MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fees
As a 76 year old American grandmother married for 51 years with 3 married kids and 14 grandkids, I remember the profound comment my late husband made when I was badgering him to share infant care 50-50. He said that he believed our child care would average out 50-50 throughout our parenting. He'd spend more time working out, coaching, camping, hunting, etc. with our sons when they were older and I was better suited when they were younger. This was indeed very true and wise throughout our lives -- and our homelife was so joyful and fulfilling that all our kids have more children than we did!
The obsession with GDP is stupid. When government policy doesn't work, do something else. If you want to be pro-family, make housing cheap by reducing demand: block immigration, block foreign and corporate ownership of residential property. If property is cheap, you can have a good life without jumping on the corporate ladder. That is better for women, for families, and for men who would like to experiment with creative but risky business ideas.,
I'm Australian and in the 1970s and 80s we were famous for affordable family housing on 1/4 acre blocks. All gone since mass immigration began. We have not had replacement level birthrates since 1976. If not for immigration and foreign investors we would have ample affordable housing without building any more housing.
Poland pays an equivalent of ca. £160 a month per child in child benefit which is not means tested (compare that to the measly £16.95/week in the uk for second and every other child!!). There are other benefits for large families like the large family card which entitles large families to a variety of discounts (like public transport). The latest addition to the support package for families are cash incentives for grandparents to look after children of parents who are both professionally active. It’s utterly crazy how hostile the UK is to families.
Australia used to pay married women to raise their children, but inflation has eroded that to enough to buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk. There was talk of grandparents being able to receive the government contribution to child care. But it was decided that for grandparents to qualify they had to do a diploma and register as a childcare provider. And really if you are a grandparent who is providing childcare you don't have time to do the diploma and probably don't have the money to overhaul your house and garden.
As Louise commented that she receives almost no child subsidy, I think these need to be expanded to cover more middle class people. My wife and I were paying over $2500CAD/mo which was much more than my mortgage for 2 kids in childcare and 1 in before/after school care. Maybe received a hundred or two dollars in childcare benefits. Other families in a similar situation were paying a total of $600 as they were a lower income family. This was 7 years ago, and at the time I thought I might be better off staying home instead.
The problem was the wrong solution to a well stated issue. It's great women got their subjectivity and the culture started to realize its misogynist structures. But the wrong solution was given: instead of requiring men to better themselves in terms of sexual behaviors, it decided women should be equally sexually immoral. Male promiscuity, fathering children from the wedlock, abandoning children - both from the wedlock and the family, extramarital affairs - these all were more or less socially accepted, not necessarily outwardly, but rather implicitly under the sigh 'well, men will be men'. These were the actual problems before the sexual revolution of the 60-ties. The solution was to allow women do the same, starting from female promiscuity. The wrong solution to a real problem.
Excellent show. Remember the days of "Neighbouring?" Even in the 1800's it was done a lot. People were not obsessed about money early in the US. Bartering and neighbouring.
As a young wife in the 80s in Australia this was still alive and well. I remember every woman in the street was pregnant or had young children. All the women bartered produce from the back garden, or skills like sewing, hairdressing etc. The men also bartered skills, and worked on group projects like fencing and concreting. We all socialised too, pre dinner drinks, BBQs etc. But none of this economy could be taxed or controlled by government and had to go. In many ways feminists were useful idiots for government control.
Weren't obsessed about money because the economic was entirely different. You could technically survive with very little money or even none as long as had the land, produce, and hands to work.
