4 ms·

> 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 nev

> 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.
        xp84 1y ago
        > 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. I guess in societies that hadn't succumbed to nihilism, what people "prefer" was less of a direct line to what people would do. > health or physical risks women face in partnering up with a man, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, infant rearing (lack of sleep), > harassment and violence against women > doesn’t make sense for women to partner up with the bottom 10% of men? Or even 20% of men? It seems clear where you are coming from is about female victimhood, and yes, I agree that biologically there are inherently risks. I'd argue that Western society mitigates those with orders of magnitude less maternal childbirth mortality, and balances them with legally enforced child support and alimony. The risk to the father is that he has children with someone who will change and treat him like dirt, leaving him to choose between staying there for his child and being miserable, vs leaving and being financially ruined and potentially unable to move on. But it's wild to me to suggest that one in five humans who are male deserve to be Forever Alone. Obviously the "bottom 20%" of women by whatever measure you think determines "worth" should be with their "bottom 20%" male counterparts. I agree though that what you describe is what's being practiced. Studies have shown very clearly that if you get everyone rated by attractiveness (such as by polling a large group to rate each person) and ask each woman which man she would accept, even the 1s and 2s will not consider the male 1s and 2s, and in fact most will not even consider the 4s and 5s. The male 10s and 9s are all drowning in options, the 6-8s are eventually finding someone, and the 1-5s of both sexes are having a hard time forming relationships. The women are alone because they think they deserve 9s and 10s, who have "better" options and thus will only temporarily use them; and the men are alone because essentially zero women want their attention. The outcome of the above mismatch does seem to totally make sense with collapsing fertility.

> 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.
      - xp84 1y ago
        > 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. I guess in societies that hadn't succumbed to nihilism, what people "prefer" was less of a direct line to what people would do. > health or physical risks women face in partnering up with a man, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, infant rearing (lack of sleep), > harassment and violence against women > doesn’t make sense for women to partner up with the bottom 10% of men? Or even 20% of men? It seems clear where you are coming from is about female victimhood, and yes, I agree that biologically there are inherently risks. I'd argue that Western society mitigates those with orders of magnitude less maternal childbirth mortality, and balances them with legally enforced child support and alimony. The risk to the father is that he has children with someone who will change and treat him like dirt, leaving him to choose between staying there for his child and being miserable, vs leaving and being financially ruined and potentially unable to move on. But it's wild to me to suggest that one in five humans who are male deserve to be Forever Alone. Obviously the "bottom 20%" of women by whatever measure you think determines "worth" should be with their "bottom 20%" male counterparts. I agree though that what you describe is what's being practiced. Studies have shown very clearly that if you get everyone rated by attractiveness (such as by polling a large group to rate each person) and ask each woman which man she would accept, even the 1s and 2s will not consider the male 1s and 2s, and in fact most will not even consider the 4s and 5s. The male 10s and 9s are all drowning in options, the 6-8s are eventually finding someone, and the 1-5s of both sexes are having a hard time forming relationships. The women are alone because they think they deserve 9s and 10s, who have "better" options and thus will only temporarily use them; and the men are alone because essentially zero women want their attention. The outcome of the above mismatch does seem to totally make sense with collapsing fertility.