5 ms·

> Parenting is not a choice when you have children in your home. Of course not, but choosing to have children in the first place is.

gwd 6y ago
> Of course not, but choosing to have children in the first place is. The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society. If you're 30, the toddlers of today will be voting and coming into the workforce and voting when you're 50; and will be basically running your country when you're 70. If the next generation isn't raised to take your place, your retirement is going to really stink. And the character and attitude of the toddlers now are going to have a massive impact on your life. When the harassed parent on your Zoom call apologizes and puts you on mute to spend 30 seconds interacting with their toddler, that's an investment in your own future. Be grateful for them for doing that work.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- belorn 6y ago
  People who spend more free time on themselves and improve physical and mental health is also a benefit to society since they will use less of resources from the health sector and pay taxes longer (and often more). Giving everyone more time is something which benefits society. Studies done on 6hrs work day (or 4 days work week) has shown exactly that. Better health, more time with children, less resources needed in the health sector. An argument being presented together with such reduction in work hours would be to raise the pension age again, which would then increase how much taxes a person pay in a life time. In addition more people with disabilities can stay in the work force when there is more balance between work hours and home. This also increase taxes and reduces medical costs, and also reduces the amount of people who need to enter early pension. The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work.
  - gwd 6y ago
    > The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work. Where did I say people without children are wasting societies resources? I don't think everyone needs to have children. There are definitely some people cut out to raise children, and definitely some other people not cut out to raise children. (And loads of people in the middle.) Raising children is a massive amount of work and effort stress, and anyone who doesn't find that work rewarding is going to struggle to do a good job. The argument I made works both ways: a good parent will make society better, possibly for generations; a bad parent will make society worse, possibly for generations. If someone doesn't think parenting is for them, I'm the last person to push them into doing it. But what's a fact is that it's critical to society that somebody do that work. The least we can do is cut the people who are doing that work a little extra slack. I'm not sure what more free time has to do with it. Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't.
    - belorn 6y ago
      "The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society." If a person choose to spend time on themselves then that is a choice which also benefits all of society. "Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't." I have my doubts. The concessions that people need to balance life and work looks all very similar. A lot of the concessions that people with children seem identical to the concession that many people without children also need, those being flexibility in the job and hours spent doing work. If we include debilitating health conditions, does it matter for the job if a person need flex time to balance the condition or if they do so in order to setup the teaching platform to their kids? What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from?
      - gwd 6y ago
        > What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from? Well, to go back to my first post: If you're in the middle of a Zoom call, and a parent's toddler interrupts them and they have to take 30 seconds to see their finger painting before sending them back to the other parent, just be patient and accept that. If someone in the middle of a Zoom call says, "Sorry, just let me take 30s to pump out 5 pull-ups here", or "Sorry, just bear with me while I search to see how fast Queens regenerate energy", I think you have a right to be somewhat annoyed. If someone says, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- our infant is sleeping poorly", and it's the 10th time this month, cut them some slack for the 10th time. If they say, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I was up all night playing Starcraft" or "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I did back-to-back marathons yesterday", and it's the 10th time this month, I think you have a right to be somewhat more annoyed. I could go on, but do I need to? I feel like the difference between having a human being that depends on you for its very survival and having a hobby that you can mostly schedule -- or at least behaves predictably -- should be pretty obvious.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > It's a choice which benefits all of society Then maybe all of society should participate in that choice. AFAIK no one will question, or evaluate the results of that choice, so we only have your say-so of the supposed benefits. If your kid emigrates the day they graduate, do you pay a penalty for the loss of benefit society? If I deem the "character and attitude" of the next generation to be poor, can I hold you to account, do I get a refund? To be clear, I have no problem with corporations, or even the government, providing parents with perks and service; I do have a problem with the entitlement shown in demanding such things, especially based on some fluffy premise.

gwd 6y ago

> Of course not, but choosing to have children in the first place is. The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society. If you're 30, the toddlers of today will be voting and coming into the workforce and voting when you're 50; and will be basically running your country when you're 70. If the next generation isn't raised to take your place, your retirement is going to really stink. And the character and attitude of the toddlers now are going to have a massive impact on your life. When the harassed parent on your Zoom call apologizes and puts you on mute to spend 30 seconds interacting with their toddler, that's an investment in your own future. Be grateful for them for doing that work.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
belorn 6y ago
People who spend more free time on themselves and improve physical and mental health is also a benefit to society since they will use less of resources from the health sector and pay taxes longer (and often more). Giving everyone more time is something which benefits society. Studies done on 6hrs work day (or 4 days work week) has shown exactly that. Better health, more time with children, less resources needed in the health sector. An argument being presented together with such reduction in work hours would be to raise the pension age again, which would then increase how much taxes a person pay in a life time. In addition more people with disabilities can stay in the work force when there is more balance between work hours and home. This also increase taxes and reduces medical costs, and also reduces the amount of people who need to enter early pension. The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work.
- gwd 6y ago
  > The calculations are not as simple as saying that people without children are just wasting societies resources when not at work. Where did I say people without children are wasting societies resources? I don't think everyone needs to have children. There are definitely some people cut out to raise children, and definitely some other people not cut out to raise children. (And loads of people in the middle.) Raising children is a massive amount of work and effort stress, and anyone who doesn't find that work rewarding is going to struggle to do a good job. The argument I made works both ways: a good parent will make society better, possibly for generations; a bad parent will make society worse, possibly for generations. If someone doesn't think parenting is for them, I'm the last person to push them into doing it. But what's a fact is that it's critical to society that somebody do that work. The least we can do is cut the people who are doing that work a little extra slack. I'm not sure what more free time has to do with it. Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't.
  - belorn 6y ago
    "The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society." If a person choose to spend time on themselves then that is a choice which also benefits all of society. "Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't." I have my doubts. The concessions that people need to balance life and work looks all very similar. A lot of the concessions that people with children seem identical to the concession that many people without children also need, those being flexibility in the job and hours spent doing work. If we include debilitating health conditions, does it matter for the job if a person need flex time to balance the condition or if they do so in order to setup the teaching platform to their kids? What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from?
    - gwd 6y ago
      > What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from? Well, to go back to my first post: If you're in the middle of a Zoom call, and a parent's toddler interrupts them and they have to take 30 seconds to see their finger painting before sending them back to the other parent, just be patient and accept that. If someone in the middle of a Zoom call says, "Sorry, just let me take 30s to pump out 5 pull-ups here", or "Sorry, just bear with me while I search to see how fast Queens regenerate energy", I think you have a right to be somewhat annoyed. If someone says, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- our infant is sleeping poorly", and it's the 10th time this month, cut them some slack for the 10th time. If they say, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I was up all night playing Starcraft" or "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I did back-to-back marathons yesterday", and it's the 10th time this month, I think you have a right to be somewhat more annoyed. I could go on, but do I need to? I feel like the difference between having a human being that depends on you for its very survival and having a hobby that you can mostly schedule -- or at least behaves predictably -- should be pretty obvious.
Chris2048 6y ago
> It's a choice which benefits all of society Then maybe all of society should participate in that choice. AFAIK no one will question, or evaluate the results of that choice, so we only have your say-so of the supposed benefits. If your kid emigrates the day they graduate, do you pay a penalty for the loss of benefit society? If I deem the "character and attitude" of the next generation to be poor, can I hold you to account, do I get a refund? To be clear, I have no problem with corporations, or even the government, providing parents with perks and service; I do have a problem with the entitlement shown in demanding such things, especially based on some fluffy premise.