I consider this to be a very good, and important episode. However, what now occurs to me is probably the clearest possible way, to express some of the main ideas I've been circling around (as a fan of this channel and medium). One idea involves, just about the entire economic focus. I suggested recently, that beyond 'politics being downstream from culture,' culture also arguably is downstream from economics (and from resource considerations). An important qualifier, is that I was speaking about government policy from the sociopolitical macro-level. I suggest a heuristic, stating that government/macro should prioritize: 1st) economics 2nd) culture 3rd) populism. (Arguably the usual culture/politics adage pertains to a populist subcategory, of contemporary "culture war" politics). While the personal-individual/micro should prioritize the inverse: 1st) populism 2nd) culture 3rd) economics. The former supports the healthy development of productive individuals from the 'top-down,' while the latter charts the individual's development from the 'bottom-up'. Concerning "populist sentiments": I suggest that beginning in childhood/adolescence, continuing through early adulthood, individuals who develop so as to meaningfully contribute to society, undergo a gradual process which involves gearing their specific, prosocial tendencies, sentiments and interests, toward a well-matched, supportive subculture. When economics are completely, prohibitively, and immediately prioritized at any point during an individual's development, the result is a kind of 'freeze effect'. "Developing one's personal interests" sounds perhaps like an often-described luxury, available to some. However "personal interests" could probably be semantically better understood as a stand-in, for "developing capabilities". If there is no supportive culture present to help develop people's tendencies, in a 'socially integrated' manner, and if there is economic strain 'pressing down from above' (thus perhaps part-time, pre-career work is untenable while attempting to develop within some cultural context, especially for young families) then a society's most well-rounded, competent careerists, with greater personal investment in society having established a family, will simply not exist in sufficient numbers. Individual development stops when totalizing economic demands start, especially when these entail particularly excessive pressures. Personal sentiments lacking context, and associated with populist attitudes, are representative of a raw, early stage in an individual's social development, and the layer of culture gradually mediates the integration of these tendencies into a maximally productive economic role. This process describes the healthy development of an economically productive individual. Small governments should optimally manage fairly minimal economic policies, as well as resource-driven geopolitical concerns. When the order of priorities is 'flipped,' the would-be professional class becomes underdeveloped, and therefore underutilized. With fewer skills, and little freedom, due to omnipresent economic constraints. These excessive constraints produce a vicious cycle, whereby government and societal mismanagement become the norm, when strained, underdeveloped professionals afflicted with scarcity-mindset, comprise the incoming members of the upper social strata at any given time. On the UK in particular: To my mind (as an American observer) these kinds of economic constraints are all-encompassing, and inhibitory for any developed country to maintain its normal functionality. Aside from specific details discussed, from the outset of this entire discourse: It is simply not possible, to have a solitary viable locale in which for all middle/upper-middle class citizens to reside, when that locale cannot support its population. Nor to negotiate the apparent necessity, for leading professionals to double as lower-level civil servants. (Everyone stands to benefit, from the optimal social positioning of individuals). Nor to struggle economically, despite multiple forms of work undertaken in a given family, spanning multiple social strata. Nor for a middle/upper-middle, productive strata of a society, to forgo appropriate development of skills and knowledge on an ongoing basis, as a result of the above. My opinion, is that many policy considerations in this discussion are insufficient to address foundational problems. Government must be better managed, and an economic future must be secured, for a prosperous sovereign nation to remain as such.
It was so predictable that women's entry into the workplace would not lead to increased wealth. Simple economics: supply and demand and the impact on prices. Doubling the supply of workers basically reduced the value (ie price) of work.
It was said that the domestic duties that women traditionally did are not valued anymore, but I do believe our governments have put monetary values to them in the form of subsidies for childcare and elder care facilities. Presumably they've figured out a cost per day or month to administer the subsidies. I had a policy idea while I had children in daycare. The provincial government was discussing $10/day daycare, and since they probably figured out how much per child this was going to cost, a simpler solution would be giving a tax deduction for one parent to look after the kid(s) at a similar rate the daycare would charge the government to do it per child and the income earner could apply the deduction on their pay. If I recall correctly, and there may be other reasons as well, there was a shortage of qualified Early Childhood Educators and daycares to implement the $10/day policy here in British Columbia and haven't instituted it to my knowledge, but there would presumably be no such shortage of homes and parents... By just giving a tax deduction, there would be little to spend on government busy-bodies inspecting and licensing all these facilities and other administration tasks, probably saving many millions from an otherwise much larger program and would potentially cover the cost of the tax revenue loss of not having both parents taxed. This idea could also be potentially used for caring for one's elders as well, and thereby the domestic duties could now be compensated. Edit: I guess he makes a similar argument at minute 24.
I hate it when women turn their husbands/partners into housekeepers & complain when they don't do enough. Two-income couples certainly raised the cost of housing, they can offer more & have led to the high housing costs. Split couples add to the housing crisis by needing 2 homes in one family. All things that are never talked about. As for child care, the most cruel thing you can do to children is putting them there. No wonder there is so much mental stress in young people.
Increasing the role of the domestic/care but still having small family size just plain does not work. It would lead to helicopter parenting. Individual kids were LESS pampered in past eras, not more, despite the larger role of the domestic. If we don't want to make it so women are expected to have kids 5+ times in their lives, their energies need to be channeled somehow else. A semi-non-serous answer is that in an alternate world where animals/pets play a greater role, women would tend more to those (rather than trying to make the rat race and consumerism work). And of course civil engagement in general.
Hah I just noticed something hilarious. (Rewatched end of this episode. Was reminded of this by something on another channel). Ends with discussion of ways to increase birthrates. Maintaining lifestyle, etc. Then: "yes, but..." HITS PAYWALL. Lol. So hilariously apropos. An argument's to be made, that money is an extension of below-discussed "status," as signal-monitoring mechanism for valuation in the marketplace. Short version, core problem with society: Signal is distorted. Radar must be improved. Putting on my mild-troll hat... As per channel name life-trajectory, the earlier pokemon version of Louise was brainwashed by a sleeper cell (back in the woke days) to actively distort signal-monitoring of the social hierarchy. Now, middle-stage pokemon peers through a murky lens, at the current seemingly static, cost-benefit analysis picture of the society and its respective inhabitants, existing in a confused state of apparent existential decline. The irony is so rich, that I'll be using it to smelt ore. It's ok LP, I have regrets too. Like being a semi-burnout, back in the day. Only weed, heh. See. Now we're both mildly embarrassed, for a brief moment. Fairness. Implies qualitative value. (One must be able to read signals).
