So a couple things.
One, 2.2 is sort of the historic norm for surviving children.
Two, patriarchy seems to not be the cause, as much as young female workforce participation (which obviously correlates with patriarchy)
Three, I liked the BAP article but the only things that
BAP isn't getting the full picture but his underlying argument that fertility is born through elevation of masculinity rather than femininity is correct.
Certain religious communities have higher TFR precisely because they are artificially recreating the patriarchal conditions of the past when male authority was supreme and sexual polarity was highly potent.
Religious groups without these conditions do not have high TFR despite their professions of faith.
Our idea of what manhood is, even in the Church, has been hopelessly distorted by modern liberalism. A man of the past was the absolute ruler of his home. Under coverture, he ruled his wife. He retained sole ownership of his children, and they remained with him in event of divorce. There were no "marital rape" laws. In the English common law, male infidelity wasn't even sole grounds for divorce until 1923.
Under these conditions, our ancestors reached a TFR of 6-9. A TFR of 2.2 in broader religious groups is pathetic by comparison.
@embrace_infamy@gwyrain I think sterilization is way more defensible than abortion. Maybe that puts me in err with my church but im okay with expanding and reintroducing sterilization