The standards of what's "acceptable parenting" shot up greatly in the past decades. In the 60s, you were a great father if you passed out drunk only sometimes, didn't beat your kids too much and brought enough income to feed/house the family.
My childhood was all about spending the whole day outside roaming the streets with very little involvement from my parents. I didn't have any after-school (organized) activities, and I don't remember a single time that my father would drive me anywhere just because I needed it. That was all just normal, but today might get social services called on you.
It used to be that the average person at 25 already had worked a full-time job for 5-7 years. Now a college education is much more important and at 25 many haven't had a full-time job at all yet and in a way haven't been exposed to the real world. I sometimes think about Robert M. Pirsig's point that young people should work and then get further education to see better where the value comes from. I do wonder if that would push children even further back though.
A high school education doesn't go as far as it used to, women have more life paths that don't involve being a stay-at-home mom, houses are harder to come by, average age at first marriage is almost a decade higher than it was in the 50s ... notable, sure, but interesting, I dunno.
True. Though until recently, children were usually allowed some adult-level duties and responsibilities before their early 20s, so they could actually grow up. My mother did all the cooking for a family of 6, on a wood stove, before she was 12 years old. In an era (and economic circumstances) when "we need more bread" meant "check that there is enough flour in the bin, and get some water from the well...".
I don’t think anyone really thinks that. The vast majority of people in their 20s are perfectly capable of raising children, it’s just not desirable.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing (why not spend your 20s exploring?) but it’s also easily explained by financial burdens that didn’t used to exist. Housing is now very expensive, can you blame people waiting until they have the right size home before they have kids?
They just didn't know any better.
The whole idea that everyone has to have children is frankly asinine.
I want people to have fewer children.
I want fewer people to have children.
I want nobody to have more than two children.
The whole idea that population must grow and keep growing is silly.
It is ok for the population to shrink a little.
They didn't say "Nobody should be allowed to have more than two children". They simply have an opinion that people shouldn't, purposefully, have more than two children. Seems reasonable to me.
Yes, thank you.
I'm not Mao.
People should choose to have either no children
Or ideally one or two children
And not no children.
Ideally, we as a society should support people who choose to have one or two children,
prioritizing these families over people who have half a dozen or more children.
But that's because in my opinion people who have dozens of children have something wrong in their heads.
If you choose to have a dozen children, you better be able to afford to raise them all on your own dime.
That being said, I really dislike means testing of any kind so I'd be ok with a social safety net for the wackos and their unfortunate children.
That is good and I'm all for it but a problem is now is that fundamentalists still have a lot of children and at some point, they will have too much political power.
