having babies is what women are for. They have only one function in the world, and that’s it.
Men have two functions, one is giving women the babies and the second is protecting both mother and child.
Anything else human beings choose to do with their time on the planet is very much secondary. Unfortunately our society has lost sight of the basics and consequently gone insane.
You know one of the deterrents to having more than two children in the West is child car seat laws.
Having a third child means a very expensive changeover to a bigger car.
I’m not going to blame only women for shrinking birth rates.
I’m willing to bet the men tut -tutting were perfectly happy voluntarily having just two or three themselves.
Quite so.
Men have been encouraged by the culture to shirk that responsibility too.
I’m old-fashioned enough to say all women have a right to find a good husband and have as many children as they agree to have, and to expect him to do his best to support and protect them, while she will make a safe and happy home for them all. At any stage this might mean earning a second income, but ideally that will not be necessary – it now seems to be mandatory. It was not so back in the 1970s and 1980s when my wife and I were young marrieds and enlarging our family. One income was enough.
I am lefty woman, hear me bore.
At any stage this might mean earning a second income, but ideally that will not be necessary – it now seems to be mandatory. It was not so back in the 1970s and 1980s when my wife and I were young marrieds and enlarging our family. One income was enough.
Feminism has been a horrible con and disadvantaged women. It was all very well to tell women they could go into the workforce if they wanted to. The trap is that now they have to whether they want it or not. They have to put their babies into the hands of strangers and take their place in working. It’s all dreadfully wrong. A mother’s place is with her children, not in the workforce. And the baby’s place is with its mother, not in the company of strangers.
The more men who identify as women will solve this problem in no time!
/sarc
Why is Pakistan in top ten? Not exactly a tolerant country.
I have no problem with Nepalese but could somebody in ADF consider recruiting Gurkhas like the Brits do ? Base them in Darwin.
Would be interesting to see the breakdown of the South Africans.
No 2 on list are the ones going to fill all those 20 story blocks in Melbourne and get instructions to vote one particular party.
How many constructions workers electricians and plumbers from each of those countries?
“I am lefty woman, hear me bore.”
Wow that really contributes to the discussion.
“Men have been encouraged by the culture to shirk that responsibility too.”
Thank you.
The only place women should be having children is within marriage.
If men don’t value marriage, women won’t either, if men don’t value children women won’t either, if men would rather their wives work, women will remain in the workforce, delay family and reduce the number of children they have.
The answer of course is the same one it always is, Catholic Christianity, which is the only faith that completely rejects artificial contraception and abortion.
Always amusing to hear the trad Cath view on the world they wrought.
There are several strong social forces acting to lower the replacement rate. Capitalism is the main one: bosses have found it more profitable to import lower-cost labour than pay locals fair Western wages to do the work. This is more pronounced in America, but also applies here and in Britain. Then their pet right-wing political parties blame immigrants for policies the bosses sponsored into government.
Generational inequity is a humongous problem, with wealth creation resting largely in housing stocks hoarded by boomers. Wrinkled NIMBY tyrants fight at the local level to preserve their grey privilege and prevent new family creation.
Feminism is another big factor, and the blame lies squarely at the feet of men. No-fault divorce has empowered women to escape abusive and exploitative marriages with men who refuse to adjust to gender equality. It is up to men to reform themselves to become more attractive as potential fathers.
Thanks for bringing this topic up but it’s very incomplete.
It’s true that it is feminism’s fault but the question is why? Feminists can be just as happy to have kids as any other women – although their children suffer for it.
It’s because women are hypergamous.
Under the patriarchy – which every working civilisation has been subjected to – women’s impulse to ignore 90% of men are curtailed because of rules banning both non-marital sex and polygamy. This ensures that most men get wives and therefore children so they have an investment in the future. All good.
The 90% of men are protected, civilisation continues and women get a husband to protect them and keep them company long after they stop being hot.
The top 10% of men miss out on being able to root hundreds of women but they do at the very least get a civilisation to raise their kids in so their kids get to survive. Women don’t get to have sex with one high status men after the other when they’re young but they do get protection and children and civilisation and company all throughout their life.
