"Rolling back women's rights"? Which "we" aren't likely to do? Odd choice of language.
American women can make the choice to have several children (which I did), and still retain their "women's rights."
And if they are traditional and conservative women (which I am), they might very well choose to postpone careers, and stay home with their children. They might even choose to homeschool their own children and not allow them to be raised by the government schools.
I don't see any loss of "women's rights" in any of that.
>> Once women’s liberation gets this advanced the birth rate never recovers without rolling back women’s rights which we’ve very unlikely to do.
>American women can make the choice to have several children (which I did), and still retain their “women’s rights.”
Yes but nowhere near replacement level.
>And if they are traditional and conservative women (which I am), they might very well choose to postpone careers, and stay home with their children. They might even choose to homeschool their own children and not allow them to be raised by the government schools.
You may choose to do so, but your daughter is very unlikely to do so. Statistically liberated women produce very few children. Nor is that unexpected when the role of career and working is valued over that of wife and mother.
>I don’t see any loss of “women’s rights” in any of that.
During the cold war there were several Communists nations that experimented with women’s rights and found quickly that the amount of freedom given to women was inversely proportional to the number of children they had. Reduce women’s rights and birthrate goes way up. Increase women’s rights and birth rate goes way down. Oddly women become less happy as their rights increase compared to women doing traditional roles.
I don’t have a moral issue with women’s rights, but it clear that once embraced population growth drops below replacement levels where in places where tradition women’s values are kept it stays very high.