12 ms·

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women ar

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women are the only humans that can produce children and they have to do it during a relatively short time window - especially if we want to reproduce at replacement level. Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. I’m not sure how western society will continue if we view raising a child instead of having a career as “stepping up”. It’s certainly disrespectful to all the mothers of our future.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago
Or we could just make sure women have careers by having good social support?
- rednerrus 4y ago
  Where does the social support come from if everyone is working?
  - washadjeffmad 4y ago
    People who work in social support? Look at east vs west Germany. West Germany struggled with demand for social and child services during the pandemic, but the East never dismantled theirs, and it showed. Care and support are jobs.
    - rednerrus 4y ago
      Where do the people who work in social support send their kids?
      - thatfrenchguy 4y ago
        To the same daycares? Do you not live somewhere where there are daycares?
        rednerrus 4y ago
        They cost $2000/month and have a 3 year waiting list.
        washadjeffmad 4y ago
        Does your country not have taxes?
underdeserver 4y ago
There's a difference between having children (which only women can do) and raising them (which both parents can do).
- biomcgary 4y ago
  Research has consistently shown the value of breastfeeding for development. Part of that is the biological quality of the milk, but part is also the skin-to-skin contact and emotional bonding. So, until weaning, women have a unique biological ability that men cannot quite replicate. Obviously, pumping can address some of the biology and men can cuddle their infants. However, normal emotional attachment[1] of the mother to the child also develops pre-weaning, which has its own long-term effects. Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? 1. in the evolutionary sense of what human psychology has been selected for, including the increase of maternal prolactin and oxytocin during breastfeeding
  - smallnix 4y ago
    > Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? Yes. Men should be allowed the same right.
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      My argument for females to have a year off to take care of newborns (or so) was biologically based, focused on the interaction between natural selection and psychological developmental trajectories. I haven't seen any research on the history of natural selection across multiple people groups / genetic lineages that suggests the equivalent selection pressures have existed in the past for males. One might insist on equivalent policies for the biological sexes on ideological grounds, e.g., men's rights, which is perfectly fine. However, from a logical perspective, arguing for males to have time off for the first year is jointly dependent on the biological argument (which applies to females) AND the ideological argument. Alternatively, from an empirical perspective, the research around males may exist and I am simply not aware of it.
maxbond 4y ago
> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. This seems pretty reductionist to me. Men can absolutely raise children. Husbands in heterosexual couples should absolutely be raising their children and not leaving the entire task of raising them to their wives. Gay men can also raise children. I don't think you meant to be disrespectful, but when you essentialize like this you end up putting women in a box where their role in society is defined by their biology, and you put men in a box where they feel like they can't and shouldn't participate in certain kinds of labor, leading to women shouldering an unfair proportion. An anecdote that helped this hit home for me was a story this father told about a neighbor of his. He'd be running errands at the grocery store or whatever, with his kids in tow, and he'd run into his neighbor (also a father) who'd say something like, "Oh, you're stuck babysitting again?" And he didn't have the words to tell him, "I'm not babysitting, I'm raising my kids." The neighbor viewed it as his wife's responsibility to be looking after the kids, and if he was participating in this, it was some sort of exception; and furthermore, a chore. Personally, that's not the sort of father or husband I intend to be.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  That last anecdote is a generational change, regardless, I think. I’m probably close to your age, have a family and a traditional income-producer/homemaker marriage, and I bristle at terms like “babysitting” and “watching the kids.” I’m their dad!
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Men can raise children, but cannot get pregnant or breast feed. Going through that cycle with potentially multiple children is a big time investment that cannot be delegated to men. Beyond that, yes, men are perfectly capable of performing child rearing tasks. Note, of course, this does not negate the argument against a two income family. Having a society where one income can support a family means fathers can devote themselves to raising their children, and so can mothers. Or alternate roles. Or one full time career and one part time career.
  - deleted 4y ago
1auralynn 4y ago
