3 ms·

Isnt women's share of child rearing at an all-time low in most of the western world? I cant help but wonder if the causality runs the other direction. That is

Isnt women's share of child rearing at an all-time low in most of the western world? I cant help but wonder if the causality runs the other direction. That is to say, as motherhood becomes less central to the concept of womanhood, fewer women build self models that include it. That said, I think a more influential cause than either factor is the increasing risk aversion and increasing expectations across the board, and especially when it comes to partnering, life choices, and having kids. Simply put, people arent taking as many risks, and marriage and children are increasingly viewed as risks.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Women's share of child rearing might be at an all time low, but homemaking used to be many women's only job. Maybe men are helping more now, but women are also keeping full time careers going and juggling child rearing at the same time. That it's somewhat less child rearing isn't exactly a big comfort in these new circumstances. This is absolutely a story about risk, you're right on that. But I truly feel like you'd have to be willfully blinding yourself to not recognize that the risks are way worse than ever. The full grind of capitalism in a global economy has chewed up humanity & left us deeply powerless & exploited. The demands for housing health care, and help have shot to exceptional unaffordability. I don't think risk aversion has necessarily changed: it's just a fact that trying to raise a family is far riskier & much harder than it has been. Those willing to have a family have had to go against ever more abysmal ods.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >That it's somewhat less child rearing isn't exactly a big comfort in these new circumstances. Absolutely agree. My my main goal was to highlight the proportion of rearing duties may not be causal, or at least a root cause. Im not sure that equal division of labor would even help with two working parents. >The full grind of capitalism in a global economy has chewed up humanity & left us deeply powerless & exploited. Im not sure that I lay this all on capitalism, but think that at a minimum, the two are tied. Parallel desires for risk mitigation and consumption feed directly into trained helplessness. Housing and healthcare are prime examples of this. I dont think that raising a family is intrinsically any riskier or harder, it is just harder to do in parallel with fulfilling other desires. People want family + X, and the expectations and cost for X grow ever higher. It is obviously easier to have a family with a 500sqft trailer in the country than a 2000sqft house in the city.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Women lose money by not working when pregnant and rearing. This opportunity cost is high and pushes people to not have kids.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont disagree, but Im also how you are tying this to my statement. What is changing over time in the US or Singapore? Is the opportunity cost getting higher? That could be an interesting idea. I suppose it is as salaries and material compensation increases, so does the opportunity cost. A homemaker has less opportunity cost than a female professional making 250k per year. It could be the case that the opportunity cost people are willing to pay for children is not perfectly elastic, and does not scale with income.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    One thing to note about the opportunity cost is it's not just your current position. If you're gunning for a promotion it's not a great move to go on leave for 3+ months because of a kid. Say what you want, but uh people really do put off having kids until they're at a title they like.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

Women's share of child rearing might be at an all time low, but homemaking used to be many women's only job. Maybe men are helping more now, but women are also keeping full time careers going and juggling child rearing at the same time. That it's somewhat less child rearing isn't exactly a big comfort in these new circumstances. This is absolutely a story about risk, you're right on that. But I truly feel like you'd have to be willfully blinding yourself to not recognize that the risks are way worse than ever. The full grind of capitalism in a global economy has chewed up humanity & left us deeply powerless & exploited. The demands for housing health care, and help have shot to exceptional unaffordability. I don't think risk aversion has necessarily changed: it's just a fact that trying to raise a family is far riskier & much harder than it has been. Those willing to have a family have had to go against ever more abysmal ods.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>That it's somewhat less child rearing isn't exactly a big comfort in these new circumstances. Absolutely agree. My my main goal was to highlight the proportion of rearing duties may not be causal, or at least a root cause. Im not sure that equal division of labor would even help with two working parents. >The full grind of capitalism in a global economy has chewed up humanity & left us deeply powerless & exploited. Im not sure that I lay this all on capitalism, but think that at a minimum, the two are tied. Parallel desires for risk mitigation and consumption feed directly into trained helplessness. Housing and healthcare are prime examples of this. I dont think that raising a family is intrinsically any riskier or harder, it is just harder to do in parallel with fulfilling other desires. People want family + X, and the expectations and cost for X grow ever higher. It is obviously easier to have a family with a 500sqft trailer in the country than a 2000sqft house in the city.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Women lose money by not working when pregnant and rearing. This opportunity cost is high and pushes people to not have kids.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont disagree, but Im also how you are tying this to my statement. What is changing over time in the US or Singapore? Is the opportunity cost getting higher? That could be an interesting idea. I suppose it is as salaries and material compensation increases, so does the opportunity cost. A homemaker has less opportunity cost than a female professional making 250k per year. It could be the case that the opportunity cost people are willing to pay for children is not perfectly elastic, and does not scale with income.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  One thing to note about the opportunity cost is it's not just your current position. If you're gunning for a promotion it's not a great move to go on leave for 3+ months because of a kid. Say what you want, but uh people really do put off having kids until they're at a title they like.