Its my family. Hard to call that anecdotal.
Once, when I grew up...
You were in gamblers fallacy territory before, but for your main arguments issue, the site has no section for.
The issue in your argument is akin to overgeneralization while employing follow up reasoning. And then a no other way out fallacy.
This works as follows - you perceive an abstract issue (population decline), to be overly caused by a single cause (feminism - not birth control, not social security, not new ways of life that had people not wanting to stay a home giving birth for 4 years in a row, ...) - although there is really no obvious causality.
Then you insist, that the issue can be fixed, by the adverse treatment of what you claim is causing it - namely to denounce female and male equality, and have women birth more children, by treating them as lesser humans again.
I don't know where on earth you want to raise up your cult compound, but you arent saving culture, or the world with your line of thinking.
You've hardly even identified a problem. (The world needs more people of my culture!? Why?)
If someone is feeding you that logic - try to distance yourself a little. Get some other ideas in your mind as well. Do it at your pace.
Some of the issues regional population decline causes are pretty real - so your sense of urgency isnt entirely wrong. Its just that your proposed solution isnt a solution at all.
("I know how to fix the economy! Lets go back to slavery, and then.."
Same logical fallacy. And single solution thinking.
Thats on the other side of trying to explain complex issues as simple as possible. More people think they can grasp them - more people can be mislead by BS - because they now have the idea, that they could grasp them...
If you never actually ask yourself "could it actually be more complex" - chances are, that someone is taking you along for the ride...
It doesnt always have to be - but at least dont always negate the thought experiment. Reverse reasoning logic, is almost never the solution to larger problems. ("If the people are starving, they should eat more..."
))
And on the logic level. If people have too few children, they should f*ck more (got that part) - by denouncing womens equality in terms of being equal humans, and see them as the weaker sex again and... What? And then you'd get a partner as well? Or two?
Because if we don't do it, the others will do it. (Islam?) On the same logic level, the moment islamist women enter open societies (think France), they first and foremost become liberated, because every other women they come in contact with is. Until their brothers kill them for family honor, of course - which is just proper darwinistic thinking, because then they have fewer women, and then surely they take over and become the master race... Ah - sorry, where were you going with the argument? Oh I know - becazse that generates an aura of fear, that means that their women can now stay at home for four years and - we as societies can do nothing against that sense of fear based life decisions? Or do you expect free women to be so weak, that they fall over and get captivated by the first real male with an urge to birth him four children again. No - I know, its the long game - so the islamic women in fear birth children, that are then not educated in western schools and dont come in contact with others, oh wait, they are doing that, arent they...
Its almost like social integration actually usually works, and doesnt automatically fail, because of genes? Testosteron?
Supreme fear based cultures?
I like my logic of "forbid dating apps" because people then arent caught in FOMO-something better cycles for years much better.
But I dont think that thats a sound argument. I just use it to provoke..