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

[TacticalTea]

And failure of the past on outcomes and quality of life for children and women does the same thing. Mortality rates, child labour, indentured servitude etc etc.

Not really. Groups of humans are easily swayed by the concerted efforts of vested interest.

And it just so happens that it is extremely beneficial to the business sector when individuals are kept separate, self-reliant but not capable, and pushed into the workforce. Maximizes consumer spending (and taxes collected) and minimizes labour costs. To be sustainable it would require, of course, massive immigration to counteract the loss in natality. Oh... that's exactly what happened.

Fun side effect, mass migration in all wealthy countries also means they are homogenized across borders, their cultures diluted, which facilitates commercial standardization and globalization. What a happy coincidence.

 

[captloadie]

We are up to seven pages of debate on this issue, and while I may be wrong, there have been 0 comments by those who actually birth the children and are the most impacted. This may be because
a) the forum in general has chased away most of the female members;
b) none of the women want to inject an opinion into the argument because they will be told they are wrong and let the men decide for them (there is already a vibe in this thread that "we" can tell what women want;
c) the women are too busy trying to raise the children and get work done to spend time responding to the comments.

But I do have a question for the OP - was the start of the conversation meant as a comment on the need to increase the "Canadian" birth rate as a means to close the taps on immigration?

 

[mariomike]

I would just like to point out that while this is good discussion, this particular thread has shades of “CAF picture of white men talking about women’s issues” - unless I’m mistaken, I haven’t seen a woman comment yet

"Mansplaining"?

We used to be able to write a letter to Dear Abby, asking for a woman's advice.

 

[Remius]

Not really. Groups of humans are easily swayed by the concerted efforts of vested interest.

And it just so happens that it is extremely beneficial to the business sector when individuals are kept separate, self-reliant but not capable, and pushed into the workforce. Maximizes consumer spending (and taxes collected) and minimizes labour costs. To be sustainable it would require, of course, massive immigration to counteract the loss in natality. Oh... that's exactly what happened.

Except when you look tat the past children were pushed into workplace and labour market at much earlier ages, sold to pay for debts, indentured and left to abject poverty because children were viewed exactly as you perceive society today. Using and considering children as economic tools. It’s no coincidence that when child labour laws were enacted to counter that, that women had to start entering the workforce to make ends meet in family groups. Children being sent off somewhere because you couldn’t afford them or because they weren’t a financial gain was very common.

Not sure where you get people being pushed into the workforce when that is being delayed more and more over time due to mandatory education and limiting when and where they can work by age.

Fun side effect, mass migration in all wealthy countries also means they are homogenized across borders, their cultures diluted, which facilitates commercial standardization and globalization. What a happy coincidence.

Cultural dillution? Please explain that one. Do you mean assimilation into western values?

 

[TacticalTea]

We are up to seven pages of debate on this issue, and while I may be wrong, there have been 0 comments by those who actually birth the children and are the most impacted. This may be because
a) the forum in general has chased away most of the female members;

No one is "chasing away" anyone here except the pro-Russia and pro-Hamas trolls.

b) none of the women want to inject an opinion into the argument because they will be told they are wrong and let the men decide for them (there is already a vibe in this thread that "we" can tell what women want;

Being told you're wrong is part and parcel of a political conversation. If one can't handle that... Too bad. I know plenty of women who can, though. Strange you'd want to reduce them to a stereotype.

c) the women are too busy trying to raise the children and get work done to spend time responding to the comments.

And what, men are useless dolts who do nothing but sit on the couch and eat chips all day? You got any more of them, tired tropes?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We are up to seven pages of debate on this issue, and while I may be wrong, there have been 0 comments by those who actually birth the children and are the most impacted. This may be because
a) the forum in general has chased away most of the female members;
b) none of the women want to inject an opinion into the argument because they will be told they are wrong and let the men decide for them (there is already a vibe in this thread that "we" can tell what women want;
c) the women are too busy trying to raise the children and get work done to spend time responding to the comments.

But I do have a question for the OP - was the start of the conversation meant as a comment on the need to increase the "Canadian" birth rate as a means to close the taps on immigration?

Once again- “children” are not a women’s issue. We have spent decades (rightly) messaging that men need to be involved in raising children. Men have a stake in children and need to be part of the debate.

Pregnancy and child birth are more “women’s issues” (it biologically impacts them, almost entirely), but the pregnancy did not happen without a man.

I don’t think it is useful to reduce these issues/debates to binary “who can/cannot take part in a debate” because of their chromosomal makeup. That this forum is willing to debate these issues, I find refreshing and interesting.

