Pro/Anti Child Bearing Policies (split from "Canada don’t matter" thread)

[TacticalTea]

lots of funny things going on with fertility and sometimes counter productive

How Cash Incentives Can Affect Childbearing Among Low-Income Women

The study analyzes how a guaranteed income program that significantly increases work incentives affects childbearing among previously unemployed women. Results from previous research indicate that improving individuals’ financial circumstances could increase fertility by compensating for the...

su.figshare.com

Not to mention we should not be encouraging "parenthood as a job" which is what the Canada child benefit does, resulting in disastrous familial environments in poor communities.

 

[Remius]

It doesn't. Read my last paragraph to my reply to Brihard.

It does, again you arguing apples and oranges. You said that child care is anti natalist. Maybe you can show it. You ask for sources and they are given and haven’t given any.

Alternatively, provide source convincingly showing substantial effect of natalist policies you've alluded to so far.

(It doesn't exist)

It does. I showed you a source and provided an example list of what is pro and anti natalist. You just refuse to accept any of it and haven’t shown any thing to back up anything you’ve claimed. How you feel isn’t data.

You gave me that source. Quebec has universal childcare and below replacement fertility.

You missed the point entirely. I can’t help you with that.

This is the context. People will have kids when the family is elevated above career.

Career allows the rearing of children in a developed, rich country, how we balance that is another discussion.

Your - and bureaucrat types' - failure to see that is why none or your so-called "natalist policies" ever work.

This isn’t bureaucratic. But please tell me what your solution would be? Clearly you are against incentives so is it enforcement? Do tell because it hasn’t been proposed.

You're here touting female workforce participation as a win in a conversation about natality. Out to lunch, man.

Again, you are missing the point. But you’ve provided enough with that one sentence to know exactly what you mean. Yes, returning to the workforce is an incentive to have children. If they couldn’t they wouldn’t likely look to having children or more children,

Yes. I very simply stated that. Commodifying children is dehumanizing.

No you said that childcare commodifies children and dehumanizes them. Again, that statement is enough to see the angle you are coming from.

I've read many such reports because I see this as the primary and most critical issue gripping our society. I already know all the mainstream opinions. They're unimaginative, ineffective, and wrong.

So what are the right ones that can balance things out without destroying western values?

 

[suffolkowner]

negative things for fertility

lack of religiosity
expensive housing
small housing
dense housing
living with parents/communal living
late marriage/low marriage
social/political disagreement
poor male options/economic performance

 

[Brad Sallows]

A policy that dehumanizes children and trivializes family is NOT anti-natalist?

Pro-natalism encompasses policies that are expected to motivate people to have children. Whether or not the policies are to the benefit of the children would be a different -ism.

 

[TacticalTea]

It does, again you arguing apples and oranges. You said that child care is anti natalist. Maybe you can show it. You ask for sources and they are given and haven’t given any.

It does. I showed you a source and provided an example list of what is pro and anti natalist. You just refuse to accept any of it and haven’t shown any thing to back up anything you’ve claimed. How you feel isn’t data.

You missed the point entirely. I can’t help you with that.

Career allows the rearing of children in a developed, rich country, how we balance that is another discussion.

This isn’t bureaucratic. But please tell me what your solution would be? Clearly you are against incentives so is it enforcement? Do tell because it hasn’t been proposed.

Again, you are missing the point. But you’ve provided enough with that one sentence to know exactly what you mean. Yes, returning to the workforce is an incentive to have children. If they couldn’t they wouldn’t likely look to having children or more children,

No you said that childcare commodifies children and dehumanizes them. Again, that statement is enough to see the angle you are coming from.

So what are the right ones that can balance things out without destroying western values?

I'm using the same source as you. It shows no effect at all. And it shows the current culture taken generally is anti natalist. It follows from there that anything which reinforced that culture is anti natalist.

As to your last question: de-centering money as a source of meaning in and of itself. If men historically sought wealth and status, it was because it guaranteed the resources and protection for the woman to raise the family.

This biological coding is not going to change.

National identity, communal belonging and shared purpose. Israel achieves this. Pre-1960 Quebec did too, hence the then extremely high fertility, even compared to contemporaries.

Re-centering the family, teaching kids to become good husbands and wives, involving parents in their child's education (thus separating from government education, such as universal childcare and early schooling) and mate selection, teaching respect for elders, ancestry and heritage, fostering a sense of duty and historic belonging.

Strengthening kids so that they evolve into adults, not forever adolescents. Ensuring they're exposed to danger and tough lessons, encouraging them to take risks, to learn skills to become useful and sociable, to become attractive (once they're past puberty), doing away with the new woke puritanism, sanctifying marriage (it shouldn't just be some government contract, it is a sacred covenant between man, woman and God - whichever God you prefer - meant to act as the permanent foundation of a healthy and stable family)

Ultimately, none of this is new, because human nature is not new and hasn't changed since they crucified the big guy.

I could've taken the time to write something a bit more intelligible but I'm at the gym, and anyway, you get the point.