In the US parenting and housework is still like a 90/10 time split women to men, with like 85% of mothers having to work outside the home. The "increase" in men's participation in the household is a whopping 2 hours a week or something on average. £70k might be great but $70k is scraping by at this point in the places that have jobs that pay that here and still in a two income household. The means test to qualify for aid like food stamps with two people is $26k or something currently. We end up with a lot of families that if the parents get married they lose food, healthcare, subsidized childcare, and of course this makes it easier for the father to leave. One thing not discussed in the US is how many "single mothers" aren't actually single but if they want to feed their children they can't declare the father on the birth certificate. I know at least three, two of which have been together decades, where the parents just can't get married and feed the kids at the same time. All parents except 1 mother work, the family would lose money if she put the kids in daycare to get a job. One child policy is right, if even that.
Did woman gain their freedom or did they just go from one form of depression to another? form being underlayed the husband to begin underlayed the employer! and do people really believe that the employe care more about the woman than her husband? I highly doubt that.
While it's possible, as implied, that considerations of "status" extend beyond the officially-designated, workforce-hierarchy, and are appropriately understood to also encompass home-life, and non-designated caregivers etc., I suspect that "status" especially in the context discussed on this channel, is most aptly associated with formal hierarchy. I think stay-at-home mothers should be socially appreciated, of course, just as much as Louise. Although perhaps somewhat semantic, I think mothers can be socially appreciated, without necessarily receiving "status" per se. I think status, especially as discussed here, is only needed when women or men enter the workforce. The term probably demands a qualifier, like "official status". Status seems to me to be a signal-monitoring mechanism, for valuation in the marketplace. If this approximate definition is tenable, then status isn't really needed at home. There's no competitive marketplace, no fluctuating valuation. At least, not in any form that the average person would recognize. I don't think a change in the perception of status is necessary to justify non-typical, pro-natalist policies amidst a dangerously plummeting birthrate. I generally resist such policy prescriptions, however I also recognize necessities in potential emergency scenarios.
I remember when it was still unusual for the mother's of young children to work in my country. And yet there was status, or should I say a hierarchy among housewives. How clean is your house? Are you a good cook? Do you sew? Do you grow fruit and vegetables or keep poultry? And ofcourse, as other women always judge do you dress nicely and style your hair? Certainly these were how women measured their self esteem, and indeed their status. Many of these activities were also economically productive, and created a barter economy that could not be taxed by government. It was also healthier, as so much good quality food was produced, rather than the rubbish many working mothers buy. I also believe people were happier, but perhaps it's just the nostalgia of remembering our youthful selves.
@@stacykay4072 I mean that's true, but you need to recognize your own culpability as a demographic of society in creating an environment where you depreciated the value of labor, compete with men for opportunity, and then judge men as insufficient on the back end when men can't maintain the traditional standard of provision to which you are accustomed. For every lonely bitter incel who's upset because he's not attractive to women, there's a lonely bitter cat lady who makes 150,000 a year and can't find men who are attractive to her and also willing to commit.
Feminism or women’s liberation is the result of massive technological advances which occurred between about 1900 and 1970. Prior to 1800, most people supported themselves by subsistence agriculture, meaning that they ate what they grew. Farm work was physically strenuous and a woman could not support herself and her children, especially with frequent periods of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. A single mom could starve to death. Widows and orphans suffered greatly and depended on charity to survive. For a woman to voluntarily live a life of single motherhood was suicidal. Therefore women did not have sex before marriage and after marriage she was submissive to her husband on whom she depended for survival. However during the 1800’s well paying jobs for women became available in factories. After about 1900, single motherhood was still extremely difficult however it was possible. In the 1930’s condoms became available making it more practical to have sex without pregnancy or STDs. Social services also began appearing in the 1930’s. So did better paying office jobs for women. Pre-marital sex and divorce were still uncommon however they were both increasing significantly. After 1945 more women went to college and were able to find well paying office jobs afterwards. Social services were improving. Penicillin, which cured most STDs, became available. In 1960 the birth control pill became available. Finally in 1973 safe, legal medical abortion became available everywhere in the United States. This was the end of traditional marriage except in some small, very religious communities. After that men and women entered into relationships of varying length. There was no real distinction between a girlfriend and a wife. Men and women who cohabited were “partners”. Women no longer needed to live with a man and they often didn’t, or at least they didn’t live with the same man for too long. Once there was a disagreement about something or one partner became bored with the other, the relationship ended. Women usually had only one or two children in spite of having sex regularly starting at age 16. Single moms could support themselves and their child through working, child support and welfare. In the beginning all of this started out really well. Instead of being stuck in some boring old marriage and