3 ms·

Did previous generations truly facilitate and prioritize childbearing over other alternatives (careers, money, status, etc) or was it simply that women didn't r

Did previous generations truly facilitate and prioritize childbearing over other alternatives (careers, money, status, etc) or was it simply that women didn't really have those alternatives and so had children by default? Men have always had the opportunity to pursue both their careers and have children because women put children before a career. For a long time that was due to the very limited career options available to women, and the inertia and assumptions that led to have persisted until very recently. So I don't think the solution is to look to previous generations, because they didn't facilitate childbearing so much as they restricted other paths for women to at least some degree. Traditionalists might argue women were fine with that arrangement, but it seems noteworthy that women jumped at the opportunity to pursue other paths. Which means if we want to increase fertility rates again, it probably means we need to do something new, that doesn't present having children and having a career as mutually exclusive.

dcow 4y ago
The problem is that many progressives don’t see raising children and making a home as having a career. I’m not advocating that we delete progress and steal careers and opportunities from women. Rather, it should be a socially acceptable option to be a homemaker (regardless of your gender). But this intense push to have dual income households and 50:50 women:men STEM ratios seems absurdly unrealistic to me when you factor in biology and humanity. Furthermore, who’s going to perform childcare in a society where caring for children is not a respectable pursuit? Who’s going to care for power couples‘ kids without income inequality? Robots? I think the way you spin history is somewhat unfair to men. A “career” is not an “opportunity” to most men I know. It’s a requirement. It’s long hard days of stress and labor. Some of us are lucky and rather enjoy our labor, but it’s labor nonetheless. Just like making a home. You say women were restricted, and certainly that was true for certain paths, but I also suspect previous generations enjoyed societies where women were happy in large part because they were not being told that they needed to be like the men to be happy/valuable. Personally, I would adore the opportunity to be a homemaker, but alas that opportunity is not available to me. It cuts both ways. Anyway, my main point is, irrespective of gender, dual income households are not a positive status quo and it sucks trying to plan a family around two people needing to work. It’s not fair to children who deserve more attention than day care. And it’s not fair to all the homemakers out there who are honestly some of the most valuable people we have. And importantly, it doesn't achieve the replacement rate so it’s ultimately a losing strategy details be damned. We need to figure out how to affirmatively value homemaking so it can be regarded on the same level as a career. And I suspect if we can do that, birthrates will go up.

dcow 4y ago

The problem is that many progressives don’t see raising children and making a home as having a career. I’m not advocating that we delete progress and steal careers and opportunities from women. Rather, it should be a socially acceptable option to be a homemaker (regardless of your gender). But this intense push to have dual income households and 50:50 women:men STEM ratios seems absurdly unrealistic to me when you factor in biology and humanity. Furthermore, who’s going to perform childcare in a society where caring for children is not a respectable pursuit? Who’s going to care for power couples‘ kids without income inequality? Robots? I think the way you spin history is somewhat unfair to men. A “career” is not an “opportunity” to most men I know. It’s a requirement. It’s long hard days of stress and labor. Some of us are lucky and rather enjoy our labor, but it’s labor nonetheless. Just like making a home. You say women were restricted, and certainly that was true for certain paths, but I also suspect previous generations enjoyed societies where women were happy in large part because they were not being told that they needed to be like the men to be happy/valuable. Personally, I would adore the opportunity to be a homemaker, but alas that opportunity is not available to me. It cuts both ways. Anyway, my main point is, irrespective of gender, dual income households are not a positive status quo and it sucks trying to plan a family around two people needing to work. It’s not fair to children who deserve more attention than day care. And it’s not fair to all the homemakers out there who are honestly some of the most valuable people we have. And importantly, it doesn't achieve the replacement rate so it’s ultimately a losing strategy details be damned. We need to figure out how to affirmatively value homemaking so it can be regarded on the same level as a career. And I suspect if we can do that, birthrates will go up.