When Ignoring Data Leads to Flawed Conclusions: A Critical Look at Fertility, Family, and Feminism
I resent that I had to write this blog post instead of watching Love is Blind Season 6, but sometimes something on the internet just strikes a chord and I am helpless not to respond.
I was surprised — should I have been? — by the limited space in my institution’s monthly newsletter, typically reserved for showcasing faculty work, being used to promote this piece: The Failure of Feminist Natalism.
I will pause so you can roll your eyes.
The primary argument of this piece is “declining fertility in Western Europe means feminism has failed.” Put succinctly, my responses are:
- It’s not obvious that there’s a meaningful decline.
- Also, even if there is, who cares?
- Also, what does any of this have to do with feminism?
- Also, the argument is blatantly misogynistic, subtly homophobic, completely ignores trans* identities, and — let’s not forget — its weird obsession with fertility in mostly white Western Europe is giving racist-y and eugenics-y vibes.
The main issue, arguably, lies in the author’s lack of sourced data, making his claims hard to directly refute. However, a quick fact-check uncovers several inaccuracies. He alludes to changes in birth rates, marital patterns, and feminist dynamics “since 2021,” a timeframe that, considering it’s now 2024, only spans a few years at best. Typically, reliable data takes a year or two to become available. Furthermore, he overlooks that 2021 coincided with the peak of the global COVID pandemic, an event barely mentioned, although it significantly impacted social statistics like marriage rates. It’s impractical to deduce definitive trends from such recent and turbulent times. Moreover, the latest data from the World Bank’s public portal, a source I trust, only goes up to 2021. The fact that the author has made broad, unsupported assertions about recent trends without presenting any solid evidence is both unsurprising and disappointing.
Let’s go ahead and debunk this sucker, shall we?
Fertility Decline in Europe
Claims: The article purports a significant reduction in fertility rates across Europe, listing countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands as experiencing marked declines since 2021. Additionally, it suggests France has witnessed a downturn despite traditionally higher fertility rates.
Debunking: As previously mentioned, the “since 2021” timeframe is misleading. To provide more reasonable context, here’s an overview of the total fertility rate changes in Europe from 2003 to 2021, offering a more comprehensive timeframe for analysis.
Swedish Fertility Rates
Claims: The narrative progresses to Sweden, historically lauded for its progressive gender equality measures and robust fertility rates. However, according to the author, Sweden is now facing its lowest fertility levels in two decades. He points out that while the country has enjoyed consistent cohort fertility rates (the average number of lifetime births per woman), there has been a noticeable decline over the past ten years. This trend is emphasized as significant, indicating a long-term shift rather than a momentary fluctuation. The author suggests that this decline contradicts the common belief that gender equality and supportive family policies naturally lead to increased fertility rates.
Debunking: Behold the catastrophic collapse.
I do wonder if the author is drawing upon graphs like the first one in this paper. This graph, and anyone who interprets it without skepticism, falls victim to a common quantitative error: a vertical axis not starting at zero, which can exaggerate apparent changes.
To maintain transparency and avoid the bait-and-switch tactics used by the original article’s author, it’s important for me to clarify that I’ve been discussing the crude birth rate, the most straightforward fertility measure, which calculates the annual number of live births per 1,000 people in the population. This differs significantly from the cohort fertility rate discussed by the author at some points in his article, a more complex metric that follows a specific group (or cohort) from the start to the end of their childbearing years, typically defined as 18–49. The main drawback here is the waiting game: final cohort fertility figures can only be determined after people have passed their reproductive phase. For instance, to accurately gauge the 2023 cohort fertility rate, we would need to wait until 2054. Highlighting this distinction is crucial because the original author’s focus on cohort fertility rates obscures the reality that these figures are forecasts extending thirty years into the future.
Marriage and Cohabitation
Claims: The article addresses the decreasing marriage rates in Sweden alongside a reduction in long-term cohabitation, proposing that this decline in stable relationships may be a factor in the country’s falling fertility rates.
Debunking: As previously mentioned, the drop in fertility rates may not be nearly as significant as implied. Additionally, when we examine marriage rates across a variety of countries, including Sweden, it’s evident that there’s a universal trend of declining marriage rates, everywhere.
Comparison with Other Countries
Claims: The reduction in fertility and family formation rates extends beyond Sweden, affecting other Nordic nations, as well as France, Spain, and Italy, despite their varying approaches to family policy.
Debunking: Upon closer examination, the situation varies by country. For fertility rates from 2003 to 2021, France and Spain show slight decreases, while Italy remains stable, and Sweden has actually seen an increase. Marriage rates, as illustrated in the graph above, have declined across the board.
Questioning Feminist Family Models and Policies
Claims: The author suggests that falling fertility rates in countries known for their commitment to gender equality and family-friendly policies challenge the effectiveness of such frameworks in fostering family growth. He states:
Significant declines in family dynamics bring into question the prevailing feminist social science consensus. Despite no significant shifts in gender equality or reduction in family support measures, countries like Sweden, along with other Nordic nations, France, and the Netherlands, are purportedly experiencing more pronounced family declines than other Western regions.
Debunking: This commentary implies a questioning of the impact of gender equality and comprehensive family policies on family formation. However, the critique is problematic: the author fails to substantiate these claims with concrete data, and my research has not corroborated these supposed declines. This narrative could subtly advance an agenda against gender equality and family policies, particularly targeting Western Europe.
Speaking of Western Europe, the selective focus raises questions about underlying biases, suggesting an implicit prioritization of European family dynamics over global concerns without concrete evidence to support claims of a widespread decline in family structures.
In Conclusion
One last thing. The author alludes to the “failure of the most basic of social functions: successful reproduction of the next generation,” which could be interpreted as a concern predominantly about the declining birth rates among largely white populations in his area of focus: Western Europe. Should I care? This perspective seems to ignore the broader issue of overall global population growth that has been slowing for some time.
Instead of enjoying trashy reality TV, I have dismantled multiple erroneous claims linking fertility and marriage trends to feminist policies. Despite the original article’s assertions of a steep fertility decline due to feminist models, evidence from reliable sources contradicts these claims, proving them misleading or baseless. Even accepting the disputed data as accurate, there’s no concrete link between these trends and feminism or gender equality. The underlying mistake lies in correlating unrelated variables without solid evidence, which misleads interpretation away from the true, complex causes affecting family dynamics and fertility rates. It’s crucial to base arguments on comprehensive data, rather than using flawed information to push biased narratives.
Your neighbor,
Chad
p.s. A more nuanced analysis of population growth is provided in the thought-provoking and hilarious podcast “If Books Could Kill,” which has an episode critically examining Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. [Note: my original version of this post referenced the wrong episode, because I am nearly 50 and now I forget things.]
p.p.s. I discovered that the piece I am responding to strongly echoes the 2018 writing of Lyman Stone, who appears to be associated with the notorious American Entrprise Institute, as well as the Institute for Family Studies, which Media Bias/Fact Check rates as having “mixed” credibility. Yesterday, he was posting this on Twitter/X, which I find absolutely terrifying given the rollbacks to reproductive rights. “Pronatal policy” sounds positively Orwellian.