The Earth is overpopulated, and also you're completely disregarding that women may not want to do the insanely hard work of growing, birthing, and raising a child in lieu of other work they find fulfilling and which could potentially have an overall greater impact on humanity. Speaking as someone who just had a baby 1 year ago - it's great and I love my little guy, but is it the most important thing I've ever done? Debatable.
black_knight 4y ago
In civilised societies, women still give birth, but after they are born both parents are given the possibility to stay at home with their child. This usually takes the form of the birth-giving woman staying at home for the first few months, while the child is dependent on frequent breastfeeding, after which the other parent stays at home with the child for a few months until they are ready to to start kindergarten around the age of twelve months. In such societies kindergartens are affordable and in the course of little over a year both parents have had a break from work, with full salary compensation, to get to know the new human.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  This is one of those policies I believe is broadly popular with voters in both US political parties, but never gets implemented because capital has more say in our government than voters.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I do not see how it can be popular with Republican voters. The proof is that every state with paid parental leave and extended parental leave is led by Democrats. And federal Republicans voted against paid parental leave in 2021’s build back better bill.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Republican voters' views differ strongly from what the party pushes and does. Exploiting this gap is how Trump got elected—remember that whole thing where the Republicans didn't even bother to generate an official party platform when he was running? That's because he threw theirs in the trash and just went with whatever ordinary Republicans chatting with other ordinary Republicans at a backyard BBQ say the government ought to do. Trying to come up with anything like their ordinary platform those years would have been pointless, or even harmful—explicitly adopt Trump's message, and you're in trouble if he ends up going down in flames and you have to backpedal, plus it'll piss off some donors; adopt your usual shit, and Trump's fans will be pissed off at you. So they just didn't make one, which was probably their best move under the circumstances. Now, the follow-through may have been lacking and any lip-service toward that sort of thing by his hangers-on and imitators may be entirely disingenuous (as his probably was, too, at least most of it), but the gap between R voter and R official or de-facto official policy is real and it's big and Trump's messaging was laser-targeted at using that against his Republican opponents to get the initial nomination. The "build a wall" stuff was lifted straight from that kind of actual-voter real-talk sort of thing. They literally want the government to just build a wall and assume they only haven't because of corruption and ill-intent among elected officials—it's obviously a good idea, from their perspective. On the campaign trail Trump even vaguely talked about "fixing healthcare" in ways that would surely have looked a lot like "socialized medicine"—because R voters support those policies when they're not being called "Socialist" or "Obamacare" or otherwise being demonized and mis-represented by their own media and politicians. Talk specifics, and they support them, talk about socialized medicine broadly and they tell you to fuck off to Venezuela with the other commies. That's another gap between R voter wishes and R party policy/actions. Republican politicians also tend to support neo-liberal economic and trade policy, in deed if not in word, while their voters largely hate it (remember the tough-on-China talk and America-first trade policy and the trans-national trade regime skepticism and all that? That's Trump aiming at the party/voter gap, yet again) "How can it possibly be that a major US political party can largely ignore the actual will of its own voters, for decades on end?" allow me to introduce you to our totally fucked-up electoral system and how it all but guarantees two viable parties at a time, both of which are also all but guaranteed to be disliked by a ton of their own voters. It's extremely bad. :-( [EDIT] Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if you could get a very high percentage—maybe not 51%, but a lot—of Republican voters to say they support a federal abortion law that's identical to Roe v. Wade's (maybe even without PP v Casey's modifications) effects—legalizing early abortion, but leaving laws about later-term abortion mostly up to the states—as long as you described what it did instead of short-handing it as "codifying Roe v. Wade" (indeed, you'd have to avoid mentioning that it had anything to do with Roe v Wade at all).
bregma 4y ago
You seem to confuse giving birth with raising children. Being a woman is not a prerequisite to rearing children.
ethbr0 4y ago