women getting pregnant constantly, everyone could now have sex with whoever they wanted to whenever they wanted to. And women no longer had to listen to some bossy husband who was telling them what to do. But there were unintended consequences. First of all, low birth rates will lead to extinction. Long before that there will not be enough young working people who are prepared to care for elderly people who can no longer support themselves. Probably assisted suicide and euthanasia are going to become much more popular in the decades ahead. Fentynal is the new pension plan. Additionally, with all the sexual freedom, it seems as if more men are beating and raping women. Women are constantly competing for men and therefore dress more and more provocatively. Women commonly go to parties with men and get drunk. Women stagger out of bars alone late at night. Men, imagining that women want sex with anyone, rape them. If refused by women, men may beat them or in some extreme cases kill them. Stories of women being kidnapped, raped and murdered became fairly common in the US, something unheard of before 1970. Ted Bundy, active from 1974 to 1978, was a pioneer in this field and thanks to him the expression “serial killer” was invented. Also male employers began demanding sex from female workers. Why not? There is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. This has resulted in a backlash of women demanding more and more legal protections. Men are being evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expelled from college or fired from their jobs based on nothing except the baseless accusation of a woman which is often false. This has resulted in a backlash of men avoiding women at all cost, being afraid that following an argument or a breakup, they will lose their home, children, education or career. The safest way for men to have sex, if they have sex at all, is anonymous, casual sex through dating apps like tinder or by paying for sex on websites like seeking. Populations are shrinking, the elderly are endangered, children have no fathers and there is a Cold War between men and women. What started as a lot of fun in the 1960’s with the Playboy philosophy evolves into the miserable collapse of a civilization.
My goodness, a lot of historical facts there. Some conclusions that may be a leap of faith for some, but your summary of history is pretty undeniable. Your opinion of the future consequences of the past are very grave, but the facts are the facts.. statistically most of the planet is running well below replacement birth rate (2.1), ageing population, huge pension bills in the future. Gloria Stienham will be smirking from the grave. Do we have the capability of righting the ship?? It keeps me awake at night 😢
@@jamescomber5531 Many experts believe that our species will become extinct within a thousand years, as a result of low birth rates, nuclear weapons and climate change. Like the dinosaurs and thousands of others before us we will exit the stage of life.
I am not optimistic that we will be able to do so because it would requre some really dire and painful choices that we aren't up to. I am pretty confident that it will take a true collapse to wring the rot from the system. That saying about weak/strong men --> bad/good times is true.
Times have changed. Technology is here to stay. Get over it. Push forward. Create something new instead of lamenting the loss of the past. We're in probably the biggest cultural transition in history. There is no such thing as a final state. Change is continuous. Go forward, not backward.
Think about what you just said. If everything is transactional and men pay for sex, house cleaning, eating out, and child care, then how have women improved their situation from a hundred years ago?
@bellbeaker7014 That was not about men and women. I'm talking about people like her who demand that others have kids. If you're not willing to pay for it, then shut up!
@Myahpd I'm a woman. Second both if you have terrible reading comprehension skills if that's what you thought I meant. I'm not talking about the relationship between the sexes. I'm talking about people like the 2 in this video who think they can simply demand that others have kids. If they want them then they'll have to pay for their upbringing or shut up!
@@kaybrown7733that’s true. This woman has been spreading the idea that since women have more autonomy, they decided to stop having children. They never talk about the high costs of raising children. They think that women don’t want to be housewives, but the reality is that most don’t have the luxury to make this choice because it’s extremely expensive to raise children and one wage in the house is not enough. If the younger generations can’t afford to buy a house literally anywhere in the world, if something so basic as a place to live is extremely expensive, then how can people afford to raise children?
MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fees
As a 76 year old American grandmother married for 51 years with 3 married kids and 14 grandkids, I remember the profound comment my late husband made when I was badgering him to share infant care 50-50. He said that he believed our child care would average out 50-50 throughout our parenting. He'd spend more time working out, coaching, camping, hunting, etc. with our sons when they were older and I was better suited when they were younger. This was indeed very true and wise throughout our lives -- and our homelife was so joyful and fulfilling that all our kids have more children than we did!
So if you'd just had daughters they were on you?
@@katansilol who cares. If he had daughters instead of sons he would have responded differently.
@katansi wow that is what you took from this wonderful comment about a beautiful and fulfilled life, I feel sorry for you.
Don't stupid most fathers do things with their daughters . Feminist thinking 🤮 Lets count everything up as if parents are interchangeable 🤡@@katansi
@@Slade89She is an ardent feminist cultist .No surprises
David Goodhart is a National Treasure. Smart, compassionate and desperately keen to see fair play for all.
The obsession with GDP is stupid. When government policy doesn't work, do something else. If you want to be pro-family, make housing cheap by reducing demand: block immigration, block foreign and corporate ownership of residential property.