 

[Remius]

We are up to seven pages of debate on this issue, and while I may be wrong, there have been 0 comments by those who actually birth the children and are the most impacted. This may be because
a) the forum in general has chased away most of the female members;

Possible. But I assume the forum is male dominated to begin with.

b) none of the women want to inject an opinion into the argument because they will be told they are wrong and let the men decide for them (there is already a vibe in this thread that "we" can tell what women want;

Yep about the “vibe”. There is a very much a trad con, manosphere feel to some of the arguments, I may be wrong but I also noticed it. I’m not decrying it as I feel there is some value to those arguments in the bigger context.

c) the women are too busy trying to raise the children and get work done to spend time responding to the comments.

Hmn…I doubt it. Plenty of women (and men) can walk and chew gum.

But I do have a question for the OP - was the start of the conversation meant as a comment on the need to increase the "Canadian" birth rate as a means to close the taps on immigration?

This ^

Again, not an invalid position but needs further expansion and discussion.

 

[TacticalTea]

Except when you look tat the past children were pushed into workplace and labour market at much earlier ages, sold to pay for debts, indentured and left to abject poverty because children were viewed exactly as you perceive society today. Using and considering children as economic tools. It’s no coincidence that when child labour laws were enacted to counter that, that women had to start entering the workforce to make ends meet in family groups. Children being sent off somewhere because you couldn’t afford them or because they weren’t a financial gain was very common.

That is a good argument. Generally speaking, I think the West's living conditions have progressively improved from the fall of Rome to the late 1900s. Children in coal mines is certainly not what I want to see. I'm not asking for families of 14 either, which seemingly existed to counteract infant mortality and the need for labour. But technology has so progressed that I think we can afford to raise 3-4 kids on one income if we course-correct society.

One point that would show you may be factually wrong is that starting in '71, real wages growth snapped away from GDP growth. So while my ideal had been possible in the post-war era, suddenly it started to become out of reach, a trend that hasn't been inverted, but perhaps somewhat abated in the second golden age of the 90s-00s. 1971 was an eventful year in macroeconomics, what with the Nixon shock, the gold standard question, and then subsequent energy crises.

PS: One ought not to ignore the impact of the TV and social media on lifestyle inflation.

Not sure where you get people being pushed into the workforce when that is being delayed more and more over time due to mandatory education and limiting when and where they can work by age.

Cultural dillution? Please explain that one. Do you mean assimilation into western values?

Eh, bit of yes and no. To the extent that you think "Western values" means "business-centered economic liberalism". But that is a rather modern and one-sided interpretation. I think Western values are founded on much deeper foundations, such as Christianity, Ancient Greek philosophy, and Germanic paganism. All combining to create the greatest political, economic and military might the Earth had ever known while ensuring freedom and dignity for its men and women.

Yet, every country has had its own culture and national identity. What we're seeing with mass migration is that those unique traits are being erased, tradition discarded, and the countries are increasingly alike, both within the West, and without. I think this is overall bad - terrible - for cultural diversity and democracy, at it tends towards a singular global culture devoid of centers of dissent, thus facilitating global - tyrannical - governance.

 

[captloadie]

No one is "chasing away" anyone here except the pro-Russia and pro-Hamas trolls.

Being told you're wrong is part and parcel of a political conversation. If one can't handle that... Too bad. I know plenty of women who can, though. Strange you'd want to reduce them to a stereotype.

And what, men are useless dolts who do nothing but sit on the couch and eat chips all day? You got any more of them, tired tropes?

My point exactly. As per many other posts, bully your opinion across as being the right one.

Once again- “children” are not a women’s issue. We have spent decades (rightly) messaging that men need to be involved in raising children. Men have a stake in children and need to be part of the debate.
I'm not debating your points here, you are correct. But I'm not incorrect for how I worded it, I didn't state it was a only a woman's issue.
Pregnancy and child birth are more “women’s issues” (it biologically impacts them, almost entirely), but the pregnancy did not happen without a man.
On average, and excluding the many exceptions we can all come up with, the decision to conceive children, give birth, and raise them in their pre-school years is predominantly a greater burden on the female. And oh, sperm donor, very little involvement of the man.
I don’t think it is useful to reduce these issues/debates to binary “who can/cannot take part in a debate” because of their chromosomal makeup. That this forum is willing to debate these issues, I find refreshing and interesting.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Men don't have final say in the final outcome of a pregnancy, but men are generally held responsible financially for supporting children they fathered. They have a stake.

