A report suggesting girls begin school a year earlier than boys in order to raise Korea's birthrate has faced strong backlash.

“Notably, Chang’s report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line.”

(…)

“The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students’ early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates.”

  • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
    392·
    6 months ago

    The best way to increase birth rates in advanced countries is: Work life balance. Restore the traditional tax rates on the rich.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.caEnglish
      22·
      6 months ago

      Work life balance meaning one parent can stay home and raise the children without needing that second income to put food on the table.

      If both parents work, the birth rate is always going to be lower, even with better work life balance.

      • KecessaEnglish
        15·
        6 months ago

        Even with a parent at home people weren’t having enough kids to renew the population from the moment they had access to birth control methods.

    • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      For real man. We were so overworked when both of us had a full time job and no kids. Now we have one kid and one full time job. It is easier, hard in another way but somehow easier. Soon I’ll have to go back to work and I don’t even know how we will survive. We would love to have another kid but we either can’t afford it or we will go insane trying to afford it.

      The other part is that stupid part time career pit. Ideally we would both work half jobs, but this will mean none of us can have a well paid job (per hour). But this also means that if my husband is laid off while I am at home, were fucked. Job security is a huge factor in work life balance.

      But also, we are the “risky” ones. Most of my friends from school wanted to wait until they are “settled” financially. I don’t have one mom friend from school/university. They are either still settling in their careers or have given up on feeling settled and now have fertility issues.

      Just for context, our kid arrived shortly before I turned 30. My friends are in their 30s and 40s. None of them is really “financially secure” since job security is just not a thing anymore.

    • shikitohno@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      Not just work life balance, but also the cost of living. I can barely afford to take care of myself, so I’m completely disinclined to go and create a whole new person that will be absolutely dependent on me to provide for it for years. If people can afford to live reasonably comfortably and conditions give them confidence that conditions will remain stable for the next 10-20 years, I bet you’ll see them start having kids. When they’re worried they could be homeless next year if things worsen and their retirement plan is advocating for the right to end one’s life on their own terms, it shouldn’t be a shocker that people don’t want to add kids into the mix.

      Also, perhaps decades of social stigma that said having a bunch of kids is something only poor, ignorant people do that represents a moral failing amongst the upstanding daughters of decent society is a bad thing to maintain when you want folks to keep cranking out more kids to feed into the meat grinder of the workforce.