If property is cheap, you can have a good life without jumping on the corporate ladder. That is better for women, for families, and for men who would like to experiment with creative but risky business ideas.,
@@dennism4481subsidies would just cause the price to rise. Basic economics man
@@pbrown0829 . He actually was saying that it should NOT be subsidized.
I'm Australian and in the 1970s and 80s we were famous for affordable family housing on 1/4 acre blocks. All gone since mass immigration began. We have not had replacement level birthrates since 1976. If not for immigration and foreign investors we would have ample affordable housing without building any more housing.
Poland pays an equivalent of ca. £160 a month per child in child benefit which is not means tested (compare that to the measly £16.95/week in the uk for second and every other child!!). There are other benefits for large families like the large family card which entitles large families to a variety of discounts (like public transport). The latest addition to the support package for families are cash incentives for grandparents to look after children of parents who are both professionally active. It’s utterly crazy how hostile the UK is to families.
Australia used to pay married women to raise their children, but inflation has eroded that to enough to buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk. There was talk of grandparents being able to receive the government contribution to child care. But it was decided that for grandparents to qualify they had to do a diploma and register as a childcare provider. And really if you are a grandparent who is providing childcare you don't have time to do the diploma and probably don't have the money to overhaul your house and garden.
@@grannyannie2948 The grandparents needing to be certified child care providers 😲🤯
In Austria it starts with 133 €/Month at birth and it increases till 193 €/m with age 18
As Louise commented that she receives almost no child subsidy, I think these need to be expanded to cover more middle class people. My wife and I were paying over $2500CAD/mo which was much more than my mortgage for 2 kids in childcare and 1 in before/after school care. Maybe received a hundred or two dollars in childcare benefits. Other families in a similar situation were paying a total of $600 as they were a lower income family. This was 7 years ago, and at the time I thought I might be better off staying home instead.
Mother keep children safe and alive.
Father's teach them grow to be a competent adult that can deal with the realities of the world
The problem was the wrong solution to a well stated issue. It's great women got their subjectivity and the culture started to realize its misogynist structures. But the wrong solution was given: instead of requiring men to better themselves in terms of sexual behaviors, it decided women should be equally sexually immoral. Male promiscuity, fathering children from the wedlock, abandoning children - both from the wedlock and the family, extramarital affairs - these all were more or less socially accepted, not necessarily outwardly, but rather implicitly under the sigh 'well, men will be men'. These were the actual problems before the sexual revolution of the 60-ties. The solution was to allow women do the same, starting from female promiscuity. The wrong solution to a real problem.
Excellent show. Remember the days of "Neighbouring?" Even in the 1800's it was done a lot. People were not obsessed about money early in the US. Bartering and neighbouring.
As a young wife in the 80s in Australia this was still alive and well. I remember every woman in the street was pregnant or had young children. All the women bartered produce from the back garden, or skills like sewing, hairdressing etc. The men also bartered skills, and worked on group projects like fencing and concreting. We all socialised too, pre dinner drinks, BBQs etc. But none of this economy could be taxed or controlled by government and had to go. In many ways feminists were useful idiots for government control.
Feminists do not have female skills. That's why they fight for men's!
Weren't obsessed about money because the economic was entirely different. You could technically survive with very little money or even none as long as had the land, produce, and hands to work.
I consider this to be a very good, and important episode.
However, what now occurs to me is probably the clearest possible way, to express some of the main ideas I've been circling around (as a fan of this channel and medium).
One idea involves, just about the entire economic focus.
I suggested recently, that beyond 'politics being downstream from culture,' culture also arguably is downstream from economics (and from resource considerations).
An important qualifier, is that I was speaking about government policy from the sociopolitical macro-level.
I suggest a heuristic, stating that government/macro should prioritize: 1st) economics 2nd) culture 3rd) populism.
(Arguably the usual culture/politics adage pertains to a populist subcategory, of contemporary "culture war" politics).
While the personal-individual/micro should prioritize the inverse: 1st) populism 2nd) culture 3rd) economics.
The former supports the healthy development of productive individuals from the 'top-down,' while the latter charts the individual's development from the 'bottom-up'.
Concerning "populist sentiments":
I suggest that beginning in childhood/adolescence, continuing through early adulthood, individuals who develop so as to meaningfully contribute to society, undergo a gradual process which involves gearing their specific, prosocial tendencies, sentiments and interests, toward a well-matched, supportive subculture.
When economics are completely, prohibitively, and immediately prioritized at any point during an individual's development, the result is a kind of 'freeze effect'.
"Developing one's personal interests" sounds perhaps like an often-described luxury, available to some.
However "personal interests" could probably be semantically better understood as a stand-in, for "developing capabilities".