EDIT: Oh, almost forgot, but not because it's any less important: leaving children the f*** alone!

Kids really don't need to hear about their teacher's gender confusion or about the government's latest obsession with climate catastrophism. They don't need to hear about wars in the far east. They don't need to be forced into classes with dysfunctional thugs who'll gang up to beat them. They don't need to be isolated at home for months because the flu is a bit deadlier this year for Grandma's bingo partners.

 

[Remius]

Pro-natalism encompasses policies that are expected to motivate people to have children. Whether or not the policies are to the benefit of the children would be a different -ism.

Exactly.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm using the same source as you. It shows no effect at all. And it shows the current culture taken generally is anti natalist. It follows from there that anything which reinforced that culture is anti natalist.

As to your last question: de-centering money as a source of meaning in and of itself. If men historically sought wealth and status, it was because it guaranteed the resources and protection for the woman to raise the family.

This biological coding is not going to change.

National identity, communal belonging and shared purpose. Israel achieves this. Pre-1960 Quebec did too, hence the then extremely high fertility, even compared to contemporaries.

Re-centering the family, teaching kids to become good husbands and wives, involving parents in child education (thus separating from government education, such as universal childcare and early schooling), teaching respect for elders, ancestry and heritage, fostering a sense of duty and historic belonging.

Strengthening kids so that they evolve into adults, not forever adolescents. Ensuring they're exposed to danger and tough lessons, encouraging them to take risks, to learn skills to become useful and sociable, to become attractive (once they're past puberty), doing away with the new woke puritanism, sanctifying marriage (it shouldn't just be some government contract, it is a sacred covenant between man, woman and God - whichever God you prefer - meant to act as the permanent foundation of a healthy and stable family)

Ultimately, none of this is new, because human nature is not new and hasn't changed since they crucified the big guy.

I could've taken the same to write something a bit more intelligible but I'm at the gym, and anyway, you get the point.

EDIT: Oh, almost forgot, but not because it's any less important: leaving children the f*** alone!

Kids really don't need to hear about their teacher's gender confusion or about the government's latest obsession with climate catastrophism. They don't need to hear about wars in the far east. They don't need to be forced into classes with dysfunctional thugs who'll gang up to beat them. They don't need to be isolated at home for months because the flu is a bit deadlier this year for Grandma's bingo partners.

I think there is a lot of truth in what you have said and things like prioritizing the economy over family. The truth is there is very little out there that works at reversing the trend across western industrial societies. There doesnt seem to be much of a bottom to it either as SK, Taiwan, HK are heading to 0.5 children all the while most women worldwide state that they have 1 less child on average than they would prefer

 

[TacticalTea]

Pro-natalism encompasses policies that are expected to motivate people to have children. Whether or not the policies are to the benefit of the children would be a different -ism.

I doubt you actually believe that based on your posting history.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

If your system reduces natality, it is not pro-natalist.

Slapping a peace symbol on a rocket doesn't make it non-violent.

 

[suffolkowner]

Pro-natalism encompasses policies that are expected to motivate people to have children. Whether or not the policies are to the benefit of the children would be a different -ism.

benefit the children or the production of children?
Is it pro natalism still even if the policies dont work?

 

[TacticalTea]

I think there is a lot of truth in what you have said and things like prioritizing the economy over family. The truth is there is very little out there that works at reversing the trend across western industrial societies. There doesnt seem to be much of a bottom to it either as SK, Taiwan, HK are heading to 0.5 children all the while most women worldwide state that they have 1 less child on average than they would prefer

The Asian countries suffer from similar yet slightly different problems.

Their societies are extremely rigid (Japan, SK) and hostile to intersexual warmth.

If you pull up a graph of Korean youth politics, you'll see the young men and women are diametrically opposed.

 

[suffolkowner]

The Asian countries suffer from similar yet slightly different problems.

Their societies are extremely rigid (Japan, SK) and hostile to intersexual warmth.

If you pull up a graph of Korean youth politics, you'll see the young men and women are diametrically opposed.

yes and thats a sociopolitical problem we have here in the west West although i think that the labels are more rigid than the reality.

A liberal dude should be like shooting fish in a barrel on campus today and a conservative chick well she has her pick of the litter too

 

[Jarnhamar]

I could've taken the time to write something a bit more intelligible but I'm at the gym, and anyway, you get the point.

Hope you're texting from the toilet and not the bench

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt you actually believe that based on your posting history.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

If your system reduces natality, it is not pro-natalist.

Slapping a peace symbol on a rocket doesn't make it non-violent.

Are you referring to child care when you refer to "commoditization"?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Canada hasn’t had a positive birth rate since 1972. Its hard to reverse that. Add in most younger people struggle to survive just for themselves, most don’t want to add a child in that mix.

Why do you assume that women are the ones being “stuck at home”?

I am not trolling, but I am currently the primary care giver in my family.

I did as much as I could for my son, mainly being his caretaker for the first 3-1/2 months after he was born. That being said that was all I could do due to limited paternity pay. If you aren’t in something like the army to cover it, EI really isn’t that much to rely on.

