"This viral comic about working motherhood is so true"

[Toni]

What about women who want children, want to be involved in raising them beyond an hour or two at night and weekends?

What about them?

a

Why is the choice in your mind treating children like pets or not having them at all? Who does that serve, aside from people who don't want to even consider what is best for children or families?

I advocate for universal basic income, universal single player health care, and universal government funded childcare assistance. Have you ever seen me write anything that would indicate otherwise? I'm the one in the politics section backing Andrew Yang, and before him, Bernie Sanders over Hillary and the status quo. If I recall recall correctly, you disagree with me on that.

So what do you think universal basic income, single payer health care and government funded child care will do?

Answer in real life from someone who actually had the guts to raise children: not fucking much.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Just 40 years ago, 90% of women in the US had children by the age of 40, and many of those who didn't couldn't bear children, couldn't afford to, or hadn't found a mate willing to. So that means that 40 years ago, only about 5% of US women didn't have kids b/c they didn't want kids. While those numbers have gone up, having kids and the women being the primary care giver remains the overwhelming norm.

Yes. By choice. Does it shock anybody here that many women have a maternal instinct and WANT to have and raise kids more than they want to spend long hours at an office or work site? The wonderful thing about modern western society is that they have the choice. Those who do want to spend those long hours at work and spend less time raising kids can do so. And there's nothing wrong with that. Those who want to spend more of their time at home raising the kiddies can do so, and there's nothing wrong with that either. But lets not pretend its not a choice. I'm not aware of women being enslaved into childcare in the modern west.

Also, the fact that you think any woman can just go out and get a nanny shows what a bubble of privilege you exist in.

No, that's a mind reading fail on your part. I deliberately listed nanny, go childless, or househusband. There are probably also other options available. And if you're living in a society where a woman lacks the resources to care for a child, your fellow citizens won't put in place the support for those resources, and she purposefully raises the kid in squalor, I do make a few negative judgments about that, including against the woman who makes that choice. And yes, I recognize that it isn't always her choice and that this simply becomes her (or the father's) circumstance. That's where society should be stepping in to help.

What is the norm inherently exerts massive social pressure to continue that norm without anyone even having to state it explicitly. And there is no denying that women being centrally defined as child rearing breeders has been the norm for all of human history and has only just begun to decline within the last generation.

So what? Get with the times. Slavery was also the norm for centuries, as was homophobia in many places. If you're pushing or putting up with the mentality that women are "breeders", you're part of the problem.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So what do you think universal basic income, single payer health care and government funded child care will do?

Answer in real life from someone who actually had the guts to raise children: not fucking much.

Two things here. First, it would do a hell of a lot. It would give people resources that they need, bargaining power in employment situations, and flexibility. You don't have to work long hours if you can get by without doing so. If you're working long hours because you need to in order to survive, then you've not got much of an option. But if you work long hours because you choose to.... That's your choice.

Second, whats' with the "had the guts to raise children" line? Are you shaming people who choose not to have kids? Do you think they are cowards?

If so, then maybe you should look at it from the other way around. They are making a sacrifice in not succumbing to the selfish desire to pass on their genes, and in your particular country, they are risking an uncertain future as elders who may have nobody to care for them, and are not contributing to the human overpopulation of the earth as you have. These are people who may die alone. That's pretty brave if you ask me.

And we don't live in a time where the human species is endangered. It isn't some great and noble deed to make more humans for an already crowded earth that humans are already destroying. Having kids is something people do because they want to, for their own pleasure and their own reward. And those who choose against doing so, and don't feel a need to pass on their genes to the next generation, should not be shamed for it.

 

[Toni]

So what do you think universal basic income, single payer health care and government funded child care will do?

Answer in real life from someone who actually had the guts to raise children: not fucking much.

Two things here. First, it would do a hell of a lot. It would give people resources that they need, bargaining power in employment situations, and flexibility. You don't have to work long hours if you can get by without doing so. If you're working long hours because you need to in order to survive, then you've not got much of an option. But if you work long hours because you choose to.... That's your choice.

Second, whats' with the "had the guts to raise children" line? Are you shaming people who choose not to have kids? Do you think they are cowards?

If so, then maybe you should look at it from the other way around. They are making a sacrifice in not succumbing to the selfish desire to pass on their genes, and in your particular country, they are risking an uncertain future as elders who may have nobody to care for them, and are not contributing to the human overpopulation of the earth as you have. These are people who may die alone. That's pretty brave if you ask me.

And we don't live in a time where the human species is endangered. It isn't some great and noble deed to make more humans for an already crowded earth that humans are already destroying. Having kids is something people do because they want to, for their own pleasure and their own reward. And those who choose against doing so, and don't feel a need to pass on their genes to the next generation, should not be shamed for it.

Universal basic income would not really solve the issues facing women who wish to have families and to have careers--not merely part time jobs but actual careers. You know: parity with what men have now. Nor will it solve the issue of fathers who wish to spend more time with their children (parity with women) and also have actual careers and not merely jobs. We need greater flexibility in the structure of our work force expectations and norms, not merely some minimal income.

What do you think will happen in 30 years in your country if childbirth rates drop dramatically? Who will be the doctors and nurses and health care professionals who will care for an aging population? What do you think will happen to your social framework? Look at what is happening in countries with dramatically falling birth rates. Is this what you want for your country?