It's been amazing to me that developed countries have bemoaned birth rates... and then done nothing effective about it. You know what says "This country values parents who choose to have children?" Actual replacement of lost income potential and career progression. Yes, in the US there are tax credits, SNAP, etc. None of these even come close to replacing the life income changes. If we were serious about it, we'd have something approaching equivalent income replacement, GI Bill-style college funding, and child care cost support in every state*. Having children should be an income neutral choice, not a burden. * Side note: On all of these programs, I'd be in favor of supply-side support, rather than demand side reimbursement, given how inflationary reimbursement has been in the education market.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > It's been amazing to me that developed countries have bemoaned birth rates... and then done nothing effective about it. I always thought a low birth rate was a net-good: Something all countries are striving for. Like when your country drops below 2 births per woman, it has "made it" into the ranks of Developed Countries. Lower birth rate means fewer bodies to feed and a smaller environmental footprint. Sure, I guess it also means you have less "cannon fodder" both economically and militarily, but net net low birth rate countries are better off than high birth rate countries.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerkstate 4y ago
    >Lower birth rate means fewer bodies to feed and a smaller environmental footprint. without placing a value judgement on the outcomes, this assertion is only true if the population decreases overall, which doesn't happen in the countries with permissive immigration policies. other countries with low birth rates and strict immigration policies have different problems, like declining property values, difficulty paying for pension/retirement obligations, shrinking gdp (even if gdp per capita is increasing), etc.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
martythemaniak 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  As a dad of three who made serious career sacrifices in order to raise my kids... you are spot on, and I've concluded that the best scenario is when both partners have some life outside the home, whether it is career, volunteerism, etc, and both partners have equal responsibilities inside the home (kids, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, whatever). The roles may be different and at times we might each be carrying more of the load for the other, but over the span of time anger and resentment grow if there isn't balance. I make the point about activities outside the home because when one person is the stay-at-home person, it can become very isolating and become a serious mental health issue. That person needs a social outlet, a part-time job, something, whether they realize it or not.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    You bounce back and forth between a maximalist, fundamentalist position on this topic and one that's more moderate and common sense. > and both partners have equal responsibilities inside the home (kids, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, whatever) So each task has to be split completely equally between each partner, to the hour? To the minute? Can one spouse have a full time 40 hour / week job and the other a part time 20 hour / week job? What about a high paying high stress 60 hour / week job and a 40 hour / week job? Are you going to dictate the morally acceptable parameters of everyones relationship? > That person needs a social outlet, a part-time job, something, whether they realize it or not. This is a much less extreme position and I think hard to disagree with. I think the mythical era of the Homemaking Wife and Mother of the 1950s, the wives staying at home still had a lot of social outlets and interactions with people than they do today. Which speaks to the endemic isolation of our current culture.
poulsbohemian 4y ago
I get the sense that you are trying to be needlessly provocative... >Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society Who is doing the forcing here? Many women wanted to enter the workforce. Some didn't want to enter the workforce. Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes, but it isn't like someone on HN was holding a gun to their head telling them to get a job, so I'm a little unclear on your lamentation here. >Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do Um, say what? Yeah, biology is amazing stuff. I'm in awe of women on every level. But your comment here is a bit dogwistling - are you intending for this to sound as misogynistic as many of us are reading it? Women who choose to not have children are just as amazing when they choose whatever path they choose. >I’m not sure how western society will continue if we view raising a child instead of having a career as “stepping up”. It’s certainly disrespectful to all the mothers of our future. Dude, what? Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. If that isn't stepping up in a big way, I don't know what else to call it. Is being a stay-at-home-mom not also commendable and deserving of respect? Absolutely. But your message seems to be one of dog whistling for the bad-old days of the past.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  >> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society > Who is doing the forcing here? It's called the two income trap[1]. Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. Then, slowly we started seeing more and more two-income families. Two-income families could bear to spend more on everything, so the market responded by adjusting costs higher. Soon, it became difficult, then impossible for a family to survive on one income, so then everyone had to go two-income. Now, the same standard of living we once could achieve on one income, requires two incomes. We've doubled the workforce but gained nothing in terms of standard of living. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap
