Neonatalism among educated women

Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
I don’t believe women should be pushed to stay at home, or to have kids too soon. Let us look at another side of it, divorces.

And what do their girls, millennials, and now, gen Z, learn? Not to rush to get married. Live for themselves first. Hold on to careers.

And among the millennials, the divorce rate is dropping.

The United States divorce rate is dropping, thanks to millennials
While I normally dislike nitpicking, I can't help but wonder... how would they know? Millenials are still young, and I'd wager that a substantial percentage of millennials who will at some point in their lives get married probably haven't even met their futurue spouse yet.

Hopefully you will be correct, but it just seems to early to say at this point
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Why do guys get so upset with the mere idea of a man raising kids?
I cannot speak for anyone else, but personally, the notion of a man raising children does not upset me at all. I know a young lady, for example, who was raised by a stay-at-home father while her mother worked, and while her parents relationship had many problems (and almost ended in divorce at one point), in the end it worked out, and today she's a fine person. So long as it works out, it's fine with me; raising children is an honorable enough activity, and I'd think no less of anyone, be they a woman or a man, for focusing on it rather than engaging in wage labor. The problem is that it often does not work out: as things stand, a strong majority of divorces are instigated by women, and a woman merely earning more than her partner (to say nothing of her earning while he earns nothing) statistically correlates with an even higher rate of divorce, and increased unhappiness even if they remain together. I'll emphasize this again: it is the wives of those would be stay-at-home fathers who are the ones most strongly objecting to their "man raising kids," and unlike third party observers, the objection of the wife is sufficient to result in the termination of the relationship.

Modern society's fixation on getting women into the workplace and keeping them there at any cost, no matter the broader societal disruptions it causes, mostly for the sake of enriching capitalist business owners, has proven to be more than a little destructive. And it will only get worse, because for many men, the need to provide for their family was precisely what convinced them to go along with wage labor in the first place, so disrupting family formation also results in quite a few young men simply opting out of the system, which of course makes them unmarriageable, which in turn reduces fertility, and also leaves many young women unsatisfied due to being unable to find a serious life partner, wandering aimlessly between hook-ups through their prime years, when their children would be least likely to experience complications, and when they'd have the most energy to properly care for them, and all for what? The glamour of being some mid-level administrator at a hospital or something? I'm not disparaging the work: it (some of it, anyway; organizations like universities seem to have pretty bloated administrative payrolls compared to their historic norms, and the money for them is being leeched out of young people who are just beginning life and really need the money for other things) needs to be done, but its value pales in comparison to properly raising the next generation in adequate numbers.

Were a given society to pass a law saying any individual, male or female, who did not produce at least two children would be categorically ineligible for any public retirement benefits, that would simultaneously be a strong motivator and entirely fair given anyone who didn't bother to raise at least two children would have saved the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to raise two or more children to age 18, and ought to have been able to invest it somehow were they desirous of retirement benefits. Note that this would apply to men and women both, and were either partner to stay at home while raising their children, it would seem reasonable enough to me to credit that time as "working time" with regards to the accrual of retirement benefits. Historically, part of the reason people had children was as a "retirement policy," but in developed societies, that dynamic has been largely inverted it seems: parents are expected to not only pay more than ever to raise children, but also to leave them a large retirement, while not necessarily receiving any sort of direct support from them in return. Linking public retirement benefits to fertility makes a certain amount of sense. If a woman (or man!) wants to "live for her career" at the expense of having a child under such a regime, so be it, but she'd better earn enough in the bargain to not come back and ask society for support; if she refuses to plant the seeds of future growth, how can she later demand fruit? But realistically speaking, modern civilization lacks the courage for such a policy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: civfanatic

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,815
That is in the US....

Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study that will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

"The breakups of non-marital heterosexual relationships in the U.S. are quite gender neutral and fairly egalitarian," said study author Michael Rosenfeld

This is a side effect of divorce laws... They quite simply favor women in the US therefore there is more incentive to divorce for them (as evidenced by the fact pointed out by the same study, that non marital relationships do not have this same issue.... there is no material incentive to end a non marital relationship)..... and more disincentive for men, as they know it will cost them a lot (as Jeff Bezos recently found out)
 
Nov 2018
349
Denmark
That is in the US....

Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study that will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

"The breakups of non-marital heterosexual relationships in the U.S. are quite gender neutral and fairly egalitarian," said study author Michael Rosenfeld

This is a side effect of divorce laws... They quite simply favor women in the US therefore there is more incentive to divorce for them (as evidenced by the fact pointed out by the same study, that non marital relationships do not have this same issue.... there is no material incentive to end a non marital relationship)..... and more disincentive for men, as they know it will cost them a lot (as Jeff Bezos recently found out)
This does not only apply to men.

If not my ex-husband had been so furious with me because of our divorce, that he would not accept my money, I would have come to pay a very large amount of money to him every month, maybe up to 10 years after the divorce.

And the reason I would have to pay is because he had retired and I still work, so my income is much larger than his.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,815
This does not only apply to men.

If not my ex-husband had been so furious with me because of our divorce, that he would not accept my money, I would have come to pay a very large amount of money to him every month, maybe up to 10 years after the divorce.

And the reason I would have to pay is because he had retired and I still work, so my income is much larger than his.
Sure, but this sort of situation is rather unusual.... Also I dont know how Denmark's legislation compares to that of the US when it comes to divorce and alimony
 
Nov 2018
349
Denmark
Also I dont know how Denmark's legislation compares to that of the US when it comes to divorce and alimony
There may be some legal tricks but normally, the spouses divide equally.

However, if one spouse owns significantly more than the other does, it is normal to create a marriage contract before marriage, so the spouse does not receive a share of the other's property in case of divorce, but only by death.

However, not if they have killed their spouse.;)

What alimony concerns it will not be considered if both spouses earn equally.

If it comes into consideration, the spouses can agree on an amount. If they cannot, the court will judge the top earner to pay 20% of the difference in their revenue.

Again, here may be a number of legal subtleties.

The person who does not have the children pays child support.

However, if the parents switch to have the children, none of them will pay.

If a parent does not pay, then the state pays in the first place. After which they set the tax authorities on the non-paying parent.

And as we all know death and taxes, no one escapes.

40% of Danish marriages are dissolved. And in one study, 55% of the women and 28% of the men responded they were the one who had taken the initiative.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
That is in the US....

Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study that will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

"The breakups of non-marital heterosexual relationships in the U.S. are quite gender neutral and fairly egalitarian," said study author Michael Rosenfeld

This is a side effect of divorce laws... They quite simply favor women in the US therefore there is more incentive to divorce for them (as evidenced by the fact pointed out by the same study, that non marital relationships do not have this same issue.... there is no material incentive to end a non marital relationship)..... and more disincentive for men, as they know it will cost them a lot (as Jeff Bezos recently found out)
I am inclined to agree in general; divorce law as it stands does produce a certain spread of incentives. It is worth noting, though, that "non-marital relationships" are not necessarily equivalent to "marriages without divorce law as a factor," so we should be cautious about over-extrapolating here. After all, the very fact of a couple refraining from getting married implies a potential difference in the character of the relationships in question, especially, but not only, if one further takes i to account varying cultural or religious conceptions surrounding marriage. Moreover, if the statistics regarding a wife out earning her husband being more likely to divorce him are true, this introduces at least some trouble for any attempt to reduce the matter to one of divorce-law-driven incentive, as the high-earning female's economic circumstances mirror the typical husband's, which would suggest she should be less likely to demand divorce under the theory, not more. I suspect both men and women view a spouse differently than they do a boyfriend/girlfriend, and this produces some interesting outcomes which may be difficult to interpret by comparing marital dissolution rates to mere breakups. My mind is not set on the matter, though.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
412
ph
H
Again "de population" is not a problem.... perpetual growth is neither historically a rule, nor desirable.... As for the workforce, with robots and AI large numbers are no longer needed and more and more jobs will disappear....
How about replacing workers with robots and AI?
 
Nov 2014
412
ph
Has wealth of the husband and wife been included in this survey, what if both the husband and wife come from similar upper class or upper middle class backgrounds, but since due to personality differences, and wife works in middle management, while the husband trundles along as a programmer? But in terms of assets before marriage, both are roughly equal? Or maybe the husband has sligtly greater assets than the wife before marriage?
 
Nov 2018
349
Denmark
H
How about replacing workers with robots and AI?
It would be wonderful, of course, if you got rid of these mentally deficient workers.

However, if the lower classes continue to multiply what to do with the surplus?

Nevertheless, I am waiting with excitement on this wonderful new world of robots and AI.

I just say, good luck renovating your old house with robots.