4 ms·

Maybe expecting every single person to work and no one to homestead and care for the kids, within a system that explicitly does not support families, was a mist

Maybe expecting every single person to work and no one to homestead and care for the kids, within a system that explicitly does not support families, was a mistake. (Please note that I did not gender the roles. My best friend is a stay-at-home dad and he is amazing. They can afford to do this, though, because his wife's compensation is extremely high.)

nradov 1y ago
Expectations are part of it, but regardless of compensation or lack thereof it turns out that a lot of adults simply prefer to work outside the home instead of caring for children. Child rearing is essential, and rewarding in many ways. But it's also exhausting, repetitive, and frustrating. It's not surprising that given the choice many adults would rather spend time around other adults instead of children. In the past most societies kind of "solved" this inherent problem by artificially restricting women's but obviously that's not acceptable or even feasible now.
- 4gotunameagain 1y ago
  > a lot of adults simply prefer to work outside the home instead of caring for children Or they think that they do, due to what the zeitgeist urges. We can never really know.
  - thrance 1y ago
    What's the difference? People want what they want, it's always been this way. No one makes life choices in a cultural vacuum.
    - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
      The difference is that in one case it could be recognised and avoided, if beneficial for both the individual & society.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Explain why total fertility rate goes down in direct correlation with women gaining freedom. Seems clear that once “it” could be avoided, the individuals started making choices beneficial for themselves.
        xp84 1y ago
        I would argue that this is a pretty destructive choice though. Like kids/parenting or not (and even for blessed families without problems it’s always hard work), they’re inherently part of being a biological creature. Of course, individuals can opt out, but if everyone opts out, we are all dead. It’s sad that some people think that’s a good outcome, just because they’re squeamish about diaper changing or dealing with snotty nosed, annoying children. Those people tend to forget that they were once diaper-wearing, snotty nosed, annoying children. Clearly, the ability to have all the pleasure and none of the responsibility is a very powerful thing. It seems kind of cruel that we have given that to ourselves as a species, if in fact it hacks our brain so much that we decide to kill off our species because Netflix or TikTok is so much more satisfying and easy than having to actually raise a child.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        I notice you didn’t mention any of the health or physical risks women face in partnering up with a man, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, infant rearing (lack of sleep), loss of income and potential income due to career stagnation (meaning loss of financial security). Given what we know of how pervasive harassment and violence against women was and is, could you envision a scenario where total fertility rate never reaches replacement rate? What if it simply doesn’t make sense for women to partner up with the bottom 10% of men? Or even 20% of men? Then you have the women who end up only having 1 child, for whatever reason. The higher the percentage of women that have 0 or 1 child, the higher the percentage of women that need to have 3 or more children to offset them. But the data shows, even amongst the richest women in the world with servants, that most prefer to experience 2 childbirths. A few will go for 3, in case they didn’t get a boy or girl, but the amount that want more than 3 is basically negligible.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thrance 1y ago
No matter the gender of the one staying at home, it creates a problematic power imbalance between the two parts of the couple, where one depends on the other and may be left in trouble if ever the couple should find an end.
- xp84 1y ago
  True, which was solved like 8,000 years ago by religion/culture, saying you have to marry and support the mother of your children. It wasn’t perfect of course. Abuse has always been a problem. Yes, everyone has greater absolute freedom now that we have divorce, and abuse victims are better off, but we have not developed a functioning cultural replacement for the previous cultural arrangement. So, now we have a smaller abuse problem and 2 new problems: both spouses having to maintain excellent careers just in case they get divorced (at the expense of their children and their relationship with their children), AND for those relationship relationships that do end, one or both are still in trouble, as now two households have to be supported with the same amount of income. I’m not proposing a solution. It’s hard. But I’m just pointing out how we specifically ruined this by completely throwing away the idea of marriage for life and replacing it with “marriage until you’re tired of the person” PS: I’m divorced (though no kids with that marriage) and remarried, so I’m not pretending to be a moral authority.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    No one removed the idea of marriage until you’re tired of the person. Women simply gained civil rights and the ability to earn money and support themselves. It was commonly accepted for men to have affairs and mistresses, or otherwise neglect wives. Now that they have negotiating power, fewer deals are made, which is to be expected.

