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.)
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.
> 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.
What's the difference? People want what they want, it's always been this way. No one makes life choices in a cultural vacuum.
The difference is that in one case it could be recognised and avoided, if beneficial for both the individual & society.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
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
>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.
Yes, there are plenty of risks for men, too.
>But it's wild to me to suggest that one in five humans who are male deserve to be Forever Alone.
I did not intend to imply anything about “deserve”. Nature doesn’t really factor in deserving or not deserving. Things just “are”.
>Obviously the "bottom 20%" of women by whatever measure you think determines "worth" should be with their "bottom 20%" male counterparts.
This is going to run contrary to one of the basic tenets of modern society - individual freedom. But again, nature doesn’t care about those ideals.
I don't let what "being part of a biological creature" entails dictate my behavior usually, and I don't think you do either. Else you'd be running around butt naked in the savanna, and not typing appeal to nature fallacies on your computer.
Also, please refrain from strawmanning people who don't want kids into "Netflix or TikTok" zombies. This is stupid and achieves nothing.
> Of course, individuals can opt out, but if everyone opts out, we are all dead.
That won't happen, population may decline, yes, but the extinction of humanity is nowhere on the horizon.
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.
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.
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.