Having and raising children is actually a courageous thing to do, a leap of faith and a tremendous amount of work to do it even close to well. It requires more than simply two people procreating and then someone raising the child. It really does take a society structured to support families, child rearing, and also the care of those who are or become ill or disabled or elderly. A society is only as strong as it is in support of its weakest members.

 

[Rhea]

I dunno. The world does NOT need more humans.

What will we do with a population decrease? We can figure that out a lot more easily than we can figure out what to do with unsustainable growth. I applaud all the people who choose not to have kids in the face of such social pressure. That is good for the planet. Maybe not good for the economy in the short term, but the economy can recover, the planet cannot.

 

[Toni]

I dunno. The world does NOT need more humans.

What will we do with a population decrease? We can figure that out a lot more easily than we can figure out what to do with unsustainable growth. I applaud all the people who choose not to have kids in the face of such social pressure. That is good for the planet. Maybe not good for the economy in the short term, but the economy can recover, the planet cannot.

There will be babies born and those babies will grow up. Society has an obligation to do what is right for the most vulnerable among us. Society has an obligation to support all of its citizens not just upper middle class and wannabe white males and their clones.

Look what supporting that model has gotten us! Why not chose differently instead of the same old s I kid or the ‘uber kool’ fake nihilist shit?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I dunno. The world does NOT need more humans.

What will we do with a population decrease? We can figure that out a lot more easily than we can figure out what to do with unsustainable growth. I applaud all the people who choose not to have kids in the face of such social pressure. That is good for the planet. Maybe not good for the economy in the short term, but the economy can recover, the planet cannot.

Yea, I agree with you. We are overpopulated. I think that we should continue down the path of empowering young women by telling them that they don't have to be baby machines to achieve their dreams. It may be a generational thing, but younger women today and girls are working more, staying in school, working on their careers. As an aside, I worry more about boys falling behind girls as they focus more on their video games, while the girls are focused on grades. As a society, we create far more babies that whom we can care for (hence foster care system and orphanages).

 

[Rhea]

I dunno. The world does NOT need more humans.

What will we do with a population decrease? We can figure that out a lot more easily than we can figure out what to do with unsustainable growth. I applaud all the people who choose not to have kids in the face of such social pressure. That is good for the planet. Maybe not good for the economy in the short term, but the economy can recover, the planet cannot.

There will be babies born and those babies will grow up. Society has an obligation to do what is right for the most vulnerable among us. Society has an obligation to support all of its citizens not just upper middle class and wannabe white males and their clones.

Look what supporting that model has gotten us! Why not chose differently instead of the same old s I kid or the ‘uber kool’ fake nihilist shit?

I don't follow the connection with my comment about not needing to increase our population with your comment about nihilism and failing to care for babies.

I said that we have enough population, and there is no need to push for growth. If people only want replacement level childrearing, that will not stop them from caring for their babies and is not nihilistic. I chose to have exactly 2 babies for zero population growth. I love them both very much and I am caring for them as they grow. By having only 2, I am better able to care for the vulnerable. Not the least of which is by using less resources as an upper class family of four than an upper class family of, say, eight.

Why is it fake nihilistic bullshit to applaud people who do not want kids for not having kids (in the face of having kids against their wishes?)

 

[Toni]

I dunno. The world does NOT need more humans.

What will we do with a population decrease? We can figure that out a lot more easily than we can figure out what to do with unsustainable growth. I applaud all the people who choose not to have kids in the face of such social pressure. That is good for the planet. Maybe not good for the economy in the short term, but the economy can recover, the planet cannot.

There will be babies born and those babies will grow up. Society has an obligation to do what is right for the most vulnerable among us. Society has an obligation to support all of its citizens not just upper middle class and wannabe white males and their clones.

Look what supporting that model has gotten us! Why not chose differently instead of the same old s I kid or the ‘uber kool’ fake nihilist shit?

I don't follow the connection with my comment about not needing to increase our population with your comment about nihilism and failing to care for babies.

I said that we have enough population, and there is no need to push for growth. If people only want replacement level childrearing, that will not stop them from caring for their babies and is not nihilistic. I chose to have exactly 2 babies for zero population growth. I love them both very much and I am caring for them as they grow. By having only 2, I am better able to care for the vulnerable. Not the least of which is by using less resources as an upper class family of four than an upper class family of, say, eight.

Why is it fake nihilistic bullshit to applaud people who do not want kids for not having kids (in the face of having kids against their wishes?)

Who was pushing for population growth?

I was/am pushing for a fair and just society where women are not forced to choose between having children and not having a career or having no children and a career or having children and a career and working themselves to death. And one where men can choose to have a career and be as involved with their children (and the running of the household) as are their mothers.

If one is truly for zero population growth, then I believe the best way to achieve this objective is to do a much better job distributing the workload of running a household and childrearing and money generating income.

Generally speaking, women with higher levels of income have fewer children. They have more job opportunities and, in terms an economist would use: the economic opportunity cost of having a child is greater than for a less educated woman with few job prospects. When women are better educated, the well being of the entire society is lifted. Families have smaller numbers of children because they do not feel the same pressure to have children in order to add to the family's capacity to earn.

I am certainly not in favor of forcing anyone to have children they do not wish to have.