If there is no supportive culture present to help develop people's tendencies, in a 'socially integrated' manner, and if there is economic strain 'pressing down from above' (thus perhaps part-time, pre-career work is untenable while attempting to develop within some cultural context, especially for young families) then a society's most well-rounded, competent careerists, with greater personal investment in society having established a family, will simply not exist in sufficient numbers.
Individual development stops when totalizing economic demands start, especially when these entail particularly excessive pressures.
Personal sentiments lacking context, and associated with populist attitudes, are representative of a raw, early stage in an individual's social development, and the layer of culture gradually mediates the integration of these tendencies into a maximally productive economic role.
This process describes the healthy development of an economically productive individual.
Small governments should optimally manage fairly minimal economic policies, as well as resource-driven geopolitical concerns.
When the order of priorities is 'flipped,' the would-be professional class becomes underdeveloped, and therefore underutilized.
With fewer skills, and little freedom, due to omnipresent economic constraints.
These excessive constraints produce a vicious cycle, whereby government and societal mismanagement become the norm, when strained, underdeveloped professionals afflicted with scarcity-mindset, comprise the incoming members of the upper social strata at any given time.
On the UK in particular:
To my mind (as an American observer) these kinds of economic constraints are all-encompassing, and inhibitory for any developed country to maintain its normal functionality.
Aside from specific details discussed, from the outset of this entire discourse:
It is simply not possible, to have a solitary viable locale in which for all middle/upper-middle class citizens to reside, when that locale cannot support its population.
Nor to negotiate the apparent necessity, for leading professionals to double as lower-level civil servants.
(Everyone stands to benefit, from the optimal social positioning of individuals).
Nor to struggle economically, despite multiple forms of work undertaken in a given family, spanning multiple social strata.
Nor for a middle/upper-middle, productive strata of a society, to forgo appropriate development of skills and knowledge on an ongoing basis, as a result of the above.
My opinion, is that many policy considerations in this discussion are insufficient to address foundational problems.
Government must be better managed, and an economic future must be secured, for a prosperous sovereign nation to remain as such.
It was so predictable that women's entry into the workplace would not lead to increased wealth. Simple economics: supply and demand and the impact on prices. Doubling the supply of workers basically reduced the value (ie price) of work.
It's amazing that this isn't discussed more and understood. The people that push UBI apparently don't understand this either.
It was said that the domestic duties that women traditionally did are not valued anymore, but I do believe our governments have put monetary values to them in the form of subsidies for childcare and elder care facilities. Presumably they've figured out a cost per day or month to administer the subsidies.
I had a policy idea while I had children in daycare. The provincial government was discussing $10/day daycare, and since they probably figured out how much per child this was going to cost, a simpler solution would be giving a tax deduction for one parent to look after the kid(s) at a similar rate the daycare would charge the government to do it per child and the income earner could apply the deduction on their pay.
If I recall correctly, and there may be other reasons as well, there was a shortage of qualified Early Childhood Educators and daycares to implement the $10/day policy here in British Columbia and haven't instituted it to my knowledge, but there would presumably be no such shortage of homes and parents...
By just giving a tax deduction, there would be little to spend on government busy-bodies inspecting and licensing all these facilities and other administration tasks, probably saving many millions from an otherwise much larger program and would potentially cover the cost of the tax revenue loss of not having both parents taxed.
This idea could also be potentially used for caring for one's elders as well, and thereby the domestic duties could now be compensated.
Edit: I guess he makes a similar argument at minute 24.
I hate it when women turn their husbands/partners into housekeepers & complain when they don't do enough. Two-income couples certainly raised the cost of housing, they
can offer more & have led to the high housing costs. Split couples add to the housing crisis by needing 2 homes in one family. All things that are never talked about. As for
child care, the most cruel thing you can do to children is putting them there. No wonder there is so much mental stress in young people.
that's a good point. children of divorced parents shuttle between two houses when ideally they'd be living in one intact family household.
Increasing the role of the domestic/care but still having small family size just plain does not work. It would lead to helicopter parenting. Individual kids were LESS pampered in past eras, not more, despite the larger role of the domestic. If we don't want to make it so women are expected to have kids 5+ times in their lives, their energies need to be channeled somehow else. A semi-non-serous answer is that in an alternate world where animals/pets play a greater role, women would tend more to those (rather than trying to make the rat race and consumerism work). And of course civil engagement in general.
Hah I just noticed something hilarious.
(Rewatched end of this episode. Was reminded of this by something on another channel).
Ends with discussion of ways to increase birthrates. Maintaining lifestyle, etc.
Then: "yes, but..." HITS PAYWALL.
Lol. So hilariously apropos.
An argument's to be made, that money is an extension of below-discussed "status," as signal-monitoring mechanism for valuation in the marketplace.
Short version, core problem with society:
Signal is distorted. Radar must be improved.
Putting on my mild-troll hat...
As per channel name life-trajectory, the earlier pokemon version of Louise was brainwashed by a sleeper cell (back in the woke days) to actively distort signal-monitoring of the social hierarchy.
