3 ms·

I know; I know; it's just so horrible that women had children. Now they don't have to! Hurray!! Women are "free at last"! /sarcasm Sure, no doubt in the pa

I know; I know; it's just so horrible that women had children. Now they don't have to! Hurray!! Women are "free at last"! /sarcasm Sure, no doubt in the past most mothers told their daughters that they needed a man to support them and, thus, should get married. Then wonder of wonders (more sarcasm) babies came. Then nearly always she was highly devoted to her babies. Success! Family formation! Darwin was pleased!!! The article was partly about sex: Okay, when I was in high school, the girls knew in strong, stark terms that dating, marriage, sex, physical love making, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and motherhood were almost certainly the main theme of the rest of their lives -- no doubt. So, I can guarantee you that a LOT of girls from age 12 to marriage before age 20 thought about sex a LOT, often to the exclusion of nearly everything else. In that situation, lots of good family formation happened, and the women didn't have to think strongly, positively, and effectively about family formation. The men didn't have to think strongly, etc. about family formation either, but IMHO what's changed is the thinking of the women and not that of the men. Much of what's changed is that now lots of girls, no doubt from kindergarten on, are told that they can and should have careers and not be dependent on a man. So, the girls no longer believe that they should try hard to be married and, thus, think about school and careers often to the exclusion of dating, sex, etc. But for a good life, family formation remains central. For some good explanations of just why and that haven't changed, see E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, heavily about psychological aspects. Fromm's key point: Being alone is no way to have a good life. Instead, don't want to be alone and want caring, bonding, as in the example in the OP about her bringing soup when he has the flu. IMHO, Darwin is on the case and as usual, with a LOT of experience, will find a solution. In more detail, and from the OP and many more sources, the birth rate now is so low we're rapidly going extinct, literally. Necessarily what will be left are the men and women, from whatever influences and means, are good at family formation. Maybe the influences will not be the same as in the baby boom after WWII and in the 1950s, but there will necessarily be different and effective influences and means. There really are men and women who want to emphasize family formation, and they now are very much in line to be the strong limbs on the tree and nearly the only such limbs. In this way, in the US and the more advanced countries, we're talking some astoundingly rapid and massive pruning of the gene pool of the tree and, thus, some of the fastest change in the gene pool of any species in all of natural history. And it is right in front of us. Or, a birth rate significantly lower than 2.1 per woman, as now, has some no less than monumental effects in just a few generations, i.e., less than 100 years. Or, the strong limbs on the tree will necessarily be thinking and acting differently than now (or as in the OP), differently and effectively enough to do well at family formation. You can bet on it.

watwut 8y ago
Check out domestic violence rates during your fairy tale times. Hint: higher then now and it is not random. Also, there is a reason why those golden times of devotion toward babies were the ones to spring feminists movements - the saintly devotion to babies is mostly fantasy. The women back then were full people and while they loved babies just love we love them now, that is not enough on itself for an adult. The first time it was only about babies and not about economic practicalities, whole thing broke.
- graycat 8y ago
  > Fairy tale? I didn't say anything much like that. Instead, in rock solidly, blunt terms, in the baby boom, the birth rate was high enough for a growing population; now it's so low we're going extinct. That's a huge, monumental, civilization, species changing difference. Call it the best of times or the worst of times, fairy tale or not, it was/is true. And as I argued, the present situation can't last, that is, is going extinct. Instead we WILL emphasize family formation, at least some of us will, and then the tree can get some strong limbs and grow again. Just like the baby boom? Likely not, but SOMETHING that emphasizes family formation -- that's the minimum Darwin will accept. Dirt simple reasoning, and not necessarily anything to do with fairy tales. > the saintly devotion to babies is mostly fantasy. I've seen some such, not nearly enough but some. > The women back then were full people and while they loved babies just love we love them now, that is not enough on itself for an adult. Sometimes "back then", women with lots of babies were very busy people. IMHO they still are or should be, but 200 years ago they split logs for firewood for the fireplace, pumped water from an outside well, spun thread, wove cloth, made clothes, skinned and gutted animals, .... Darned busy. For now, > that is not enough on itself for an adult well, yes, but children from families have to compete, and for this a "full woman" is crucial. E.g., my standard list of what a mother should be doing with, for her children is working on their development: emotional, verbal, psychological, social, creative, artistic, empathetic, moral, ethical, religious, athletic, academic, mechanical, rational, quantitative, scientific, technical, romantic, entrepreneurial, etc. So, the kids should be done with college calculus by age 13. The mother's responsibility is either to do the teaching herself or to manage the teaching via tutors. And similarly for all the other topics. Doing well on that list would do a lot of good and keep a "full woman" nicely busy. Then she would help the kids get good marriages and start their own families. Then she would be a grandmother and start all over again, as busy as before. Uh, there's a secret: We need many fewer years per generation so that there are lots more family ancestors around to help get it all done the second, third, or even fourth time. That is, we need earlier marriages where the marriage and parenting work heavily because of the ancestors helping. That is, we don't expect the young couple to do it all themselves. The grandparents have done it before and can help a second time; the great grandparents, a third time, etc. Crucial situation. > The first time it was only about babies and not about economic practicalities, whole thing broke. It about has to be all about family formation including babies. Good motherhood is not trivial and does deserve to be a very busy, challenging, full time job. > whole thing broke. Yup, very much it did, and we can see that in the most serious sense in the well under 2 children per woman birth rate. Darwin says strongly that that is broken. You are correct that a huge fraction of girls and women have very negative feelings about being a wife and mother. Or, again, divorce lawyers should be getting rich as families rot away and we go extinct. I have a long list of neighbor families where the wives, with children or not, were just miserable. Maybe a wife was busy and okay at first, but she started to get bored about the time her youngest was in the second grade. So, bored, frustrated, disappointed, angry, .... And you are correct: Without the economic realities, she would be out the door, and women with good careers or their own family money, etc. commonly have been. Still, again, once again, over again, yet again, Darwin will not compromise: We WILL, from some approaches or means, maybe new and quite different from anything in the past, have some good families, and they will be the strong limbs on the tree for the future. The rest of the limbs will suffer Darwin's tree pruning saw leaving a LOT of dead wood on the ground. I'm not asking or expecting women to be miserable. Instead, quite the opposite: Families should, e.g., have big times at Thanksgiving, Christmas (for Christians), New Years, Mother's Day, Father's Day, the wedding anniversary, Easter, for the kids Halloween, the birthdays of Mom, Dad and the kids, and when the kids do well in academics, athletics, art, science, leadership, entrepreneurship, etc. So, we're talking 1-3 parties a month. During these years the couple and the whole family can accumulate activities, accomplishments, memories, and traditions that they like a lot, don't want to lose, can't get anywhere else, and will bond them all together. We need to get good at family formation. Some couples will and, thus, keep the species going. Send all complaints to Darwin. Now that I've "paid full tuition" and learned, where can I apply to be 14 again?

