1. Cost of having and raising children. 2. Women find they are unable to further their education to ENSURE they are able to care for themselves. 3. Children prevent a clean divorce from an abusive spouse. They are forced to live where the ex husband is when they need to move to another state, city, or town for better work. 4. Why have children who face a terrible life in uncertain climate change and uncertain job prospects for their children. 5. Having a child is a lifelong commitment.
6. The pitiful state of education in this country 7. Gun violence. 8. Healthcare for one is a burden. Healthcare for 2 or 3? Forget it. 9. The increasing unsafety of the internet and social media for children. 10. Atrophy in social circles and communities that traditionally worked together to raise children: can't rely on others when you don't know your neighbors, have no friends you trust, the church is abusing kids and mom and dad are sipping maga-ade. 11. The steady throttling of free/safe places and activities for children (parks, libraries, after school programs, art programs, even the pools in my big city were closed all summer)
Yes. Those that want to increase the birth rate have long been creating disincentives. Maybe time for them to insert some logic instead of repeatedly pounding the propaganda button.
The conclusions this lady makes are a load, a steaming pile, if you will. It’s simply not rational to have children (for women). Children slow you down, they cost a lot, they make you less productive, they wreck your body, they make you less desirable, etc. It is, in fact, progress that women are finally able to choose not to have children. The cost simply outweighs the benefits on an individual level. It’s as simple as that. The narrative this lady is pushing infantilizes women and their choice not to have kids, as if it’s some mysterious and unintuitive choice not to have kids.
this is a really biased viewpoint from the author and starts with a wrong motive that having kids means belief in humanity and not doesn’t. people can contribute to and care about humanity without having kids - you can contribute even more because rather than 20+ years dedicated to your OWN few kids you can spend your time focused on many more people including kids- many people have mentored children over years that didn’t have good parents and made huge difference in their lives. it’s offensive the idea one not having kids means they have less concern or interaction and investment in humanity.all the things she talks about needing kids to have you can have from relationships with kids already here- which there are many many of. also choosing not to have kids because the government has taken no meaningful action on climate change is an act of compassion for the future of humanity and concern about the future one’s own kids or their kids would very likely be facing. there’s 8 billion people on the planet why does this author think each person not having kids means they don’t believe in humanity’s worth/ it can be the exact opposite- belief in humanity’s value and wanting to contribute to quality of life for all not just having one’s OWN kids.
@@muteloch2798I listened to it and to be honest I had no clue how this person got to this point or if they were just reacting to the title or something. She was clear multiple times to not poop on people who have a clear desire to not to have kids. Multiple times.
Erikson has the answer! It’s Generativity vs Stagnation! Of course, there are other ways to give back during your middle age years, but still there’s a simplicity to having a family that feels like a pretty natural choice. Your parents put enormous time and energy into you (ideally). Then you pay it forward by doing the same for your kids.
I always find the comments section on these sorts of podcasts a little funny. I'll finish a well done, nuanced discussion on the dialogue around parenting or not and concerns in what we do or don't discuss in it. And then i'll look at the comments and find people super triggered by what i assume is mostly the title because what they're talking about isn't what was actually said in said podcast. If you don't want kids and are adament in this, then this podcast isn't really about you. She teases that out a ton. If you're one who's weighing when or how many kids and find the dialogue around this limiting or polarized.. this probably is.
Wow this was pretty painful- if the book is anything like the pod it doesn’t sound like it will help anyone with ambivalence. Instead it sounds like a torturous exercise in a feeble and flaccid attempt to push back on peak progressivism with the obvious fact that we should want to perpetuate the species while continuously walking on eggshells and caveating every statement 5 different ways to avoid sounding like a conservative.
I had a hard time understanding the author's argument, which she admitted was vague ~50 minutes in. Millennials who are "ambivalent" seem to have a mindset of "let's not have kids until we're sure we can provide our future children with a good life. If we're never ready, that's ok." The author's counterargument is something along the lines of "your standards are too high and all your reasons sound like irrelevant excuses. Don't you care about the future?" That's my best shot at understanding at least. I thought the interviewer sounded unconvinced as well.
The fact she called herself a philosopher was risible. Extremely poor reasoning. Probably because a reasonable approach would not support her "conclusion", such as it was. It reminded me of this quote: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
The problem lies at the level of the soul. Whenever you don't choose life, you choose death. Ambivalence will eventually die out and give way to more fit psychological phenotypes.
I wouldn't worry about it. Unless you're some hedge fund guy projecting out 20+ years, it's going to negatively affect most people. Life became better for the average person after the mass die off of the black death, not worse. Certain systems will collapse but they'll only affect the top rungs of society, not the bottom.
Knowing of the outrageous cost, too much culpability and irrational expectation about the rigors of child care are far from feelings of ambivalence.
Ambivalent ain't apathetic. The greedy have created apathy, and don't realize they have hobbled their own end game.
Agreed.
@@TennesseeJed Ambivalence and apathy seems to have done it.
There are many reasons for both.
1. Cost of having and raising children.
2. Women find they are unable to further their education to ENSURE they are able to care for themselves.
3. Children prevent a clean divorce from an abusive spouse. They are forced to live where the ex husband is when they need to move to another state, city, or town for better work.
4. Why have children who face a terrible life in uncertain climate change and uncertain job prospects for their children.
