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.”

  • KecessaEnglish
    11·
    7 months ago

    Data shows it’s not the case otherwise rich people would have way more kids instead of being poor people that have the higher fertility rate.

    Also birth rate goes down with improvement to women rights, not up. If there was less misogyny in South Korea people wouldn’t have more kids than they do at the moment.

    You think the world wasn’t misogynistic when people were having 10+ kids in the 18th and 19th century?

    • norimee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      7 months ago

      My main argument wasnt about money, but if you stop putting the burden of hild rearing soley on women and share these responsibilities equally they will be more willing to have children. In most cases, more rights for women meant they are paying for the privilige with double the work. Still doing all the work at home and all the work of having children in addition to the job they can now have and gives them a choice.

      Yes of course Birthrate goes up, if you take away women’s agency and give them no choice. Take away the means to control family planing and make being a wife and mother the only survivable option. As it was for women in those centuries.

      You want to live in a world, were women are again slaves and property of the men in the family and forced to be birthing machines and maids to their husbands?

      • KecessaEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        But that’s exactly what I showed isn’t true with rich vs poor! Rich people can afford not to work or to pay someone to take care of their kids yet they have smaller families than poorer people who need both parents to work and less than poor people where only one parent works.

        Also, birthrate isn’t any higher in places where there’s social programs to help people with that either. Heck, in Canada the parents get a year of parental leave, in Quebec specifically there’s super cheap kindergarten since the 90s as well and the birthrate is one of the lowest in the world.

        I’m not saying I want to live in a world where women are forced to have kids, I want to make people understand that they’re trying to find tons of excuses why people don’t have kids but the reason is simply that when people are actually given the choice to have them or not, the people who actually want to have kids don’t have enough to renew the population and that won’t change no matter how “easy” we try to make it. Having kids is a huge responsibility and people realize that they have other things they want to do with their lives.