  - 4y ago
geraldwhen 4y ago
There is a lot of self delusion in tech. I’ve known women in their late 30s who were unmarried and “may have kids some day”. Basic human biology is not taught in schools.
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  It's apparently not because it's entirely possible to have children well into your 30s. Sure risk factors can do things like "increase 10x" but it increases from like 0.02% to 0.2%.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Risks are much, much, much higher. Chromosome disorder in 40 year old mothers is 1 in 30. For 25 year olds it is 1 in 1250. So from .08% to 3.33%. Chance of miscarriage is 80% for a 40 year old mother. For a 35 year old, it is 20%. https://www.webmd.com/baby/over-35-pregnant https://www.webmd.com/baby/over-35-pregnant
vidarh 4y ago
> because they’re the only ones that can do it. This is massively insulting to men. I'm personally massively insulted by it, having shared custody 50/50 with my ex and certainly done as much to raise my son as she has. > I’m not sure how western society will continue Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the world except sub-Saharan Africa, and declining in sub-Saharan Africa too. Any notion that the low birth rate is a phenomenon that can be ascribed to cultural factors in the west is not supported by data.
thefz 4y ago
> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. This is as backwards as saying that women should not work and care for the house. If a woman wants to work and build a career let her, and if a couple wants to DINK, let them. Replacement level is a myth and a danger in a world choking up with our waste. > Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. Yeah, you think of them as walking uteruses.
- tsol 4y ago
  >This is as backwards as saying that women should not work and care for the house. If a woman wants to work and build a career let her, and if a couple wants to DINK, let them. And if a woman wants to be a homemaker and focus on molding the next generation?
watwut 4y ago
The poverty women used to be at when the man died or when they escaped from abusive one was pretty deep. The level of abuse the power imbalance facilitate was also staggering. Yeah, it would be nice of society valued child raising more. But, it actually did not and instead the caregivers were often in bad or impossible situations.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. Oh shove off. My dad by himself for years absolutely raised us without my biological mother in the picture at all. Men can and should be raising children too.
magicink81 4y ago
On this topic, Gabor Mate and Gordon Neufeld wrote the book I wish I had read before our daughter was born: Hold Onto Your Kids [1]. Thesis: Strong attachment to a parent or caretaker is foundational for human development - neurological, physiological, and psychological - the whole body, mind, and spirit. The impacts of years 0-5 cannot be overstated. Based on the findings presented in the book, if both parents want to work my suggestion would be to either hire a full-time nanny who will replace you as the attachment figure for those years and beyond, or have a family member move in with you and care for the child full-time. Be comfortable that your child will be more attached to this person, and love them at least a little bit more, than they love you. Be happy that your child will have their best shot at healthy development because you prioritized it for them. Another great book that covers more of the science in depth is The Developing Mind by Daniel J. Siegel [2]. Sounds extreme? Read the books (and others) yourself and see what conclusions you reach. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375760288/ https://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Mind-Third-Relationships-Interact/dp/1462542751 https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Mind-Third-Relationships-I...
- tsol 4y ago
  >Be comfortable that your child will be more attached to this person, and love them at least a little bit more, than they love you. People want to have their cake and eat it too, and I suspect by the animosity a lot of younger people have for the older generation that it isn't working out as well as they'd hoped.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nvarsj 4y ago
People are taking issue that you imply only women can raise children. I hope you can realize that is not remotely factual.
isthisthingon99 4y ago
Women have always worked at home. It used to be farming though. Work has always been part of the woman's role. It was only a short period where it wasn't.
janef0421 4y ago
The contemporary need for dual earners is bad for child raising, but that's because the amount of work does not leave time for child care, not for any reason of gender or sex; The vast majority of time spent raising children can be done a person of any gender and/or sex. Also, child raising being done by a couple is itself sub-optimal; Communal child-raising is a better approach.
throw__2sdfw 4y ago
brimwats 4y ago
Immigration is a perfectly good way of "keeping a society going" in the face of declining birth rates. Of course, fetishism of "western" might be contraindicated
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  It's "perfectly good" so long as you have other societies with high birthrates. The people immigrating need to come from somewhere.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