Ultimately, the patriarchy protects everybody by curbing women’s sexual impulses (and through this, curbing the sexual impulses of the top 10% of men). You get an increasing population and an increasing standard of living.
And then feminism came along with its complete delusions about the nature of men and women and thought it could supplant this time honoured wisdom by wrecking the nuclear family. They ignored the fact that wrecking the family would wreck everything because feminists – all of them – were so hostile to anything created by men. How could the patriarchy be good for women they said when it was created by men? It must have been a tool of oppression because men are mean.
Eventually, the young men who are part of the 90% who, under the feminist system, cannot get a date will be incredibly right wing and blame leftist men (correctly) for allowing feminism to exist.
There will be absolute hell to pay for those men. Every 25 year old male in the country will blame Monty for the fact that they haven’t been able to get a date. Monty will try and tell them to “be nicer” and they will respond with very little niceness.
It should also be said that most jobs women do that are well paid are completely useless.
Bureaucrats, lawyers etc would barely exist if not for the massive encroachment of government.
Teaching and nursing is only as highly paid as it is because of government intervention. Both are extremely easy jobs but for some bizarre reason require a degree to do and earn nearly as much as engineers.
If left to the market, women would only earn about one third that of men on average. This restructuring of relative gender pay would get rid of the disastrous effects of hypergamy and so women would immediately start having kids again.
Incel losers like you, Figures, can get angry all you like but it won’t solve your problem. Nobody likes you, because you’re a loser.
I have a wife, three houses, a successful business and two beautiful and smart kids who love me to bits. How about you?
Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, all have very low fertility rates. Feminism not present.
Women were not pressganged into the workforce, they wanted to join the workforce, possibly encouraged by the experience of their mums in WW2. South Korea, Japan, China, all have very low immigration rates.
Ask young people why they don’t want to have children. It’s not simple, responses vary, but economic considerations are right up there. It isn’t just about money, it is about the hours worked, which explains the appalling fertility rates in South Korea, Japan, and why desperate attempts by the CCP are failing.
It is a serious problem and governments opted for the easy immigration solution because their mates in the big end of town demanded it so they could have a working cohort that was compelled to work harder and longer the result being everyone had to run faster to keep up. Modern economic and education demands are not family friendly. Change that situation and perhaps there is some hope.
All I read from that Monty is you’re a massive hypocrite who denies other people their right to own property whilst living high on the hog yourself.
This should be illegal. It’s astonishing it hasn’t always been. Leftists should face a 100% tax rate and this shouldn’t even be controversial.
And I don’t understand your argument. Socialists and feminists were angry at human nature and so they changed things. Obviously it didn’t solve anything because of said human nature but it certainly created changes. Anger clearly changes lots of things. Angry 30 year old men who can’t get a date are definitely going to change things when they get to a critical mass. That change will almost certainly be directed at the leftist men who allowed feminists to create the situation. Calling them incels won’t magically stop them from being angry – it will just exacerbate it – no matter how clever you think you are by demonising and dehumanising such people.
I also don’t understand why you insult people by calling them “losers”. I thought socialists were all about the “oppressed”. Now you just call them losers and say their problems are all their own fault. I thought it was because they were exploited by evil profit driven businesses. At least, that’s what you claimed in your initial post on this thread – it’s all the fault of successful people. Now you claim it’s all the fault of the non-successful themselves. Make up your puny little mind.
It says so much about both feminism and socialism that they resort to elitist tactics of dehumanising people at the bottom of society when those people aren’t on the side of feminism and socialism. Socialists and feminists have always been about power and supremacy. Zero of them care about anybody else.
And I find it hilarious that you try and use your children as some kind of argument. You hate kids and want them all to be murdered as babies. If you can’t murder them as babies you want to poison them as toddlers and if you don’t manage to kill them that way you then mutilate their bodies as teenagers. Any love yours have for you is no doubt a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
By the way Monty, even in the unlikely event those two kids are yours, who the f*ck flexes over having the grand total of two kids!
I am not insulting people in general, Figures. I am insulting you specifically, because you are a hopeless loser at life who thinks he is a genius. You need to be told regularly that you are, in actual fact, a cooked unit.