watwut 8y ago

Check out domestic violence rates during your fairy tale times. Hint: higher then now and it is not random. Also, there is a reason why those golden times of devotion toward babies were the ones to spring feminists movements - the saintly devotion to babies is mostly fantasy. The women back then were full people and while they loved babies just love we love them now, that is not enough on itself for an adult. The first time it was only about babies and not about economic practicalities, whole thing broke.

graycat 8y ago
> Fairy tale? I didn't say anything much like that. Instead, in rock solidly, blunt terms, in the baby boom, the birth rate was high enough for a growing population; now it's so low we're going extinct. That's a huge, monumental, civilization, species changing difference. Call it the best of times or the worst of times, fairy tale or not, it was/is true. And as I argued, the present situation can't last, that is, is going extinct. Instead we WILL emphasize family formation, at least some of us will, and then the tree can get some strong limbs and grow again. Just like the baby boom? Likely not, but SOMETHING that emphasizes family formation -- that's the minimum Darwin will accept. Dirt simple reasoning, and not necessarily anything to do with fairy tales. > the saintly devotion to babies is mostly fantasy. I've seen some such, not nearly enough but some. > The women back then were full people and while they loved babies just love we love them now, that is not enough on itself for an adult. Sometimes "back then", women with lots of babies were very busy people. IMHO they still are or should be, but 200 years ago they split logs for firewood for the fireplace, pumped water from an outside well, spun thread, wove cloth, made clothes, skinned and gutted animals, .... Darned busy. For now, > that is not enough on itself for an adult well, yes, but children from families have to compete, and for this a "full woman" is crucial. E.g., my standard list of what a mother should be doing with, for her children is working on their development: emotional, verbal, psychological, social, creative, artistic, empathetic, moral, ethical, religious, athletic, academic, mechanical, rational, quantitative, scientific, technical, romantic, entrepreneurial, etc. So, the kids should be done with college calculus by age 13. The mother's responsibility is either to do the teaching herself or to manage the teaching via tutors. And similarly for all the other topics. Doing well on that list would do a lot of good and keep a "full woman" nicely busy. Then she would help the kids get good marriages and start their own families. Then she would be a grandmother and start all over again, as busy as before. Uh, there's a secret: We need many fewer years per generation so that there are lots more family ancestors around to help get it all done the second, third, or even fourth time. That is, we need earlier marriages where the marriage and parenting work heavily because of the ancestors helping. That is, we don't expect the young couple to do it all themselves. The grandparents have done it before and can help a second time; the great grandparents, a third time, etc. Crucial situation. > The first time it was only about babies and not about economic practicalities, whole thing broke. It about has to be all about family formation including babies. Good motherhood is not trivial and does deserve to be a very busy, challenging, full time job. > whole thing broke. Yup, very much it did, and we can see that in the most serious sense in the well under 2 children per woman birth rate. Darwin says strongly that that is broken. You are correct that a huge fraction of girls and women have very negative feelings about being a wife and mother. Or, again, divorce lawyers should be getting rich as families rot away and we go extinct. I have a long list of neighbor families where the wives, with children or not, were just miserable. Maybe a wife was busy and okay at first, but she started to get bored about the time her youngest was in the second grade. So, bored, frustrated, disappointed, angry, .... And you are correct: Without the economic realities, she would be out the door, and women with good careers or their own family money, etc. commonly have been. Still, again, once again, over again, yet again, Darwin will not compromise: We WILL, from some approaches or means, maybe new and quite different from anything in the past, have some good families, and they will be the strong limbs on the tree for the future. The rest of the limbs will suffer Darwin's tree pruning saw leaving a LOT of dead wood on the ground. I'm not asking or expecting women to be miserable. Instead, quite the opposite: Families should, e.g., have big times at Thanksgiving, Christmas (for Christians), New Years, Mother's Day, Father's Day, the wedding anniversary, Easter, for the kids Halloween, the birthdays of Mom, Dad and the kids, and when the kids do well in academics, athletics, art, science, leadership, entrepreneurship, etc. So, we're talking 1-3 parties a month. During these years the couple and the whole family can accumulate activities, accomplishments, memories, and traditions that they like a lot, don't want to lose, can't get anywhere else, and will bond them all together. We need to get good at family formation. Some couples will and, thus, keep the species going. Send all complaints to Darwin. Now that I've "paid full tuition" and learned, where can I apply to be 14 again?