What’s the implied (final) solution to this extremely concerning situation, bucko? peterson-pain

    • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      you can’t pay women to have kids. not saying you’re doing this but a lot of the time when this gets brought up on here male leftists love to go on as if material supports will make women go back to being broodmares. it’s a reactionary and essentialist view. when women are afforded more reproductive rights and general freedoms to choose their own way in life, they have less kids. it’s not a purely economic issue.

      • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is primarily economic issue but not in that sense. Subsistence farmers tend to have a lot of kids, because each kid expands labour power of the family, improving the quality of life of all its members. In industrialized urban society each kid is a drain on family’s resources for the next 20 years and family’s quality of life plummets, and then capitalism makes it even worse. We know that even in medieval times birth rates in cities were atrocious, despite minimal women’s rights.

      • TerminalEncounter [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        I bet people would have more children with more equitable ways of actually raising them, instead of the ol’ dumping all reproductive labour - unpaid - on women. Money for domestic housewives was a thing they used to talk about in feminist circles in the 70s, more as a thought exercise, but there really is something there. By that I mean the crying out for justice and equitability and liberation not that we should just pay people with uteruses to pop out babies lol

        • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          I agree with this. Having access to more public resources related to raising a child, and maybe if families were structured so that other family members other than the parents could help, it would make raising a child less daunting. Still won’t be easy but I am sure people would be more receptive to having children.

          In the current situation, if you are a parent living in an isolated nuclear family having to work long hours you are fucked. Raising a child becomes extremely difficult. I found /r/regretfulparents a while back and seems like 90% of the posts are complaining about having no help, including from their husband most of the time.

          • TerminalEncounter [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah sometimes divorcing a husband can actually lead to LESS work and higher quality of life because of how little said husband was doing before, just adding mess and being another mouth to feed

      • NPa [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        there’s probably a healthy middle ground between “all women should be permanently pregnant” and “no kids ever”. Like, building a world where we can sustainably support the continuation of humankind, while also leaving room for people wanting to go childless or have a big family, is not the same as wanting to control who gets how many children. We also have to think about the fact that the last few hundred years have been very chaotic and rapidly changing and it’s very hard to determine where the “”“natural”“” ( I know natural is not a thing really) birthrate should be in the context of a normal, non fucked society existing in a cooperative global environment because we haven’t seen one of those yet.

  • frankfurt_schoolgirl [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 months ago

    straight women are having fewer kids and can’t afford the ones they do have

    The solution to this is to complain about queer people!

    I guess it’s comforting that my enemies are braindead and childish?

  • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    not many culprits in this thread, but i feel i must bring this up. often leftists (and i will say, especially men) like to point at “material conditions” as more or less the sole reason for declining birthrates. often going as far to imply that the issue would simply go away (i.e. birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago) if the right economic supports existed, or say, under a communist framework. this is not only a myopic view, it’s reactionary and essentialises women basically to the right wing view of being broodmares for men. the reality that many leftists still need education on, is that when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids. this is a material reality. i won’t argue that everyone being poorer isn’t a factor in falling birthrates, but it is not the only one, and any future revolutionary project will have to grapple with the issue in more realistic and inventive ways than “improve material conditions and birthrates will return!” it’s idealist and wildly misogynistic.

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 months ago

        that’s fine, just saying it’s something future society will have to plan for and figure out. i don’t have all the answers it just grinds my gears when men act like “just pay women and they will go back to having kids” is somehow a woke idea or even holds any water at all. not saying you were doing that, and like i said there are thankfully few culprits in this thread but i still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last couple struggle sessions about this.

        • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Sorry but what is the issue to solve for actually? I don’t even understand why declining birth rates would be a problem in the first place? There would just be less people around no?

          Edit: oh I read another comment further down that sounded off on a few issues with population drops. Seems complicated, so I’ll have to do some research.

    • Thallo [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      3 months ago

      When people say improve material conditions, I believe most are referring to making birth and raising a child essentially free.

      I believe many socialist countries have had state funded childcare, and obviously many have socialized medicine. This allowed women to both work and have children.

      Yeah, as women gain more autonomy and reproductive rights, the birthrate will go down, but we should at least make it as easy as possible for those who do want children.

      Anecdotally, I know three couples who want to have children, and all of them say they can’t because they can’t afford it. They all had to move back in with their parents, too. I can’t help but feel money plays a major role here because it creates a barrier of entry to those who do want kids.

      Then again, anecdotally, to your point, my wife and I can afford children but simply don’t want any. We aren’t the only ones.

    • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids.

      The Soviet Union broadly had low birth rates (positive connotation) due to this, right?

