|A a few years
ago I read an account by a feminist helping out in Africa to implement birth control
measures. The woman recounted a conversation with an African mother of six, aged
about 35, who asked her about her life in the US. "How many children do you
have?" she asked, and the American woman, also aged about 35, said that she had none.
The African woman exclaimed: "But how will you live?"
The American thought
that to be humorous and indicative of to what extent African women were indoctrinated to be
It does take someone from an underdeveloped nation to point out the obvious: if there are
no children, we all will perish. However, that point was obviously lost on the
American woman, obsessed as she was with her "missionary" work, spreading the
culture of death throughout a nation that can ill afford to be deprived of the only means
of survival, its children.
In a nation in which there are no or only insufficient social support programs, children
are life, the only means to survive. In the developed nations, ostensibly still
blessed with wealth (although that is rapidly shrinking and being replaced by massive
government debts), social support programs are still ample. Still, even in the
developed nations the success and survival of the social support programs in place depend
on our children, even if they are the children that others here or in Third World
countries make the sacrifices to bear and raise.
Source: Population Division of the Department
of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population
The 2000 Revision, 03
March 2002; 2:34:08 AM. [Note]
release by Canadian Policies Research Networks, dated October 12, 2001, announced a
Work-Life Balance in the New
Millennium: Where Are We? Where Do We Need to Go?, by Linda Duxbury and Chris
Higgins, CPRN Discussion Paper No. W|12 October 2001
Full Document - PDF (379 KB)
The press release doesn't do the report
justice, because one of the most important issues covered in the report is mentioned only
in passing: "The paper recommends that employers, ...Focus on creating more
family-friendly work environments."
The reasons are, amongst others, that 40% of women in professional jobs have not
started a family because of work; and that 30% of men said they wanted no children, for
the same reason.
The Executive Summary identifies that,
This paper uses data from Duxbury and Higgin[s's] 1991 and
2001 work and family studies to examine this and other related issues by asking: Has work
life balance become more difficult for Canadians over the decade? How does work-life
balance affect quality of life and organizational performance? What factors have the
biggest impact on achieving balance? What can be done to help employees balance the
demands of work and family?
and covers the following topics:
- The 1990s Was a Decade of Change, but Many Changes
Were for the "Worse"
- Parenthood Remains More Difficult for Women than Men
- Work-life Conflict has a Negative Impact on Organizational Performance and on Employees
- Employees with High Work-life Conflict Make More Use of Canadas Health Care System
- Role Overload Increases When Role Demands Accumulate
- Work to Family Interference Increases When Role Demands Conflict
Those groups who are at greatest risk for high work to
family interference differ from those most at risk for high role overload. Whereas women
are more likely than men to report high role overload, men are more likely to report high
levels of work to family conflict. This finding is consistent with other research in the
area suggesting that for many men, placing family ahead of work continues to be deemed a
"career limiting move."
While married employees are at greater risk of high work to family interference than those
who are single, the differences between parents and non-parents is not as marked as the
one observed with respect to role overload. While those with preschoolers tend to
experience the highest levels of overload, high interference from work to family appears
to peak when children are in school but cannot legally be left alone and unattended.
Employees with eldercare responsibilities also appear to be at high risk of experiencing
high work to family interference.
Family type is also a predictor of high work to family interference. While being in a
"traditional" family (i.e. homemaker spouse) seems to partially protect the male
breadwinner from high levels of role overload, the data suggests that those in this family
situation are at greater risk of experiencing high work to family interference. Other
family types, such as those where male and female partners are not "equally"
employed, are also likely to report high work to family conflict. It may be that in these
families, there is less appreciation (or understanding) of what the other partner does and
/ or the types of support they need. Moreover, men in these families may feel extra
pressure to address their family responsibilities by being successful at work.
Finally, dual-earner employees (with or without children) experience lower levels of work
to family interference than those families where one or both partners are in professional
This finding suggests that the psychological demands associated with professional
positions, and perhaps the greater desire to "get ahead," may contribute to work
being placed ahead of family.
