how is it so hard to prove to you people that concurrence doesn't prove causality?
jordan peterson (iota) thinks that it's *birth control* affecting women's hormones. by that logic, women who are on birth control already think they're pregnant.
therefore you hav a bunch of self-satisfied women who have no biological need for you.
i submit that this is not the case, obviously. not only are we not controlled by our hormones but are rather controlled by social factors.
there's an experiement that proves this. the control group of mice have regular water and heroin water alone in their cages. they drink the heroin water until they die. same heroin water and regular water for the other group of mice. the mice try the heroin water and leave it alone because they are more fulfilled by social interaction. the real lift example would be the heroin use during the vietnam war, when the veterans didn't come back as heroin addicts.
ok, are you with me so far? then you would suggest that the social factor here (i have no idea why you think that it's more likely women in the workforce rather than whatever that other graph was representing, women's liberation generally? how do you measure that? some UN matrix?((i didn't take that class in college i'm not doing statystical analysis because whoever thinks this can't get pusey)).
what about, then, the change in birthrates as a function of industrialization? is that why it's more likely? seems to be the case. you don't need seven kids to till a farm so you don't have them. plus kids are expensive. is it an economic factor? you're pushing yourself away from the table if you're working middle class or lower and have more than two kids.
so we have, as factors: religion, feminism, industrialization, economic shifts, to explain a declining birthrate amongst first world couples. let's include in feminism things like abortion because there's a matrix to measure feminism too. am i missing something? that you want to reduce it all to feminism?
Message too long. Click
to view full text.