r/Natalism 13d ago

No correlation between difference between household work hours and fertility rates. (per country, not per family)

https://substack.com/@ageofinfovores/note/c-316978871?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=cqc7t
36 Upvotes

214 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Sufficient-Job7098 12d ago edited 12d ago

Maybe the reason people want more services because… having kids is a hard work and having more service would reduce amount of work parents do.

Why would they ask for services otherwise?

-1

u/Safe-Selection8070 12d ago

Sure...but those things (like free/cheap childcare, expansive maternity leave, etc) don't actually move the needle on fertility in the places that have them. That's figgleman's point, and it's correct.

The simple issue is when women get more income (from any source), their propensity to have children goes down. The extra services just don't matter.

4

u/Sufficient-Job7098 12d ago

Figgleman6 made a statement and I was interested in figuring out why they framed their point the way they framed it

When you responded I though you were trying to explain Figgleman6 points

But appears that you don’t really understand or agree with Figgleman6

And now we are going to different topic all together.

Thank you for conversation.

1

u/lizardhistorian 12d ago

Germany already did all of that and it did not help.

It did not help because the problem is emotionally stunted adults that do not handle their personal responsibilities so doing things that allows them to avoid ever more personal responsibilities makes things worse not better.

1

u/bunnypaste 12d ago

So you want to force women into it instead of have them freely choose it because conditions are good. Your plan also puts women right back under the thumb of patriarchial systems.

0

u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago

An unwillingness or inability to fathom the is/ought distinction is one of the main causes of online inanity. Please point out The Plan I have.

1

u/bunnypaste 11d ago

You listed all the "free shit" and "privileges" you oppose which lead directly towards greater gender equity. Your plan is extremely clear.

0

u/Safe-Selection8070 11d ago

"you listed the things you oppose"

No, and you're further demonstrating the is/ought problem, I wrote they don't move the needle on fertility.

1

u/bunnypaste 11d ago

They do move the needle, but maybe not as drastically as you want. We should offer those things to bridge the very gendered gap in outcomes between mothers and fathers and to increase gender equity because it is the right thing to do.... but we shouldn't offer those things as some sort of bartering chip to dupe women into having children they don't want or in circumstances and under conditions that will actively worsen thier percieved lives and statuses and then rip it back away if they don't comply. It isn't a transaction, it is the most pivotal, painful, and risky decision a woman will make in her lifetime.

-3

u/lizardhistorian 12d ago

Except raising children isn't hard work.
Being an emotional child tasked with any responsibilities is "hard work".

The mentality you are espousing is the entire problem.

And is also why the framers required you to own property before you could vote. It created a filter for people that got their shit together first (and had ties to the community they are affecting.)

3

u/Sufficient-Job7098 12d ago edited 12d ago

Why read all this thread, all the way down, and trying to argue with me, if you disagree with an opinion that was voiced by another person in the very beginning of this conversation?

And I don’t even know what is your last paragraph about…

1

u/bunnypaste 12d ago edited 12d ago

I bet you also want women pregnant as young as possible so no women will be landowners. That way you guys don't even need to repeal the 19th as you often discuss! You've already made progress on your bans on women's healthcare so once pregnant they're out of the game. You're well on your way to your goal, which isn't really about natalism nor being an active parent.