I became interested in the report because Ted
Byfield used some facts stated in it as the lead-in to his commentary "Health
Canada inadvertently discloses facts Planned Parenthood would like to
suppress," in the Mar. 4, 2002 issue of the Report
Newsmagazine (p. 60).
The report shows the major motivating force behind the epidemic of a shrinking
population sector of children that will eventually have to support a growing population
sector of the elderly.
That trend is now firmly entrenched, world-wide, and not just
confined to the developed nations. The developed nations are entering an era where
one in two people of working age will have to support one retiree with many
less-developed and underdeveloped nations increasingly having to worry about that as well.
In the last few recommendations of their executive summary (recommendation for
governments), Duxbury and Higgins touch on the calamity:
Strive to be model employers. As
the largest employer in the country, the federal government (and provincial and municipal
counterparts) should set a positive example in the area of work-life balance. Being seen
as a model employer will give governments the moral high ground to expect, and request,
changes in this area from other employers.
Develop and implement a national
child care program that addresses the needs of children of all ages.
Develop and implement a national
elder care program.
labour legislation that includes specific language around long-term unpaid leave for the
care of a parent.
Recommendation 23 is of
course nothing other than a necessary attempt to shift the burden of caring for the
elderly back from being a responsibility of the government to become once more a
responsibility of families, families that, ever since the governments of the developed
nations began to systematically dismantle them, now no longer exist in sufficient numbers
and sizes to be able to take over that task from the governments' failing and collapsing
Not just families are to shoulder the burden of doing what the social programs in the
developed nations no longer can do sufficiently well, but the governments are to become
the leading examples for employers to shoulder the financial costs of that as well.
All of that is, of course, wishful thinking. From where are the governments, already
consuming close to 60 percent of the Canadian gross domestic product, supposed to get the
financial resources to do it with? Higher taxation is the only possible means.
That means that families and other income earners must shoulder the burden of paying the
governments to enable their employees to do what, once upon a time, families used to do
for free, provide child care, care for the elderly and for the disabled. And on
account of the shining examples that they set, the governments will then be able to take
the moral high road to create legislation that will force employers in private industry to
enable their employees as well to be as generously provided for as government employees
Where will the employers in the private sector find the money to pay for family
responsibilities? There'll be taxpayer-funded grants and incentives, no doubt, but
once the legislation is in place, the governments, always short of money, will surely cut
back on or eliminate those grants and incentives, to leave the employers shouldering the
costs the legislation will impose on them.
That means that the taxpayers and consumers
must face not only higher
taxes but increasing costs of consumer goods and services. The limit will not be set
by our ability to work but by our ability to pay, and in a steadily shrinking job market the
ability to pay will be increasingly more difficult to come by.
If all of that still doesn't provide a clear picture of why we should worry so much about
our falling birth rates, Ted Byfield's commentary does. Barring immigration from
Third World countries, the population of the developed nations is shrinking:
Even if European
fertility rates [currently at 1.4] were to return to 2.1 [required to maintain zero
population growth] tomorrowa virtual impossibilityEurope's current
population of 727 million would still drop by 171 million by 2050.
All this, needless to say, is bad news for an organization like Planned
Parenthood ....the United Nations has been so successful in its don't-have-kids
propaganda that it is rapidly making the absence of kids the world's No. 1 economic
Meanwhile in Europe, where one government after another experiments with
costly child-bearing incentives, the universal experience is that bribes don't work.
Women must want to have children. So why don't they? And why do men readily
concur? Because, the Canadian study finds, they both make their work more important.
And this, we may discover, is a very difficult mindset to change.
Of course, as long as government-sponsored studies
such as those by Duxbury and Higgins perpetuate the government policies of family bashing,
and as long as the governments still persist in criminalizing parenthood, that mindset
will not soon change to the better.
Civilization, the symbiosis of family and society,
is a very fragile thing. It took more than 10,000 years since it came into
existence to bring us to a point where we could exist in harmony and comfort, with
all population sectors nicely balanced. However, during the past 30 years and
more, that fragile symbiosis has been largely and deliberately destroyed.
