3 ms·

> In 1981, 39% of Australians said childhood obedience was important and 45% said divorce was justifiable. That same year, 32% and 10% of Pakistanis respectivel

> In 1981, 39% of Australians said childhood obedience was important and 45% said divorce was justifiable. That same year, 32% and 10% of Pakistanis respectively agreed with those statements. In 2021, only 18% of Australians compared to 49% of Pakistanis said childhood obedience was important, while 74% of Australians and 15% of Pakistanis viewed divorce as justifiable. I wish there was more raw data here. This is the only raw data provided and in it acceptance of divorce in Pakistan grew by 50%. It's still low at 15%, but the relative growth is significant! Given the article claims correlation with wealth growth, Pakistan probably isn't a great example, since their economy has been relatively flat. Not saying the article is wrong, but I'd simply love to get more data to understand the magnitude.

hx8 2y ago
Furthermore, I wonder what the views of childhood obedience are those people actively raising a child in each country. I would say "childhood obedience is not important" because I don't spend time near children.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  While "children must be seen, not heard" of ye olde days is probably too strict for parents of today, I do think there is value in childhood obedience. Namely, it nurtures and grows discipline; and a lot of that simply can't be taught properly without starting from a very young age because that's when moral compasses are molded. You're always going to be under someone in life and life is never going to go perfectly your way. What separates those who succeed from those who fail is whether you know how to handle it, which childhood obedience will teach you.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Just getting through the day-to-day with kids who aren’t at least some minimal amount of obedient would be a living hell. We’re talking about tiny little people who are inclined to run in parking lots and cut up the curtains to make clothes. You really need them to at least not do that kind of stuff as much as they might like to.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Yup, and IMO the old school ‘seen and not heard’ was a direct response to that need - because with the number of kids involved in any relatively healthy relationship, anything else would result in the parents going insane and being unable to cope with the world. Which would screw everyone. Even potentially making the kids orphans or the like. Notably, birth control is very ‘new’ by societal standards, and could account for many of these changes as well, as a physically healthy heterosexual couple can actually have normal levels of sexual interaction without generating 15 kids.
    - mapt 2y ago
      No. In the olden days, you're not talking about a kid like that. You're talking about seven of them, often working with agricultural equipment. Odds that all seven survive to adulthood are low. Now it's just zero to three, and they have playpens and Playstations, and a nearly 100% survival rate. Their only major threat is automobile accidents. I don't know why we would expect parenting or childhood to remain the same along the demographic transition.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Automobile accidents. Household chemicals (too many household cleaners look too much like apple juice). Sticking things in electrical outlets. Listening to dares from other children. Childhood is safer than it was, but it's not safe. And it's really hard to teach kids about every danger before they run into them. I once screamed "stop" at my two-year-old daughter, when it was life or death. She stopped, without knowing why. Sometimes obedience really matters. On the other hand... my kids were playing outside with a hose on a hot day. They came inside for something - and brought the running hose inside with them. That kind of thing can drive you crazy - but it wasn't obedience, because it never crossed my mind to tell them not to do that, because why would anybody do that? So you have to not call something "obedience" when it's just childishness. Worry about obedience on the things that matter.
graemep 2y ago
The paper is more informative than the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 I also wonder whether more wealth meaning more westernised will continue to hold given the west is no longer economically dominant.
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  If you look at per capita who is dominant but the West? AFAIK it's by far the most prosperous if we ignore tiny countries that are either tax havens or oil countries which has been the case for decades.
em500 2y ago
Raw data comes from https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp, the paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5. Both are linked from the article.

hx8 2y ago

Furthermore, I wonder what the views of childhood obedience are those people actively raising a child in each country. I would say "childhood obedience is not important" because I don't spend time near children.

Dalewyn 2y ago
While "children must be seen, not heard" of ye olde days is probably too strict for parents of today, I do think there is value in childhood obedience. Namely, it nurtures and grows discipline; and a lot of that simply can't be taught properly without starting from a very young age because that's when moral compasses are molded. You're always going to be under someone in life and life is never going to go perfectly your way. What separates those who succeed from those who fail is whether you know how to handle it, which childhood obedience will teach you.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Just getting through the day-to-day with kids who aren’t at least some minimal amount of obedient would be a living hell. We’re talking about tiny little people who are inclined to run in parking lots and cut up the curtains to make clothes. You really need them to at least not do that kind of stuff as much as they might like to.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Yup, and IMO the old school ‘seen and not heard’ was a direct response to that need - because with the number of kids involved in any relatively healthy relationship, anything else would result in the parents going insane and being unable to cope with the world. Which would screw everyone. Even potentially making the kids orphans or the like. Notably, birth control is very ‘new’ by societal standards, and could account for many of these changes as well, as a physically healthy heterosexual couple can actually have normal levels of sexual interaction without generating 15 kids.
  - mapt 2y ago
    No. In the olden days, you're not talking about a kid like that. You're talking about seven of them, often working with agricultural equipment. Odds that all seven survive to adulthood are low. Now it's just zero to three, and they have playpens and Playstations, and a nearly 100% survival rate. Their only major threat is automobile accidents. I don't know why we would expect parenting or childhood to remain the same along the demographic transition.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Automobile accidents. Household chemicals (too many household cleaners look too much like apple juice). Sticking things in electrical outlets. Listening to dares from other children. Childhood is safer than it was, but it's not safe. And it's really hard to teach kids about every danger before they run into them. I once screamed "stop" at my two-year-old daughter, when it was life or death. She stopped, without knowing why. Sometimes obedience really matters. On the other hand... my kids were playing outside with a hose on a hot day. They came inside for something - and brought the running hose inside with them. That kind of thing can drive you crazy - but it wasn't obedience, because it never crossed my mind to tell them not to do that, because why would anybody do that? So you have to not call something "obedience" when it's just childishness. Worry about obedience on the things that matter.

graemep 2y ago

The paper is more informative than the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 I also wonder whether more wealth meaning more westernised will continue to hold given the west is no longer economically dominant.

ajmurmann 2y ago
If you look at per capita who is dominant but the West? AFAIK it's by far the most prosperous if we ignore tiny countries that are either tax havens or oil countries which has been the case for decades.

em500 2y ago

Raw data comes from https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp, the paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5. Both are linked from the article.