Or we could just make sure women have careers by having good social support?

rednerrus 4y ago
Where does the social support come from if everyone is working?
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  People who work in social support? Look at east vs west Germany. West Germany struggled with demand for social and child services during the pandemic, but the East never dismantled theirs, and it showed. Care and support are jobs.
  - rednerrus 4y ago
    Where do the people who work in social support send their kids?
    - thatfrenchguy 4y ago
      To the same daycares? Do you not live somewhere where there are daycares?
      - rednerrus 4y ago
        They cost $2000/month and have a 3 year waiting list.
        washadjeffmad 4y ago
        Does your country not have taxes?

underdeserver 4y ago

There's a difference between having children (which only women can do) and raising them (which both parents can do).

biomcgary 4y ago
Research has consistently shown the value of breastfeeding for development. Part of that is the biological quality of the milk, but part is also the skin-to-skin contact and emotional bonding. So, until weaning, women have a unique biological ability that men cannot quite replicate. Obviously, pumping can address some of the biology and men can cuddle their infants. However, normal emotional attachment[1] of the mother to the child also develops pre-weaning, which has its own long-term effects. Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? 1. in the evolutionary sense of what human psychology has been selected for, including the increase of maternal prolactin and oxytocin during breastfeeding
- smallnix 4y ago
  > Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? Yes. Men should be allowed the same right.
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    My argument for females to have a year off to take care of newborns (or so) was biologically based, focused on the interaction between natural selection and psychological developmental trajectories. I haven't seen any research on the history of natural selection across multiple people groups / genetic lineages that suggests the equivalent selection pressures have existed in the past for males. One might insist on equivalent policies for the biological sexes on ideological grounds, e.g., men's rights, which is perfectly fine. However, from a logical perspective, arguing for males to have time off for the first year is jointly dependent on the biological argument (which applies to females) AND the ideological argument. Alternatively, from an empirical perspective, the research around males may exist and I am simply not aware of it.

maxbond 4y ago

> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. This seems pretty reductionist to me. Men can absolutely raise children. Husbands in heterosexual couples should absolutely be raising their children and not leaving the entire task of raising them to their wives. Gay men can also raise children. I don't think you meant to be disrespectful, but when you essentialize like this you end up putting women in a box where their role in society is defined by their biology, and you put men in a box where they feel like they can't and shouldn't participate in certain kinds of labor, leading to women shouldering an unfair proportion. An anecdote that helped this hit home for me was a story this father told about a neighbor of his. He'd be running errands at the grocery store or whatever, with his kids in tow, and he'd run into his neighbor (also a father) who'd say something like, "Oh, you're stuck babysitting again?" And he didn't have the words to tell him, "I'm not babysitting, I'm raising my kids." The neighbor viewed it as his wife's responsibility to be looking after the kids, and if he was participating in this, it was some sort of exception; and furthermore, a chore. Personally, that's not the sort of father or husband I intend to be.

1123581321 4y ago
That last anecdote is a generational change, regardless, I think. I’m probably close to your age, have a family and a traditional income-producer/homemaker marriage, and I bristle at terms like “babysitting” and “watching the kids.” I’m their dad!
jimbokun 4y ago
Men can raise children, but cannot get pregnant or breast feed. Going through that cycle with potentially multiple children is a big time investment that cannot be delegated to men. Beyond that, yes, men are perfectly capable of performing child rearing tasks. Note, of course, this does not negate the argument against a two income family. Having a society where one income can support a family means fathers can devote themselves to raising their children, and so can mothers. Or alternate roles. Or one full time career and one part time career.
- deleted 4y ago

1auralynn 4y ago

The Earth is overpopulated, and also you're completely disregarding that women may not want to do the insanely hard work of growing, birthing, and raising a child in lieu of other work they find fulfilling and which could potentially have an overall greater impact on humanity. Speaking as someone who just had a baby 1 year ago - it's great and I love my little guy, but is it the most important thing I've ever done? Debatable.