Men are also still generally expected to financially support themselves (minimum respect), support a family (more respect), and support society (most respect), and that expectation kicks in on exit from high school and until death (ie. includes retirement). Indirectly men are expected to support children they didn't father (social programs).

These aren't value judgements; they're observations. The expectations could change with time; some are changing (ie. women have become greater contributors to social programs over the past few decades).

Whether or not anyone likes it, they have to also consider what men want, and what effect that has on marriage and child-rearing.

 

[TacticalTea]

And oh, sperm donor, very little involvement of the man.

You come in here complaining about behaviour but all you've got on offer is insults and clichés?

Would you be interested in the acquisition of a mirror? Much self-reflection is in order, methinks.

 

[QV]

Men and woman are different. Both have equally important roles in society and both should be treated with respect and dignity. Society should recognize and leverage the strengths each have to offer. Of course there is some overlap.

That the above is controversial is just a distraction.

 

[TacticalTea]

Men and woman are different. Both have equally important roles in society and both should be treated with respect and dignity. Society should recognize and leverage the strengths each have to offer. Of course there is some overlap.

That the above is controversial is just a distraction.

To deny this is at the heart of liberal mythology.

Comes down to the - very religious, mind you - idea that humans are interchangeable automatons, that their minds are blank slates, molded strictly by environmental and social factors.

When in actuality, genetics is typically the foremost determinant of most aspects of a person. To reject this is to reject the theory of evolution in favour of a faith-based belief system.

Ironically, it is in fact downstream of actual Christian tenets. To wit, Imago Dei. Albeit a warped and twisted interpretation of Imago Dei that sees God fully in every human, thus unbound from material reality and morally relativistic, rather than Imago Dei as applied to humanity, expressed by a spark of divinity in each one of us that, once amalgamated, realizes godliness.

 

[QV]

Recognizing, celebrating, and then leveraging the strengths of each sex would fix a lot of what is wrong today.

 

[KevinB]

That is a good argument. Generally speaking, I think the West's living conditions have progressively improved from the fall of Rome to the late 1900s. Children in coal mines is certainly not what I want to see. I'm not asking for families of 14 either, which seemingly existed to counteract infant mortality and the need for labour. But technology has so progressed that I think we can afford to raise 3-4 kids on one income if we course-correct society.

Women were by the end of WW2 heavily involved in the workforce due to the wartime economy.

One point that would show you may be factually wrong is that starting in '71, real wages growth snapped away from GDP growth.

Again the idea of a man as the sole breadwinner was dead by 1945. It lingered into the 60's, but by the 70's it was fully buried. 2 Income families also gave rise to huge standard of living increases (and inflation).

So while my ideal had been possible in the post-war era, suddenly it started to become out of reach, a trend that hasn't been inverted, but perhaps somewhat abated in the second golden age of the 90s-00s. 1971 was an eventful year in macroeconomics, what with the Nixon shock, the gold standard question, and then subsequent energy crises.

I don't think dual income parents are a bad thing, that is is required is a bad thing however.
But it's a Catch-22 in the inflation game, that if you end up with a high family income, that it's going to get nibbled at, and make single income families next to impossible.

PS: One ought not to ignore the impact of the TV and social media on lifestyle inflation.

That is a societal/parental issue - if we as an adult society set realistic bars for things, then everyone wouldn't be out trying to keep up (and their kids up) with the Jones's.

Eh, bit of yes and no. To the extent that you think "Western values" means "business-centered economic liberalism". But that is a rather modern and one-sided interpretation. I think Western values are founded on much deeper foundations, such as Christianity, Ancient Greek philosophy, and Germanic paganism. All combining to create the greatest political, economic and military might the Earth had ever known while ensuring freedom and dignity for its men and women.

I think you are overly creative in the above - Western Values only recently allowed women to vote, and outlawed slavery...
So I think we need to agree that the definitions of freedom and dignity and who they relate to have been changing, and still are.

Yet, every country has had its own culture and national identity. What we're seeing with mass migration is that those unique traits are being erased, tradition discarded, and the countries are increasingly alike, both within the West, and without. I think this is overall bad - terrible - for cultural diversity and democracy, at it tends towards a singular global culture devoid of centers of dissent, thus facilitating global - tyrannical - governance.

I think you started strong but end up jumping the shark -- Canada was always referred to as a mixed salad in terms of immigration and the lack of assimilation to a "Canadian" culture - it started with the French, when the English didn't extinguish the French Canadian culture. While down here, America has always prided itself as a Melting Pot where immigrants merge and become Americans with a slight flavor of their ancestors.

I would stipulate that Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equality is not a bad thing, as long as it is not done at the expense of other's rights.