5. Having a child is a lifelong commitment.
6. The pitiful state of education in this country
7. Gun violence.
8. Healthcare for one is a burden. Healthcare for 2 or 3? Forget it.
9. The increasing unsafety of the internet and social media for children.
10. Atrophy in social circles and communities that traditionally worked together to raise children: can't rely on others when you don't know your neighbors, have no friends you trust, the church is abusing kids and mom and dad are sipping maga-ade.
11. The steady throttling of free/safe places and activities for children (parks, libraries, after school programs, art programs, even the pools in my big city were closed all summer)
Yes. Those that want to increase the birth rate have long been creating disincentives.
Maybe time for them to insert some logic instead of repeatedly pounding the propaganda button.
Alienation from capitalism is killing parenthood.
The conclusions this lady makes are a load, a steaming pile, if you will. It’s simply not rational to have children (for women). Children slow you down, they cost a lot, they make you less productive, they wreck your body, they make you less desirable, etc. It is, in fact, progress that women are finally able to choose not to have children. The cost simply outweighs the benefits on an individual level. It’s as simple as that. The narrative this lady is pushing infantilizes women and their choice not to have kids, as if it’s some mysterious and unintuitive choice not to have kids.
this is a really biased viewpoint from the author and starts with a wrong motive that having kids means belief in humanity and not doesn’t. people can contribute to and care about humanity without having kids - you can contribute even more because rather than 20+ years dedicated to your OWN few kids you can spend your time focused on many more people including kids- many people have mentored children over years that didn’t have good parents and made huge difference in their lives. it’s offensive the idea one not having kids means they have less concern or interaction and investment in humanity.all the things she talks about needing kids to have you can have from relationships with kids already here- which there are many many of. also choosing not to have kids because the government has taken no meaningful action on climate change is an act of compassion for the future of humanity and concern about the future one’s own kids or their kids would very likely be facing. there’s 8 billion people on the planet why does this author think each person not having kids means they don’t believe in humanity’s worth/ it can be the exact opposite- belief in humanity’s value and wanting to contribute to quality of life for all not just having one’s OWN kids.
Thanks, I was interested in weighing the viewpoint but agree with your assessment. Saved me from watching this drek 😊
@@muteloch2798I listened to it and to be honest I had no clue how this person got to this point or if they were just reacting to the title or something. She was clear multiple times to not poop on people who have a clear desire to not to have kids. Multiple times.
Agreed. Too many buying into stereotypes and not reality.
Erikson has the answer! It’s Generativity vs Stagnation! Of course, there are other ways to give back during your middle age years, but still there’s a simplicity to having a family that feels like a pretty natural choice. Your parents put enormous time and energy into you (ideally). Then you pay it forward by doing the same for your kids.
I always find the comments section on these sorts of podcasts a little funny. I'll finish a well done, nuanced discussion on the dialogue around parenting or not and concerns in what we do or don't discuss in it. And then i'll look at the comments and find people super triggered by what i assume is mostly the title because what they're talking about isn't what was actually said in said podcast.
If you don't want kids and are adament in this, then this podcast isn't really about you. She teases that out a ton. If you're one who's weighing when or how many kids and find the dialogue around this limiting or polarized.. this probably is.
"Is Ambivalence Killing Progressive Parenthood?" (Great episode!)
Maybe using terms like “Trad Wife” isn’t helping lol (5:05)
Just a thought.
How is that term a problem?
Wow this was pretty painful- if the book is anything like the pod it doesn’t sound like it will help anyone with ambivalence. Instead it sounds like a torturous exercise in a feeble and flaccid attempt to push back on peak progressivism with the obvious fact that we should want to perpetuate the species while continuously walking on eggshells and caveating every statement 5 different ways to avoid sounding like a conservative.
Yeah, and perpetuate the species despite all the factors creating a disincentive.
I had a hard time understanding the author's argument, which she admitted was vague ~50 minutes in.
Millennials who are "ambivalent" seem to have a mindset of "let's not have kids until we're sure we can provide our future children with a good life. If we're never ready, that's ok."
The author's counterargument is something along the lines of "your standards are too high and all your reasons sound like irrelevant excuses. Don't you care about the future?"
That's my best shot at understanding at least. I thought the interviewer sounded unconvinced as well.
The fact she called herself a philosopher was risible. Extremely poor reasoning. Probably because a reasonable approach would not support her "conclusion", such as it was.
It reminded me of this quote:
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
The problem lies at the level of the soul. Whenever you don't choose life, you choose death. Ambivalence will eventually die out and give way to more fit psychological phenotypes.
Whelp, none of this is going to matter after there’s a national abortion and contraception ban and we’re all forced to give birth 🤷🏻♀️.
It’ll likely do the opposite.
Children are not pets, they are the future. Garbage in Garbage out.
Yeah basic “fact”. Interesting that the actual data doesn’t support his theories about single women. Despite his stereotypes.
I wouldn't worry about it. Unless you're some hedge fund guy projecting out 20+ years, it's going to negatively affect most people. Life became better for the average person after the mass die off of the black death, not worse. Certain systems will collapse but they'll only affect the top rungs of society, not the bottom.
Hopefully, it’s tongue in cheek. They’ll mostly impact the bottom.
Just don’t have kids.. it’s no big deal
This is a lot of blah, blah, .....for people who can't stop analyzing every freaking thing in their lives.
Why did you come to the ice cream shop if you didn't want ice cream?
Zionism