black_knight 4y ago

In civilised societies, women still give birth, but after they are born both parents are given the possibility to stay at home with their child. This usually takes the form of the birth-giving woman staying at home for the first few months, while the child is dependent on frequent breastfeeding, after which the other parent stays at home with the child for a few months until they are ready to to start kindergarten around the age of twelve months. In such societies kindergartens are affordable and in the course of little over a year both parents have had a break from work, with full salary compensation, to get to know the new human.

jimbokun 4y ago
This is one of those policies I believe is broadly popular with voters in both US political parties, but never gets implemented because capital has more say in our government than voters.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not see how it can be popular with Republican voters. The proof is that every state with paid parental leave and extended parental leave is led by Democrats. And federal Republicans voted against paid parental leave in 2021’s build back better bill.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Republican voters' views differ strongly from what the party pushes and does. Exploiting this gap is how Trump got elected—remember that whole thing where the Republicans didn't even bother to generate an official party platform when he was running? That's because he threw theirs in the trash and just went with whatever ordinary Republicans chatting with other ordinary Republicans at a backyard BBQ say the government ought to do. Trying to come up with anything like their ordinary platform those years would have been pointless, or even harmful—explicitly adopt Trump's message, and you're in trouble if he ends up going down in flames and you have to backpedal, plus it'll piss off some donors; adopt your usual shit, and Trump's fans will be pissed off at you. So they just didn't make one, which was probably their best move under the circumstances. Now, the follow-through may have been lacking and any lip-service toward that sort of thing by his hangers-on and imitators may be entirely disingenuous (as his probably was, too, at least most of it), but the gap between R voter and R official or de-facto official policy is real and it's big and Trump's messaging was laser-targeted at using that against his Republican opponents to get the initial nomination. The "build a wall" stuff was lifted straight from that kind of actual-voter real-talk sort of thing. They literally want the government to just build a wall and assume they only haven't because of corruption and ill-intent among elected officials—it's obviously a good idea, from their perspective. On the campaign trail Trump even vaguely talked about "fixing healthcare" in ways that would surely have looked a lot like "socialized medicine"—because R voters support those policies when they're not being called "Socialist" or "Obamacare" or otherwise being demonized and mis-represented by their own media and politicians. Talk specifics, and they support them, talk about socialized medicine broadly and they tell you to fuck off to Venezuela with the other commies. That's another gap between R voter wishes and R party policy/actions. Republican politicians also tend to support neo-liberal economic and trade policy, in deed if not in word, while their voters largely hate it (remember the tough-on-China talk and America-first trade policy and the trans-national trade regime skepticism and all that? That's Trump aiming at the party/voter gap, yet again) "How can it possibly be that a major US political party can largely ignore the actual will of its own voters, for decades on end?" allow me to introduce you to our totally fucked-up electoral system and how it all but guarantees two viable parties at a time, both of which are also all but guaranteed to be disliked by a ton of their own voters. It's extremely bad. :-( [EDIT] Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if you could get a very high percentage—maybe not 51%, but a lot—of Republican voters to say they support a federal abortion law that's identical to Roe v. Wade's (maybe even without PP v Casey's modifications) effects—legalizing early abortion, but leaving laws about later-term abortion mostly up to the states—as long as you described what it did instead of short-handing it as "codifying Roe v. Wade" (indeed, you'd have to avoid mentioning that it had anything to do with Roe v Wade at all).

bregma 4y ago

You seem to confuse giving birth with raising children. Being a woman is not a prerequisite to rearing children.

ethbr0 4y ago

It's been amazing to me that developed countries have bemoaned birth rates... and then done nothing effective about it. You know what says "This country values parents who choose to have children?" Actual replacement of lost income potential and career progression. Yes, in the US there are tax credits, SNAP, etc. None of these even come close to replacing the life income changes. If we were serious about it, we'd have something approaching equivalent income replacement, GI Bill-style college funding, and child care cost support in every state*. Having children should be an income neutral choice, not a burden. * Side note: On all of these programs, I'd be in favor of supply-side support, rather than demand side reimbursement, given how inflationary reimbursement has been in the education market.

