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
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 month ago

      I-was-saying I think declining birth rates are fine as long as people are comfortable and happy and therefore they should have improved material conditions anyway.

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • Thallo [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month 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
      12
      ·
      1 month 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
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        10
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month 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!