Feminism is Demographically Self-Refuting

Feminism is probably one of the most genocidal influences in the entire world. Wherever feminism is present, there are substantially lower birth rates, which usually cline toward being below replacement rate, leading to eventual extinction. This is true of nearly all of Europe, Japan, and among most peoples of the United States.

Such an argument based on this correlation alone may be called a loose one, because the aforementioned nations are also plagued by materialism. We must concede that acquiring more wealth and leisure time is mutually exclusive with having more children. For example, a significant amount of time one would have spent relaxing would be spent caring for the children; and much extra money spending money would then go to clothe and feed them. Actually, desire for leisure time does not imply materialism but rather falls with materialism under a broader category of selfishness and desire for self-indulgence.

There is, however, a deductive argument that explains the aforementioned correlation of low birth rates as directly caused by feminism, and proves that feminism alone is sufficient to induce such low birthrates.

Feminism's main goal is for women to attain a cultural standing equal to that of men. To do so, women must wield an equivalent level of power. Thus, women must have an equal place in the business world, legal profession, etc. Women must, in essence, become men insofar as men are powerful, while retaining a superior feminine sense of empathy and sensitivity.

But women, of course, are far more involved in childbearing than men. If a husband and wife wish to have children, it will invariably harm the wife's career more than the husband's, because she will need more time off, and will be encumbered physically. Thus, having children interferes with and prevents women's efforts at striving to have equal power with men, the main goal of feminism.

Thus, the highest aims of feminism are necessarily incompatible with having any children at all. The extent to which feminists have children is the extent to which they compromise their feminism.

Now that we have explained external data with the deductive argument that feminism causes too few children to be born, we must ask the question: Is a maladaptive trait within a population a trait worth maintaining? If everyone becomes a feminist, then within a few thousand years or less, humanity will die out along with feminism itself, since there will be nobody left to believe in it. The virus will have run out of hosts. So is a belief that is demographically self-refuting worth having at all?

Aesthetic Proof
A lamentation must be made for the many beautiful women who pursue careers and allow their motherly potential to be unfulfilled and left barren. Indeed, beautiful traits in women often directly correspond to their bodies' ability to nurture life itself into being. While they tromp high heeledly and consume caffeine, cigarettes, and unhealthy food in deference to their demanding career schedule, the flower of their countenance withers and decays fast. They are bound in angular stone-colored garments, as shapeless as a slab. Their beauty is unfulfilled, being expended on acquisition of power or material gain. Some come to their senses later in life, and often struggle to have even one child. But though every woman's beauty is bound to fade, it may be in some way passed on to her children, or perhaps the loss of beauty could be rectified with the knowledge that it bore fruit. Even if one is too old or is infertile for another reason, a woman should encourage other women to have children and fulfill what their body naturally wants to do.

Feminism does not esteem demographic maintenance as a virtue, but if it did, it would allow for its own continuation. If such sacrificial altruism were held above the desire for power or material gain, then perhaps feminism would be more truly feminine... and not self-refuting.
________________________
Addendum
Some may object to this write-up and allege that it should also condemn nuns and vows of chastity. Such an allegation is not applicable because in the modern Catholic church, almost no one becomes a nun, so the small number who do are demographically insignificant. Additionally, the reason most Catholic women do not have a sustainable number of children is primarily due to the the prevailing feminism and the church's responsorial compromise of permitting "natural family planning" aka the rhythm method. But feminism led the way and church went along. The idea that women who have not made vows of chastity should stave off pregnancy originated outside of Catholicism. Catholicism had existed for nearly 2,000 years, with Catholics never dying out and only multiplying. Feminism came around in the 20th century and only since then have Catholics' birthrate begun to decline. Moreover, Catholicism enforces gender roles within the church and has never discouraged motherhood among lay women.

In the pre Vatican II Catholic church, when there were more nuns, women had huge families because the church forbade all birth control, and the popes expressly stated that the primary purpose of marriage was to raise children up in the Catholic faith. In the words of Padre Pio, marriages were to be "beautifully crowned with children," in order to "populate the earth and paradise." If only he could see demographically imploding, secularized Italy today... Anyway, neither the modern nor ancient Catholic paradigm is necessarily demographically self-refuting and the modern one is only to the extent that its adherents are selfish and/or adhere to feminism.