Feminism has increased state revenue and capitalist profits.
*How has it done so?*
By entering the labor market, women have increased production, reduced the bargaining power of male workers, and created new markets. Additionally, the entry of women into the labor force has rapidly reduced birth rates in third-world countries, increasing per capita resources (such as infrastructure, banking services, digital services, education, healthcare, and machinery). This has made each individual more productive. Thus, women entering the labor market have not only boosted production but also increased productivity in the third world by lowering birth rates.
As a result, both the state and capital have supported feminism.
However, by 2020, the situation began to change. Low birth rates in the first world are reducing the population, leading to a decline in both the labor force and market size. In the first world, per capita resources have grown so much that there are not enough people to utilize them effectively (for example, schools in Germany are struggling to find students). In other words, the population is too small relative to resources, making it difficult to utilize them properly. In the third world, however, there is still a lack of sufficient infrastructure and machinery, so low birth rates will continue to increase per capita resources and productivity for now. Moreover, birth rates in the third world began to decline later, so it will take another 20-30 years for labor shortages or market contraction to become significant issues.
In the first world, however, low birth rates are actually reducing both state revenue and capitalist profits. Therefore, in the coming years, the state and capital in the first world (i.e., the United States, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia) will adopt anti-feminist positions. In the third world, it will take another 20-30 years for such anti-feminist stances to emerge.
The men's rights movement must strategically accelerate this low birth rate crisis. Over the next 20 years, it must cultivate an anti-marriage/anti-romance mindset among men, encouraging them to enjoy solitary lives and spend on themselves. If executed properly, this could lead to an anti-feminist storm by 2040-2050. If robots or artificial wombs do not solve the low birth rate problem, women may lose many of their hard-earned rights and freedoms. Therefore, wise women should be cautious. The state and capital will exploit men and appease women only as long as it is profitable. When the tide turns, they will change their stance accordingly. Wise women should reject feminist privileges and acknowledge men's legitimate demands. It is time to move away from flawed, anti-male feminist theories and scientifically understand how fluctuations in birth rates influence the duties of women and men.
The men's rights movement is increasingly dividing into two factions: one group is looking toward the future, and the other is looking toward the past. The futurists are saying: "We do not want traditional rights back, but we will also no longer fulfill traditional duties." The traditionalists are saying: "We are fulfilling and will continue to fulfill traditional duties, and we also want our rights back."
In fact, since the primitive societal system (hunter-gatherer economy), women's lives have been considered more valuable than men's. This notion persisted even in patriarchal societies (livestock and agriculture-centered economies). Therefore, risky tasks such as war, hunting, etc., were placed on men's shoulders. Epidemics, animal attacks, insect bites, food poisoning, weather, environment, war, etc., caused many deaths in earlier societies. Thus, maintaining a high birth rate was crucial. Societies with a higher number of women had higher birth rates. Hence, traditional societies taught the importance of valuing women's lives more.
But traditional societies (hunter-gatherer, livestock, and agriculture-centered economies) not only assigned risky tasks to men but also granted them greater rights. In hunter-gatherer societies, men's sexual rights were acknowledged. In livestock and agriculture-centered economies, people became productive at a much younger age compared to hunter-gatherer economies, making higher birth rates even more advantageous. Naturally, women's responsibilities for childbirth and child-rearing increased, while the remaining external tasks fell to men. This system persisted because it enabled societies to maintain high birth rates.
By the late 19th century, about 100 years after the Industrial Revolution, the situation began to change. On one hand, the invention of life-saving medicines reduced death rates from epidemics, famines, and floods. On the other hand, the cost of raising children in industrialized societies increased significantly. Sending children to schools and colleges to make them economically productive required considerable time and resources, delaying their ability to earn until much later in life. These two factors forced societies to reduce birth rates, as having more children became a burden.
With fewer children to raise, women found themselves with more free time, leading them to enter the labor market. With fewer children to bear, women could pursue education and delay marriage. As industrialization spread globally, this trend grew. Governments realized that encouraging women to join the labor force not only reduced birth rates but also accelerated industrial growth. Consequently, governments made efforts to bring more women into the workforce. As a result, women became earners, no longer bound to obey their husbands. Governments also enacted laws to strip men of their traditional rights, ultimately making the institution of marriage unprofitable for men.
It is important to remember that the foundation of the feminist movement lies in the fact that maintaining high birth rates became unprofitable in industrialized societies. This was due to two reasons: the rising cost of raising children and the invention of life-saving medicines. When traditionalist men's rights advocates demand the return of traditional rights, they are essentially advocating for high birth rates, thereby implicitly accepting that women's lives are more valuable than men's. However, since they cannot reverse the course of economics and technology, they will not be able to restore a high-birth-rate society. They will only be left to fulfill traditional duties, while men remain trapped in the confines of domestic life.
On the other hand, futurists acknowledge the trajectory of economics and technology and use the very foundation of feminism—that high birth rates are unprofitable in industrialized societies—to argue that women's lives no longer need to be valued more than men's, as high birth rates are no longer necessary. Men, therefore, will no longer fulfill traditional duties. In essence, futurist men's rights advocates are using feminism's own weapon against it. Freed from the burdens of traditional masculinity, men can now easily say, "Men can also be victims of rape by female perpetrators," "Men can also be abused by women," "Men are not solely responsible for protecting the nation, religion, or race," "Men are not obligated to protect women," "Men can also be consumers," "Men can spend time in front of the mirror," and "If they so desire, yes, if they so desire, men can take any risk.