I'd like to offer one point from a very small sample size of my immediate neighborhood. We have 6 homes in our little area, each sit on about 2 acres.
H1: Dual Income 2.5 kids (my eldest son lives in Calgary with his GF, and is from Training Wife, so I only counted him as .5 )
H2: Single Income 3 kids (mother was a teacher who now stays home with the children, and also takes care of Brothers kids -> H3)
H3: Dual Income 3 kids
H4: Dual Income 3 kids (Wife on maternity leave due to #3)
H5: Dual Income 5 kids (blended family 2+2 and 1 together)
H6: Dual Income 1 Child

Medium Family income is in the mid 6 figures.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/asia/south-korea-government-population-birth-rate-intl-hnk/index.html

eventually i think they are just going to end up paying big bucks for babies

as an aside 2.1 fertility is only replacement in low child mortality areas

also at 0.5 fertility we will drop the human population from 8 billion + to under 500 million in 100 yrs

 

[Halifax Tar]

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).

But I do have a question for the OP - was the start of the conversation meant as a comment on the need to increase the "Canadian" birth rate as a means to close the taps on immigration?

I wish you would have just quoted me so I didn't have run all the way back to start. Lol.

Not close the taps, but dampen them. Ideally a country should be able to sustain itself with its own birth rates, no ?

I've quoted myself above for your reference.

Once again- “children” are not a women’s issue. We have spent decades (rightly) messaging that men need to be involved in raising children. Men have a stake in children and need to be part of the debate.

Pregnancy and child birth are more “women’s issues” (it biologically impacts them, almost entirely), but the pregnancy did not happen without a man.

I don’t think it is useful to reduce these issues/debates to binary “who can/cannot take part in a debate” because of their chromosomal makeup. That this forum is willing to debate these issues, I find refreshing and interesting.

Very good post.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Women were by the end of WW2 heavily involved in the workforce due to the wartime economy.

Again the idea of a man as the sole breadwinner was dead by 1945. It lingered into the 60's, but by the 70's it was fully buried. 2 Income families also gave rise to huge standard of living increases (and inflation).

I don't think dual income parents are a bad thing, that is is required is a bad thing however.
But it's a Catch-22 in the inflation game, that if you end up with a high family income, that it's going to get nibbled at, and make single income families next to impossible.



That is a societal/parental issue - if we as an adult society set realistic bars for things, then everyone wouldn't be out trying to keep up (and their kids up) with the Jones's.

I think you are overly creative in the above - Western Values only recently allowed women to vote, and outlawed slavery...
So I think we need to agree that the definitions of freedom and dignity and who they relate to have been changing, and still are.

I think you started strong but end up jumping the shark -- Canada was always referred to as a mixed salad in terms of immigration and the lack of assimilation to a "Canadian" culture - it started with the French, when the English didn't extinguish the French Canadian culture. While down here, America has always prided itself as a Melting Pot where immigrants merge and become Americans with a slight flavor of their ancestors.

I would stipulate that Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equality is not a bad thing, as long as it is not done at the expense of other's rights.


I'd like to offer one point from a very small sample size of my immediate neighborhood. We have 6 homes in our little area, each sit on about 2 acres.
H1: Dual Income 2.5 kids (my eldest son lives in Calgary with his GF, and is from Training Wife, so I only counted him as .5 )
H2: Single Income 3 kids (mother was a teacher who now stays home with the children, and also takes care of Brothers kids -> H3)
H3: Dual Income 3 kids
H4: Dual Income 3 kids (Wife on maternity leave due to #3)
H5: Dual Income 5 kids (blended family 2+2 and 1 together)
H6: Dual Income 1 Child

Medium Family income is in the mid 6 figures.

I had a chat today with a P1 who works for me, he is the sole bread winner in the family. 2 kids and Wife.

He doesn't have an issue he said, they live within their means, his words. And he and his family is ok with what they have.

 

[Remius]

I had a chat today with a P1 who works for me, he is the sole bread winner in the family. 2 kids and Wife.

He doesn't have an issue he said, they live within their means, his words. And he and his family is ok with what they have.

Still below the replacement rate though.

 

[KevinB]

I had a chat today with a P1 who works for me, he is the sole bread winner in the family. 2 kids and Wife.

He doesn't have an issue he said, they live within their means, his words. And he and his family is ok with what they have.

I don't doubt it is possible in some areas of the country.

However as @Remius points out that is below "replacement rate" where generally you need 2.3 children / household to maintain the status quo.

BUT if we take a dose of Thomas Malthus, maybe population decline or at least stagnation isn't a terrible thing...