Why would people assume the women are generally stuck at home? Because statistically and historically thats the case. Makes a lot of sense, breastfeeding, incomes, etc. usually they are in female dominated workforces which generally have better parental leave policies. Male dominated workplaces with the exemption of the military tends to have the government minimums.

 

[TacticalTea]

Are you referring to child care when you refer to "commoditization"?

It's one element of that phenomenon, yes.

There is something uncanny about fully surrendering the education of your kids to the government. Sleep 8 hours, work 8 hours, between household chores, work prep, commute, rest from all the built up stress and exhaustion, etc, how much time are you really spending with your kids at the end of the day? Much less than the government, which has them for 8 hours.

When you send them off to childcare, that means you're getting rid of them as early as possible. To let some stranger take on your parental duties. You give up inculcating them with your moral system, give up providing them with the skills you'd want them to have, and give up the custom education tailored to their own level of intellectual development and learning methods.

Instead, the public system feeds them the same janky, one-size-fits-all education as every other kid out there. Your kid is molded by the bureaucracy and isn't really yours anymore. They've been fitted to the government box. They're a commodity.

Ready to be shipped off to the next step in the manufacturing process, the modern college, where they will learn how to parrot the mantras of the corporate, academic, bureaucratic and mediatic establishments, to which they have already been well-prepared by the public schools and social media, omnipresent in their screen-centered lives.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's one element of that phenomenon, yes.

There is something uncanny about fully surrendering the education of your kids to the government. Sleep 8 hours, work 8 hours, between household chores, work prep, commute, rest from all the built up stress and exhaustion, etc, how much time are you really spending with your kids at the end of the day? Much less than the government, which has them for 8 hours.

When you send them off to childcare, that means you're getting rid of them as early as possible. To let some stranger take on your parental duties. You give up inculcating them with your moral system, give up providing them with the skills you'd want them to have, and give up the custom education tailored to their own level of intellectual development and learning methods.

Instead, the public system feeds them the same janky, one-size-fits-all education as every other kid out there. Your kid is molded by the bureaucracy and isn't really yours anymore. They've been fitted to the government box. They're a commodity.

Ready to be shipped off to the next step in the manufacturing process, the modern college, where they will learn how to parrot the mantras of the corporate, academic, bureaucratic and mediatic establishments, to which they have already been well-prepared by the public schools and social media, omnipresent in their screen-centered lives.

I very much share the same position as you. I think, ideally, we should always have 1 parent at home. But society, and that includes the economy, needs to support that and keep things balanced so as to support that.

I argue this all the time with my VP wife, that schools need to get back to being places of basic education and stop being places of social/political indoctrination.

A day of reckoning is coming friend. I think we have FUBAR'd the natural order way too much.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's one element of that phenomenon, yes.

Separating pre-school care from education, kids aren't commodities. Childcare is a service to parents and children. For whatever reason - the reasons don't matter - parents have to work, and the children can't be left unattended for long periods. Stipulating that there may be specific instances of unpleasant facilities and unpleasant workers, it's also true that kids look forward to the time they spend with their friends and the workers, and that the adult supervision and general environment in the facility can be better than that at home - including moral values, skills, and early childhood education. This is particularly true for kids who have f*cked-up home lives, or even merely flaky parents.

There is something uncanny about fully surrendering the education of your kids to the government. Sleep 8 hours, work 8 hours, between household chores, work prep, commute, rest from all the built up stress and exhaustion, etc, how much time are you really spending with your kids at the end of the day? Much less than the government, which has them for 8 hours.

Now looking only at education, the kids will have to be surrendered to someone unless the parents undertake home schooling. I'd prefer to see more options, supporting by voucher-based education funding, but in the majority of cases parents will have no options but that someone else provides the service.

Ready to be shipped off to the next step in the manufacturing process, the modern college, where they will learn how to parrot the mantras of the corporate, academic, bureaucratic and mediatic establishments, to which they have already been well-prepared by the public schools and social media, omnipresent in their screen-centered lives.

You've been listening to a lot of Pink Floyd lately?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).

We already have 18 months of paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, good benefits for each child. Even with all that, it is still difficult to get by with kids for many families. Families need two full time working parents to afford a comfortable lifestyle. Not further amount of benefits will encourage people to have more kids.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We already have 18 months of paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, good benefits for each child. Even with all that, it is still difficult to get by with kids for many families. Families need two full time working parents to afford a comfortable lifestyle. Not further amount of benefits will encourage people to have more kids.

It takes more than that. It will require cultural and economic shifts.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It takes more than that. It will require cultural and economic shifts.

Nope, not even that will work and we'd better get ready for it as opposed to trying to 'bribe' our way to a baby boom that will never happen ...

Visualizing the World’s Plummeting Fertility Rate

In this graphic we explore the world’s declining fertility rate over the last 60 years and the disparity in fertility rates between nations

www.visualcapitalist.com