nradov 1y ago

Expectations are part of it, but regardless of compensation or lack thereof it turns out that a lot of adults simply prefer to work outside the home instead of caring for children. Child rearing is essential, and rewarding in many ways. But it's also exhausting, repetitive, and frustrating. It's not surprising that given the choice many adults would rather spend time around other adults instead of children. In the past most societies kind of "solved" this inherent problem by artificially restricting women's but obviously that's not acceptable or even feasible now.

4gotunameagain 1y ago
> a lot of adults simply prefer to work outside the home instead of caring for children Or they think that they do, due to what the zeitgeist urges. We can never really know.
- thrance 1y ago
  What's the difference? People want what they want, it's always been this way. No one makes life choices in a cultural vacuum.
  - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
    The difference is that in one case it could be recognised and avoided, if beneficial for both the individual & society.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Explain why total fertility rate goes down in direct correlation with women gaining freedom. Seems clear that once “it” could be avoided, the individuals started making choices beneficial for themselves.
      - xp84 1y ago
        I would argue that this is a pretty destructive choice though. Like kids/parenting or not (and even for blessed families without problems it’s always hard work), they’re inherently part of being a biological creature. Of course, individuals can opt out, but if everyone opts out, we are all dead. It’s sad that some people think that’s a good outcome, just because they’re squeamish about diaper changing or dealing with snotty nosed, annoying children. Those people tend to forget that they were once diaper-wearing, snotty nosed, annoying children. Clearly, the ability to have all the pleasure and none of the responsibility is a very powerful thing. It seems kind of cruel that we have given that to ourselves as a species, if in fact it hacks our brain so much that we decide to kill off our species because Netflix or TikTok is so much more satisfying and easy than having to actually raise a child.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        I notice you didn’t mention any of the health or physical risks women face in partnering up with a man, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, infant rearing (lack of sleep), loss of income and potential income due to career stagnation (meaning loss of financial security). Given what we know of how pervasive harassment and violence against women was and is, could you envision a scenario where total fertility rate never reaches replacement rate? What if it simply doesn’t make sense for women to partner up with the bottom 10% of men? Or even 20% of men? Then you have the women who end up only having 1 child, for whatever reason. The higher the percentage of women that have 0 or 1 child, the higher the percentage of women that need to have 3 or more children to offset them. But the data shows, even amongst the richest women in the world with servants, that most prefer to experience 2 childbirths. A few will go for 3, in case they didn’t get a boy or girl, but the amount that want more than 3 is basically negligible.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

thrance 1y ago

No matter the gender of the one staying at home, it creates a problematic power imbalance between the two parts of the couple, where one depends on the other and may be left in trouble if ever the couple should find an end.

xp84 1y ago
True, which was solved like 8,000 years ago by religion/culture, saying you have to marry and support the mother of your children. It wasn’t perfect of course. Abuse has always been a problem. Yes, everyone has greater absolute freedom now that we have divorce, and abuse victims are better off, but we have not developed a functioning cultural replacement for the previous cultural arrangement. So, now we have a smaller abuse problem and 2 new problems: both spouses having to maintain excellent careers just in case they get divorced (at the expense of their children and their relationship with their children), AND for those relationship relationships that do end, one or both are still in trouble, as now two households have to be supported with the same amount of income. I’m not proposing a solution. It’s hard. But I’m just pointing out how we specifically ruined this by completely throwing away the idea of marriage for life and replacing it with “marriage until you’re tired of the person” PS: I’m divorced (though no kids with that marriage) and remarried, so I’m not pretending to be a moral authority.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  No one removed the idea of marriage until you’re tired of the person. Women simply gained civil rights and the ability to earn money and support themselves. It was commonly accepted for men to have affairs and mistresses, or otherwise neglect wives. Now that they have negotiating power, fewer deals are made, which is to be expected.