ryandrake 4y ago
> It's been amazing to me that developed countries have bemoaned birth rates... and then done nothing effective about it. I always thought a low birth rate was a net-good: Something all countries are striving for. Like when your country drops below 2 births per woman, it has "made it" into the ranks of Developed Countries. Lower birth rate means fewer bodies to feed and a smaller environmental footprint. Sure, I guess it also means you have less "cannon fodder" both economically and militarily, but net net low birth rate countries are better off than high birth rate countries.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jerkstate 4y ago
  >Lower birth rate means fewer bodies to feed and a smaller environmental footprint. without placing a value judgement on the outcomes, this assertion is only true if the population decreases overall, which doesn't happen in the countries with permissive immigration policies. other countries with low birth rates and strict immigration policies have different problems, like declining property values, difficulty paying for pension/retirement obligations, shrinking gdp (even if gdp per capita is increasing), etc.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago

martythemaniak 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
poulsbohemian 4y ago
As a dad of three who made serious career sacrifices in order to raise my kids... you are spot on, and I've concluded that the best scenario is when both partners have some life outside the home, whether it is career, volunteerism, etc, and both partners have equal responsibilities inside the home (kids, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, whatever). The roles may be different and at times we might each be carrying more of the load for the other, but over the span of time anger and resentment grow if there isn't balance. I make the point about activities outside the home because when one person is the stay-at-home person, it can become very isolating and become a serious mental health issue. That person needs a social outlet, a part-time job, something, whether they realize it or not.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  You bounce back and forth between a maximalist, fundamentalist position on this topic and one that's more moderate and common sense. > and both partners have equal responsibilities inside the home (kids, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, whatever) So each task has to be split completely equally between each partner, to the hour? To the minute? Can one spouse have a full time 40 hour / week job and the other a part time 20 hour / week job? What about a high paying high stress 60 hour / week job and a 40 hour / week job? Are you going to dictate the morally acceptable parameters of everyones relationship? > That person needs a social outlet, a part-time job, something, whether they realize it or not. This is a much less extreme position and I think hard to disagree with. I think the mythical era of the Homemaking Wife and Mother of the 1950s, the wives staying at home still had a lot of social outlets and interactions with people than they do today. Which speaks to the endemic isolation of our current culture.

poulsbohemian 4y ago

I get the sense that you are trying to be needlessly provocative... >Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society Who is doing the forcing here? Many women wanted to enter the workforce. Some didn't want to enter the workforce. Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes, but it isn't like someone on HN was holding a gun to their head telling them to get a job, so I'm a little unclear on your lamentation here. >Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do Um, say what? Yeah, biology is amazing stuff. I'm in awe of women on every level. But your comment here is a bit dogwistling - are you intending for this to sound as misogynistic as many of us are reading it? Women who choose to not have children are just as amazing when they choose whatever path they choose. >I’m not sure how western society will continue if we view raising a child instead of having a career as “stepping up”. It’s certainly disrespectful to all the mothers of our future. Dude, what? Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. If that isn't stepping up in a big way, I don't know what else to call it. Is being a stay-at-home-mom not also commendable and deserving of respect? Absolutely. But your message seems to be one of dog whistling for the bad-old days of the past.

ryandrake 4y ago
>> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society > Who is doing the forcing here? It's called the two income trap[1]. Back when it was traditional that one person worked, the market recognized this reality and prices of everything made it possible to live off of one income. Then, slowly we started seeing more and more two-income families. Two-income families could bear to spend more on everything, so the market responded by adjusting costs higher. Soon, it became difficult, then impossible for a family to survive on one income, so then everyone had to go two-income. Now, the same standard of living we once could achieve on one income, requires two incomes. We've doubled the workforce but gained nothing in terms of standard of living. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap
- 4y ago

geraldwhen 4y ago

There is a lot of self delusion in tech. I’ve known women in their late 30s who were unmarried and “may have kids some day”. Basic human biology is not taught in schools.

