3 ms·

> The societal structures that have worked in the past I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but ba

> The societal structures that have worked in the past I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but based on conservative ideology they represent a temporary family and economic structure that really only existed in some parts of the USA and only for the recent past. "Marriage" in the pre-1900s outside the educated rich class that got written about was more or less "start living together". No licenses or ceremonies. Family structures got strange. People left their spouse and children by moving west or across the pond. The supposed problems can be easily solved with money. Free childcare (including funding for better worker pay, better facilities, training more caregivers, etc). Universal healthcare. Universal after school care. 18 year tax credits for having kids. Free training on parenting techniques and discipline. Mail every new parent a "baby box" with useful things. Mandate lactation rooms. Mandate parental leave. Mandate emergency paid leave (eg kid got sick so stayed home). Conservative ideology as practiced in the USA is more about the super rich not wanting to pay taxes or be told what to do (eg environmental or safety regulations) so by definition it is not an ideology capable of solving many problems. Everything else is a smoke screen to corral the rabble ("liberal" ideology has shibboleths used for similar purposes). The best modern US conservatives can do is eventually ban all family planning to attempt to force as many kids to be born to unhappy poor people as possible because that's "free" (though look for anything early childhood or child education related to see severe funding cuts if they're successful). Reminder that I'm saying this is what the super rich funding conservative movements want, not what actual conservatives want. If you pill supposed liberal and conservative voters they're much more closely aligned on policies and desired outcomes than the news would have you believe. But implementing any of those things needs money and regulations so it's out of the question.

bhouston 4y ago
> I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but based on conservative ideology they represent a temporary family and economic structure that really only existed in some parts of the USA and only for the recent past. "Marriage" in the pre-1900s outside the educated rich class that got written about was more or less "start living together". No licenses or ceremonies. Family structures got strange. People left their spouse and children by moving west or across the pond. Okay. I am fuzzy with pre-1900s families in North America. > The supposed problems can be easily solved with money. Free childcare (including funding for better worker pay, better facilities, training more caregivers, etc). Universal healthcare. Universal after school care. 18 year tax credits for having kids. Free training on parenting techniques and discipline. Mail every new parent a "baby box" with useful things. Mandate lactation rooms. Mandate parental leave. Mandate emergency paid leave (eg kid got sick so stayed home). This makes sense and would love to see it. I think it isn't going to come to the US any time soon... probably will come to other countries first and maybe it can be proved out and then come to the US after many decades. > Conservative ideology as practiced in the USA is more about the super rich not wanting to pay taxes or be told what to do (eg environmental or safety regulations) so by definition it is not an ideology capable of solving many problems. Everything else is a smoke screen to corral the rabble ("liberal" ideology has shibboleths used for similar purposes). The best modern US conservatives can do is eventually ban all family planning to attempt to force as many kids to be born to unhappy poor people as possible because that's "free" (though look for anything early childhood or child education related to see severe funding cuts if they're successful). Yup. I can not disagree with this, as it sort of seems to be the general direction.

bhouston 4y ago

> I think you are vastly over-estimating these "societal structures". You don't clearly define them but based on conservative ideology they represent a temporary family and economic structure that really only existed in some parts of the USA and only for the recent past. "Marriage" in the pre-1900s outside the educated rich class that got written about was more or less "start living together". No licenses or ceremonies. Family structures got strange. People left their spouse and children by moving west or across the pond. Okay. I am fuzzy with pre-1900s families in North America. > The supposed problems can be easily solved with money. Free childcare (including funding for better worker pay, better facilities, training more caregivers, etc). Universal healthcare. Universal after school care. 18 year tax credits for having kids. Free training on parenting techniques and discipline. Mail every new parent a "baby box" with useful things. Mandate lactation rooms. Mandate parental leave. Mandate emergency paid leave (eg kid got sick so stayed home). This makes sense and would love to see it. I think it isn't going to come to the US any time soon... probably will come to other countries first and maybe it can be proved out and then come to the US after many decades. > Conservative ideology as practiced in the USA is more about the super rich not wanting to pay taxes or be told what to do (eg environmental or safety regulations) so by definition it is not an ideology capable of solving many problems. Everything else is a smoke screen to corral the rabble ("liberal" ideology has shibboleths used for similar purposes). The best modern US conservatives can do is eventually ban all family planning to attempt to force as many kids to be born to unhappy poor people as possible because that's "free" (though look for anything early childhood or child education related to see severe funding cuts if they're successful). Yup. I can not disagree with this, as it sort of seems to be the general direction.