Now, middle-stage pokemon peers through a murky lens, at the current seemingly static, cost-benefit analysis picture of the society and its respective inhabitants, existing in a confused state of apparent existential decline.
The irony is so rich, that I'll be using it to smelt ore.
It's ok LP, I have regrets too.
Like being a semi-burnout, back in the day.
Only weed, heh.
See. Now we're both mildly embarrassed, for a brief moment.
Fairness. Implies qualitative value. (One must be able to read signals).
In the US parenting and housework is still like a 90/10 time split women to men, with like 85% of mothers having to work outside the home. The "increase" in men's participation in the household is a whopping 2 hours a week or something on average. £70k might be great but $70k is scraping by at this point in the places that have jobs that pay that here and still in a two income household. The means test to qualify for aid like food stamps with two people is $26k or something currently. We end up with a lot of families that if the parents get married they lose food, healthcare, subsidized childcare, and of course this makes it easier for the father to leave. One thing not discussed in the US is how many "single mothers" aren't actually single but if they want to feed their children they can't declare the father on the birth certificate. I know at least three, two of which have been together decades, where the parents just can't get married and feed the kids at the same time. All parents except 1 mother work, the family would lose money if she put the kids in daycare to get a job. One child policy is right, if even that.
Intentionally structured that way as are divorce laws etc
Did woman gain their freedom or did they just go from one form of depression to another? form being underlayed the husband to begin underlayed the employer! and do people really believe that the employe care more about the woman than her husband? I highly doubt that.
While it's possible, as implied, that considerations of "status" extend beyond the officially-designated, workforce-hierarchy, and are appropriately understood to also encompass home-life, and non-designated caregivers etc., I suspect that "status" especially in the context discussed on this channel, is most aptly associated with formal hierarchy.
I think stay-at-home mothers should be socially appreciated, of course, just as much as Louise.
Although perhaps somewhat semantic, I think mothers can be socially appreciated, without necessarily receiving "status" per se.
I think status, especially as discussed here, is only needed when women or men enter the workforce.
The term probably demands a qualifier, like "official status".
Status seems to me to be a signal-monitoring mechanism, for valuation in the marketplace.
If this approximate definition is tenable, then status isn't really needed at home.
There's no competitive marketplace, no fluctuating valuation.
At least, not in any form that the average person would recognize.
I don't think a change in the perception of status is necessary to justify non-typical, pro-natalist policies amidst a dangerously plummeting birthrate.
I generally resist such policy prescriptions, however I also recognize necessities in potential emergency scenarios.
I remember when it was still unusual for the mother's of young children to work in my country. And yet there was status, or should I say a hierarchy among housewives.
How clean is your house? Are you a good cook? Do you sew? Do you grow fruit and vegetables or keep poultry?
And ofcourse, as other women always judge do you dress nicely and style your hair?
Certainly these were how women measured their self esteem, and indeed their status. Many of these activities were also economically productive, and created a barter economy that could not be taxed by government. It was also healthier, as so much good quality food was produced, rather than the rubbish many working mothers buy. I also believe people were happier, but perhaps it's just the nostalgia of remembering our youthful selves.
Women not liking the consequences of their own their own choices!
Colour me surprised!
Leah Libresco Sargeant would be a marvelous follow-up interview to this one.
Add a comment...
Consequences is men arw no longer interested in courting women at all since women wanted to be liberated.
No one cares, especially the women
And those men have become bitter, lonely incels?
Because God forbid women should want to be liberated and have opportunities and choices vs getting stuck with some man child.
@@stacykay4072 😄 🤣 😂 😆
@@stacykay4072 I mean that's true, but you need to recognize your own culpability as a demographic of society in creating an environment where you depreciated the value of labor, compete with men for opportunity, and then judge men as insufficient on the back end when men can't maintain the traditional standard of provision to which you are accustomed.
For every lonely bitter incel who's upset because he's not attractive to women, there's a lonely bitter cat lady who makes 150,000 a year and can't find men who are attractive to her and also willing to commit.
Feminism or women’s liberation is the result of massive technological advances which occurred between about 1900 and 1970.
Prior to 1800, most people supported themselves by subsistence agriculture, meaning that they ate what they grew. Farm work was physically strenuous and a woman could not support herself and her children, especially with frequent periods of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. A single mom could starve to death. Widows and orphans suffered greatly and depended on charity to survive. For a woman to voluntarily live a life of single motherhood was suicidal. Therefore women did not have sex before marriage and after marriage she was submissive to her husband on whom she depended for survival.
However during the 1800’s well paying jobs for women became available in factories. After about 1900, single motherhood was still extremely difficult however it was possible. In the 1930’s condoms became available making it more practical to have sex without pregnancy or STDs. Social services also began appearing in the 1930’s. So did better paying office jobs for women. Pre-marital sex and divorce were still uncommon however they were both increasing significantly.