llbeansandrice 4y ago
It's apparently not because it's entirely possible to have children well into your 30s. Sure risk factors can do things like "increase 10x" but it increases from like 0.02% to 0.2%.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Risks are much, much, much higher. Chromosome disorder in 40 year old mothers is 1 in 30. For 25 year olds it is 1 in 1250. So from .08% to 3.33%. Chance of miscarriage is 80% for a 40 year old mother. For a 35 year old, it is 20%. https://www.webmd.com/baby/over-35-pregnant https://www.webmd.com/baby/over-35-pregnant

vidarh 4y ago

> because they’re the only ones that can do it. This is massively insulting to men. I'm personally massively insulted by it, having shared custody 50/50 with my ex and certainly done as much to raise my son as she has. > I’m not sure how western society will continue Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the world except sub-Saharan Africa, and declining in sub-Saharan Africa too. Any notion that the low birth rate is a phenomenon that can be ascribed to cultural factors in the west is not supported by data.

thefz 4y ago

> Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. This is as backwards as saying that women should not work and care for the house. If a woman wants to work and build a career let her, and if a couple wants to DINK, let them. Replacement level is a myth and a danger in a world choking up with our waste. > Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. Yeah, you think of them as walking uteruses.

tsol 4y ago
>This is as backwards as saying that women should not work and care for the house. If a woman wants to work and build a career let her, and if a couple wants to DINK, let them. And if a woman wants to be a homemaker and focus on molding the next generation?

watwut 4y ago

The poverty women used to be at when the man died or when they escaped from abusive one was pretty deep. The level of abuse the power imbalance facilitate was also staggering. Yeah, it would be nice of society valued child raising more. But, it actually did not and instead the caregivers were often in bad or impossible situations.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. Oh shove off. My dad by himself for years absolutely raised us without my biological mother in the picture at all. Men can and should be raising children too.

magicink81 4y ago

On this topic, Gabor Mate and Gordon Neufeld wrote the book I wish I had read before our daughter was born: Hold Onto Your Kids [1]. Thesis: Strong attachment to a parent or caretaker is foundational for human development - neurological, physiological, and psychological - the whole body, mind, and spirit. The impacts of years 0-5 cannot be overstated. Based on the findings presented in the book, if both parents want to work my suggestion would be to either hire a full-time nanny who will replace you as the attachment figure for those years and beyond, or have a family member move in with you and care for the child full-time. Be comfortable that your child will be more attached to this person, and love them at least a little bit more, than they love you. Be happy that your child will have their best shot at healthy development because you prioritized it for them. Another great book that covers more of the science in depth is The Developing Mind by Daniel J. Siegel [2]. Sounds extreme? Read the books (and others) yourself and see what conclusions you reach. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375760288/ https://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-Kids-Parents-Matter/dp/0375... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Mind-Third-Relationships-Interact/dp/1462542751 https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Mind-Third-Relationships-I...

tsol 4y ago
>Be comfortable that your child will be more attached to this person, and love them at least a little bit more, than they love you. People want to have their cake and eat it too, and I suspect by the animosity a lot of younger people have for the older generation that it isn't working out as well as they'd hoped.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nvarsj 4y ago

People are taking issue that you imply only women can raise children. I hope you can realize that is not remotely factual.

isthisthingon99 4y ago

Women have always worked at home. It used to be farming though. Work has always been part of the woman's role. It was only a short period where it wasn't.

janef0421 4y ago

The contemporary need for dual earners is bad for child raising, but that's because the amount of work does not leave time for child care, not for any reason of gender or sex; The vast majority of time spent raising children can be done a person of any gender and/or sex. Also, child raising being done by a couple is itself sub-optimal; Communal child-raising is a better approach.

throw__2sdfw 4y ago

brimwats 4y ago

Immigration is a perfectly good way of "keeping a society going" in the face of declining birth rates. Of course, fetishism of "western" might be contraindicated

_aavaa_ 4y ago
It's "perfectly good" so long as you have other societies with high birthrates. The people immigrating need to come from somewhere.