5 ms·

> American society has been slow to adapt to people who are single or live alone. The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize peo

> American society has been slow to adapt to people who are single or live alone. The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize people living alone. It’s not hidden in any way, the centuries old rhetoric is people are supposed to get into cis-gendered couples and have kids. There is cultural lag on allowing LGBTQ to get the same status, but our society will always pay lip service to helping single people, and strongly push for building families, whether it still makes sense or not from the population perspective (I have no idea about that). Single elderly people are tougher problem, but old farts will just blame them for not having kids caring for them (physically or financially).

ren_engineer 5y ago
>It’s not hidden in any way, the centuries old rhetoric is people are supposed to get into cis-gendered couples and have kids I mean, society ceases to exist if enough people don't reproduce. From a pure evolutionary perspective the society and culture that prioritizes having kids is going to expand and grow compared to cultures that don't. There are tons of anti-natalist groups that existed and died off because the entire group died off and there wasn't anybody to replace them
- scollet 5y ago
  You can be anti-natalist and still adopt or foster.
sli 5y ago
> The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize people living alone. This rings very true for me. Where I live, and likely many other places, one bedroom apartments and studio apartments have a huge overlap in rent. Both are way too high, but it's absolutely bonkers that studio apartments are almost every bit as expensive. This is not a large city/tech hub/anything notable.
nautilius 5y ago
No shit. It's called survival of the species. Let's call this society A. Now try to imagine a society B where everyone with a kid is penalized. Let's make it as clear-cut as possible: death penalty. Which one do you think will continue to exist after a few generations? Obviously it's not as straightforward for LGBTQ+, but it turns out - if not denied the right by an oppressive society - many are happy to adopt or find other arrangements to take care of and raise children. Win-win.
andrekandre 5y ago
> The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize people living alone. i dont know if "actively want" is the right way to put it, but it does seem to be a kind of situation (overwork, output, expectations) that as time goes on, ironically makes it harder for them to "make a family"...
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  A lot of shit that has been pulled on working women, where there's a point it just breaks (shitty work with little career prospect, no support, low wage and too much living cost) and they drop out of the work force, leaving them with few choices outside of marrying. For guys it can be more subtle, but bullying into marriage is still a thing depending on where you live. Making it shitty for singles can work in the long term (I'd argue it's been done for centuries) Overall I think people refusing to build families is less on the expectations (though it has a role, I concur) than the overall economic situation where being poor/"middle class" is just so bad, anyone that's not dreaming of having kids just understands it's a bag of hurt all the way down.

ren_engineer 5y ago

>It’s not hidden in any way, the centuries old rhetoric is people are supposed to get into cis-gendered couples and have kids I mean, society ceases to exist if enough people don't reproduce. From a pure evolutionary perspective the society and culture that prioritizes having kids is going to expand and grow compared to cultures that don't. There are tons of anti-natalist groups that existed and died off because the entire group died off and there wasn't anybody to replace them

scollet 5y ago
You can be anti-natalist and still adopt or foster.

sli 5y ago

> The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize people living alone. This rings very true for me. Where I live, and likely many other places, one bedroom apartments and studio apartments have a huge overlap in rent. Both are way too high, but it's absolutely bonkers that studio apartments are almost every bit as expensive. This is not a large city/tech hub/anything notable.

nautilius 5y ago

No shit. It's called survival of the species. Let's call this society A. Now try to imagine a society B where everyone with a kid is penalized. Let's make it as clear-cut as possible: death penalty. Which one do you think will continue to exist after a few generations? Obviously it's not as straightforward for LGBTQ+, but it turns out - if not denied the right by an oppressive society - many are happy to adopt or find other arrangements to take care of and raise children. Win-win.

andrekandre 5y ago

> The elephant in the room is that most societies actively want to penalize people living alone. i dont know if "actively want" is the right way to put it, but it does seem to be a kind of situation (overwork, output, expectations) that as time goes on, ironically makes it harder for them to "make a family"...

makeitdouble 5y ago
A lot of shit that has been pulled on working women, where there's a point it just breaks (shitty work with little career prospect, no support, low wage and too much living cost) and they drop out of the work force, leaving them with few choices outside of marrying. For guys it can be more subtle, but bullying into marriage is still a thing depending on where you live. Making it shitty for singles can work in the long term (I'd argue it's been done for centuries) Overall I think people refusing to build families is less on the expectations (though it has a role, I concur) than the overall economic situation where being poor/"middle class" is just so bad, anyone that's not dreaming of having kids just understands it's a bag of hurt all the way down.