After 1945 more women went to college and were able to find well paying office jobs afterwards. Social services were improving. Penicillin, which cured most STDs, became available. In 1960 the birth control pill became available.
Finally in 1973 safe, legal medical abortion became available everywhere in the United States. This was the end of traditional marriage except in some small, very religious communities. After that men and women entered into relationships of varying length. There was no real distinction between a girlfriend and a wife. Men and women who cohabited were “partners”. Women no longer needed to live with a man and they often didn’t, or at least they didn’t live with the same man for too long. Once there was a disagreement about something or one partner became bored with the other, the relationship ended. Women usually had only one or two children in spite of having sex regularly starting at age 16. Single moms could support themselves and their child through working, child support and welfare.
In the beginning all of this started out really well. Instead of being stuck in some boring old marriage and women getting pregnant constantly, everyone could now have sex with whoever they wanted to whenever they wanted to. And women no longer had to listen to some bossy husband who was telling them what to do.
But there were unintended consequences.
First of all, low birth rates will lead to extinction. Long before that there will not be enough young working people who are prepared to care for elderly people who can no longer support themselves. Probably assisted suicide and euthanasia are going to become much more popular in the decades ahead. Fentynal is the new pension plan.
Additionally, with all the sexual freedom, it seems as if more men are beating and raping women. Women are constantly competing for men and therefore dress more and more provocatively. Women commonly go to parties with men and get drunk. Women stagger out of bars alone late at night. Men, imagining that women want sex with anyone, rape them. If refused by women, men may beat them or in some extreme cases kill them. Stories of women being kidnapped, raped and murdered became fairly common in the US, something unheard of before 1970. Ted Bundy, active from 1974 to 1978, was a pioneer in this field and thanks to him the expression “serial killer” was invented. Also male employers began demanding sex from female workers. Why not? There is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage.
This has resulted in a backlash of women demanding more and more legal protections. Men are being evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expelled from college or fired from their jobs based on nothing except the baseless accusation of a woman which is often false.
This has resulted in a backlash of men avoiding women at all cost, being afraid that following an argument or a breakup, they will lose their home, children, education or career. The safest way for men to have sex, if they have sex at all, is anonymous, casual sex through dating apps like tinder or by paying for sex on websites like seeking.
Populations are shrinking, the elderly are endangered, children have no fathers and there is a Cold War between men and women. What started as a lot of fun in the 1960’s with the Playboy philosophy evolves into the miserable collapse of a civilization.
My goodness, a lot of historical facts there. Some conclusions that may be a leap of faith for some, but your summary of history is pretty undeniable. Your opinion of the future consequences of the past are very grave, but the facts are the facts.. statistically most of the planet is running well below replacement birth rate (2.1), ageing population, huge pension bills in the future. Gloria Stienham will be smirking from the grave. Do we have the capability of righting the ship?? It keeps me awake at night 😢
@@jamescomber5531 Many experts believe that our species will become extinct within a thousand years, as a result of low birth rates, nuclear weapons and climate change. Like the dinosaurs and thousands of others before us we will exit the stage of life.
I am not optimistic that we will be able to do so because it would requre some really dire and painful choices that we aren't up to. I am pretty confident that it will take a true collapse to wring the rot from the system. That saying about weak/strong men --> bad/good times is true.
@@jamescomber5531 The toothpaste isn't going back into this tube. We are apparently heading for extinction, like many species before us.
You completely missed that automation is increasing and we will not need as high a population.
Times have changed. Technology is here to stay. Get over it. Push forward. Create something new instead of lamenting the loss of the past. We're in probably the biggest cultural transition in history. There is no such thing as a final state. Change is continuous. Go forward, not backward.
Lady everything's has a trade-off. Either pay people for what you want them to do or shut up!
Think about what you just said. If everything is transactional and men pay for sex, house cleaning, eating out, and child care, then how have women improved their situation from a hundred years ago?
@@bellbeaker7014 men like this see us as commodities now... it's about what we can do for them.
@bellbeaker7014 That was not about men and women. I'm talking about people like her who demand that others have kids. If you're not willing to pay for it, then shut up!
@Myahpd I'm a woman. Second both if you have terrible reading comprehension skills if that's what you thought I meant. I'm not talking about the relationship between the sexes. I'm talking about people like the 2 in this video who think they can simply demand that others have kids. If they want them then they'll have to pay for their upbringing or shut up!
@@kaybrown7733that’s true. This woman has been spreading the idea that since women have more autonomy, they decided to stop having children. They never talk about the high costs of raising children. They think that women don’t want to be housewives, but the reality is that most don’t have the luxury to make this choice because it’s extremely expensive to raise children and one wage in the house is not enough. If the younger generations can’t afford to buy a house literally anywhere in the world, if something so basic as a place to live is extremely expensive, then how can people afford to raise children?