For the first time in the 10,000-year-history of civilization families are being
persecuted and destroyed through large-scale programs for the systematic removal
of their weakest links, fathers. Moreover, intact families are being burdened
with punitive taxation rather than having all of society help families with their enormous
sacrifices they make in raising children the children who'll be the sole means
of support for the elderly a generation hence, whether those elderly-to-be presently
have children or not.
It is not fair to put all of the blame on men and women for whom children don't fit into
their lifestyles, but that mindset is not likely to change for quite some time to come.
The consequences are not nice, to say the least, but there is a solution. We
have to eliminate government support for those organizations and institutions that
presently and in the future promote family-hostile policies.
Once we don't punish people anymore for wanting to have families, they will most likely
want to raise children again. Ten thousand years of history can't be all wrong,
contrary to what family-hostile social engineers tell us.
Walter H. Schneider
Fathers for Life
Note: It is quite likely that even the Low-variant projection is
overly optimistic, because the UN's information doesn't appear to reflect sufficiently
that birth rates are in serious decline in many nations, nor does it seem to take
into account the full extent of vastly decreased life expectancies due to the world AIDS
epidemic, which in some localities has infected up to between one- to two-thirds of the
The UN's Low-variant projection, if extended, shows that the world population
will decline after 2045, to reach a total of around 3.5 billion (The Demographics of Death, or The
Decline & Fall of the Human Empire)
See also age distributions for
India, Canada and Germany, for the years 2000, 2025 and 2050
Is the world overpopulated?
If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a
touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal
share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have
98.6m2 of land to live on.
Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three
would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and
a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.
- Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
- World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source:
CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)
It is obvious that the world's population density will be
the controlling factor. Is that a problem? Will people any time soon
be standing on each other's shoulders?
How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world
population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state
the size of Texas, even if we divide the whole population into families of
three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population
Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?
PS. In a report that deals with the shrinking net worth of Canadian individuals and
families, and with the shrinking purchasing power of Canadian incomes and wealth, it is
identified that the major share of the burden of the shifting wealth distribution is being
borne by families, predominantly by single-income-earner families with children.
That report points out that families that were just barely getting by 16 years ago
are now increasingly likely to be in debt, and that families that still had a little bit
of positive net worth 16 years ago now are more likely to have none or to be in debt,
while the net worth of all except the very few in the top one- or five percent of the
wealth distribution now have a net worth that has shrunk by a considerable margin.
That has nothing to do with mindset but everything
with the realities of punitive, family-hostile policies, and with the escalating taxation
required to fund failing social programs.
The Evolution of Wealth Inequality in Canada, 1984-1999,
by René Morissette, Xuelin Zhang and Marie Drolet
11F0019 No. 187
Business and Labour Market Analysis
24-H, R.H. Coats Building, Ottawa, K1A 0T6
*Statistics Canada (613) 951-3608
**Statistics Canada (613) 951-4295
***Statistics Canada (613) 951-5691
Facsimile number : (613) 951-5403
The paper is available on the Internet: (www.statcan.ca)
The feminist dominated government administration of Canada
successfully censored the report out of existence. The government
web page containing it cannot even be found in the Internet archives
anymore. Fortunately the report is still accessible at other
to the location from where the document can be downloaded.
Population Control U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program
That document contains an overview compiled from various sources, based on various opinions
relating to the consequences of the U.S.-promoted culture of death resulting from National
Security Study Memorandum 200, by Henry A. Kissinger, National Security Council,
Washington, D.C. 20506,
- How is Mortality Affected by Money, Marriage and Stress?
By Jonathan Gardner, Watson Wyatt, LLP, and Andrew Oswaldi,
Department of Economics, Warwick University, March 2004
Marriage is found to be associated with substantially lower rates
of mortality, for both men and women. Married men are predicted to
be some -7.2 percent less likely to die over the period [1993 to
2000] than unmarried men. For women, the effect is smaller.
Women married in 1991 are approximately -4.1 percent less likely to
die over the period 1993 to 2000 than otherwise similar unmarried
Full Story (PDF file, 136kB)