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s also a view that does not match reality. The material conditions are much worse in most nations in the global south and raising kids is more difficult, yet people in these countries are still having lots of children. In fact, one might obverse that the opposite is true, the more wealthier countries and societies are having the least amount of kids. So “improving the material conditions” by giving people access to education, birth control, etc has resulted in less people having children, as you already said.

      While I don’t know why that is, I’d guess that a clash between traditional patriarchical values and more modern egalitarian values could be at play. Creates a dissonance that leads to long term relationships failing or not even being considered as an option in these societies.

      • Thallo [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        While I don’t know why that

        I don’t know in general, but especially when moving from rural to more industrial/city based work, the incentive to reproduce is different. Traditionally, having children has been seen as beneficial in rural economies because the family is building its labor force, and the family works together as a unit to provide more stability overall. Wage labor in cities is more individualized and doesn’t require the family unit to achieve a singular goal together, so children begin to be viewed as a drain rather than a benefit.

        • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Exactly, the priorities of women have changed with their entrance into the professional workforce. Society has not kept up with how this changes the incentives regarding children, has not rectified the fact that having children is detrimental to professional careers for women.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago

      what is severely misunderstood about “birthrates 100 years ago” or “developing country birthrates” on both the left and right is that it isn’t individual economic pressures that guide the explosions in population we see with industrialization. there aren’t rural masses that are mass migrating to urban centers anymore. we already have the sanitation improvements that made phenomenal growth possible in those cities. unless you take it all away, kill everyone excess of 1860s numbers, you can’t fucking do it again with the same tools!

      • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I tried to do some quick research on this, and all of the rhetoric was very grow the economy focused. I didn’t find any compelling arguments on why population decline would be an issue. Any reading you recommend?

        I saw that there was a lot of estimates and concerns like half a century out, but is half a century out even considered “sudden”? Like the number of people we have right now is very arbitrary right? So why is it so important we maintain it?

  • TerminalEncounter [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Maybe they should raise the quality of men a little

    No hexbear I swear to god I’m not starting another interminable struggle session if the above made you mad go touch grass and hold someone you loves’ hands

  • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dude, you’re literally running propaganda for maintaining the economic system that not only makes having children unaffordable but also destroys community, atomises people and makes forming meaningful relationships increasingly difficult.

    But sure, it is those feeeeemales who are to blame.

  • Cammy [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    I would love to be single and childless in 2030. That would mean I get to live independently and carve a life for myself that has meaning on my terms.

    Why that concerns a blood-emerald billionaire is irrelevant.

    I remember during one of his fake threats to leave the public eye, he said he could be living a luxe life with models and I’m like, go do that, pay the models well for their time and stop getting concerned about the lack of bang maids for racist men who smell like milk.

  • Cammy [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    If i was him, I’d use my billions to fake my death, get cosmetic surgery and just live out a quiet and comfortable life. But he’s clutching his meme lord persona so hard.

  • MelaniaTrump [undecided]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Musk had six kids with his first wife, Justine Wilson, three with his ex-girlfriend Grimes and three with his Neuralink executive Shivon Zilis.

    Hmm.

  • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sorry bro, just finally taking your advice about “minding your own business”. If porky is free to do with his profits whatever he wants at the expense of society, I’m sure that society can handle any supposed “consequence” that comes from a drop in fertility rates.

    Besides, I’ve seen y’all cut jobs left and right, we don’t need so many workers anymore, remember?

  • aside from the obvious material reasons causing it (which are the actual problem), is 45% of all women between 25 & 40 being “single” (who cares?) and childless in the US an actual problem? that statistic seems catered to seem controversial to tradfreaks, but without the context of other countries and a look at trends over time, it is meaningless to me.

    like if somebody came to my door and said, “half of all the women in this neighborhood between 25 and 40 are single and childless!”, my first impulse would be to say, “why do you know this? what’s wrong with you?”

  • MrPiss [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    What’s the implied (final) solution to this extremely concerning situation, bucko?

    My solution would be socialism and reeducation camps that could house like 5% of the US population as people cycle in and out as needed. Then we’ll settle for whatever birth rate we get after all is said and done with regards to the revolution and reeducation.

    Theirs is probably sex slavery where our job creating entrepreneurs can have a harem of concubines to spread their mighty seed but after a while the concubines get sent to a proper man (incel basement dwelling loser) who rules over and disciplines them as a man should or however they’ll justify it.

    Actually, maybe the entire country should be a reeducation camp. I don’t know if I trust anyone in this country to walk free after a revolution, including the people who oversaw the revolution.

    • bigboopballs [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Theirs is probably sex slavery where our job creating entrepreneurs can have a harem of concubines to spread their mighty seed but after a while the concubines get sent to a proper man (incel basement dwelling loser) who rules over and disciplines them as a man should or however they’ll justify it.

      In Elon Musk’s world, the job creating entrepreneur CEOs and the incel basement dwelling losers will be the same guys.