Science says that men need to be marginalized to increase fertility
(www.cambridge.org)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
• Main claim: The authors argue that rising gender equality, female economic independence, and effective contraception have produced a new mating regime that reduces pair‑bonding and drives ultralow fertility; increasing pair‑bonding sufficiently is unlikely, so policy should consider enabling “individualistic reproduction” (supporting women who raise children alone) even though this will further marginalize some men.
• Key evidence & mechanisms:
• Strong cross‑national correlation between gender equality and lower fertility (r ≈ 0.81). Cambridge University Press
• Historical/evolutionary account: human mating strategies evolved under arranged-marriage and kin-influenced choice; unrestricted female choice in resource‑rich, gender‑equal societies favors short‑term preferences (attractive/high‑status mates) that undermine stable long‑term pairings.
• Mating Equilibrium Shift and Female Choice Fertility Paradox: female mating agency + economic independence + contraception encourages mating strategies that reduce durable pair‑bonding, producing a Post‑Pair‑Bonding Fertility Trap.
• Dating apps and modern mating markets amplify women’s selectivity, excluding a growing fraction of men from pair‑bonding.
• Resulting social effects include increased singlehood, delayed partner formation, unmet reproductive desires (fertility preferences exceed realized fertility), and male marginalization/demotivation.
• Policy implications proposed:
• Traditional pronatalist measures (cash transfers, restrictions on reproductive freedom) have largely failed; raising pair‑bonding rates may be infeasible.
• Instead, experiment with policies that make single motherhood a viable, attractive option (substantial economic and social support for solo parenting) to allow women to achieve desired fertility without partners.
• Acknowledge these policies will likely further reduce men’s mate value and exacerbate marginalization; weigh this against existential demographic risks.
• Anticipate reproductive technologies (e.g., artificial wombs) could eventually offer greater reproductive equality for men.
• Conclusion: Because restoring widespread pair‑bonding seems unlikely given current mating dynamics, low‑fertility nations should prepare for and test substantial supports for individual reproduction while monitoring social consequences, including increased male marginalization.