Can someone explain why childless, single working women is a bad thing?
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
We have been one time since the pandemic. I havn't lost my faith but I've lost a lot of the connection since so many of them support Trump. Having kids who need headphones to cover their ears whenever the organ is played doesn't help.
For the most part we can get them to stay totally silent for a while, especially if we can distract them. But asking them to talk but just not talk loudly doesn't work.
It's getting better but it's slow progress.
So you don't take them to church because they can be disruptive but you want people in a restaurant to be tolerant. SMH
No we havn't gone to church mostly because we feel disconnected from a group of people that will back a person like Trump as some sort of Christian hero. It is somewhat annoying that we have to put headphones on them, which is a distraction because they don't want to wear them when the organ isn't playing but need them or they might scream when the organ is playing.
My concern with restaurants goes deeper because if I had a dime every-time I've heard or seen someone complain about a baby crying or a kid near them talking too loud I could probably buy my own restaurant.
FFS - you just said you haven't been in a restaurant in 4 years.
I go to restaurants most days of the week and I can't remember anyone complaining about a child. On rare occasions a child will be misbehaving but in almost all cases the parents address it there or take the child outside so it's not a problem. On several occasions I've said to the parents "been there, done that". It's part of parenting.
You're at the point where you have this image in your head about the way people will react to your children in a restaurant and your taking it as fact. Most people are very tolerant of disturbances unless the parents ignore it. If you don't want to deal with your kids in church or at a restaurant, stay away. But don't place the blame for that on other people.
I took what you said as a compliment. You're the type of person that I would avoid in real life, so the fact you don't like me on here means I'm doing something right.
Enjoy your long weekend, Northern! I'm sure your wife is dreading it
Why don't you just find another Church?
I'm always curious why people leave churches because of the other parishioners but I don't go to socialize.
masstimes.org
Last edited:
I took what you said as a compliment. You're the type of person that I would avoid in real life, so the fact you don't like me on here means I'm doing something right.
Enjoy your long weekend, Northern! I'm sure your wife is dreading it
I recall you telling a story of a "friend" that stood you up one night. Maybe some introspection is in order.
I've told a lot of stories on here since 2008 so I'm not quite sure which specific one you're referring to. If you want to link it feel free. With that said, I do love how you care enough to remember stories I tell. You're so precious, Northern
I've told a lot of stories on here since 2008 so I'm not quite sure which specific one you're referring to. If you want to link it feel free. With that said, I do love how you care enough to remember stories I tell. You're so precious, Northern
You're a very good story teller.
Well church is in part to find connection with other believers.
My issue is do I go to a liberal church which is not in line with my beliefs or do I go to a conservative church which is more in line with my theological views but many people there worship Trump as their new God.
We have discussed trying a middle of the road church.
One of the greatest contradictions of our current economic system is that as a society proceeds and becomes wealthier and more educated, birth rates will fall. This inexorably leads to crisis as the entire system is predicated on continuous growth. A pyramid scheme with the potential to collapse in its absence.
americanaffairsjournal.org
In demographic circles, on the other hand, it is widely known that the fertility rate of a country—that is, the number of children each woman has—is a reflection of economic conditions, including the wealth of the country as measured in per capita GDP. Economic and population data across the globe demonstrate this demographic truth: a second-order polynomial regression on five decades of data from forty-three countries yields an R-squared of 0.33 and a p-value of < .00001.3
Demographers point to several underlying forces to explain why, as a country grows more prosperous, its people have fewer children. In the first place, large families become less desirable in more advanced economies. In poorer countries, which typically have agriculture-heavy economies, children are seen as an asset to the household because they are useful for farm work. Parents also rely on them for economic security in their old age, as less developed countries tend to lack adequate pension systems. As countries become wealthier, however, economies are transformed in ways that undermine these incentives toward childbearing: the agricultural sector shrinks relative to the total economy; agricultural labor becomes mechanized, requiring fewer workers; and pension systems are created. Children therefore are no longer seen as an asset to their families.
But the shift from an agrarian to industrial economy can account for only some of the decline in the birth rate. It perhaps explains why people might opt to have only two or four children instead of six or eight. But it does not explain why economies that achieve great wealth stop even having enough children for the population to replace itself (an average of 2.1 children per woman). It appears that in wealthy societies people increasingly see themselves as workers and consumers first and progenitors second. Family life is no longer a core aspiration of every person but becomes a “luxury,” another consumer choice to be made when one’s career goals are achieved and one’s optimal material consumption level has been reached. Recent studies show, for example, that 83 percent of women over the age of twenty-five purposely postpone starting a family so that they can focus on their career, thus maximizing work and material consumption. This decline in family formation has introduced a number of social pathologies, including an epidemic of loneliness and isolation. It also contributes to the mortality rate, insofar as nonparents on average have shorter lifespans and a higher rate of suicide than parents.4
In addition to these human-scale effects, the expected economic consequences of this decline in birth rates are clear. In short, this trend is already raising obstacles to continued growth, and the economic and political effects seem likely to intensify. The phenomenon is perhaps most pronounced in East Asia, where rapid growth has gone hand in hand with rapid collapses in fertility. Countries that were among the most successful in transitioning from agrarian poverty to advanced economies in the last half century have experienced astonishing declines in birth rates. South Korea and Taiwan have the lowest fertility rates in the world, at around 0.8 and 1.1 births per woman, respectively. China’s fertility rate, estimated at 1.16 in 2021, has been well below replacement for years. Beijing has notably shifted from its infamous “one-child policy” to limit population growth to policies intended to encourage more children. Of course, Japan’s population has been shrinking for some time, limiting overall economic growth despite reasonable per capita performance.
The observed correlation suggests that as capitalist growth proceeds and a society becomes wealthier, the birth rate falls; eventually, as the overall population ages and fewer people join the workforce, economic growth collapses. I refer to this tendency, which appears to be inherent in capitalism itself, as the “tendency of the rate of people to fall.”
Capitalism’s Overlooked Contradiction: Wealth and Demographic Decline - American Affairs Journal
In the mid-1860s, things were looking up for Karl Marx. After years laboring in poverty and obscurity in a small apartment in London, his fortunes seemed to be turning around. In 1864, his friend and benefactor Friedrich Engels became a partner in his father’s factory, gaining a generous income...
americanaffairsjournal.org
In demographic circles, on the other hand, it is widely known that the fertility rate of a country—that is, the number of children each woman has—is a reflection of economic conditions, including the wealth of the country as measured in per capita GDP. Economic and population data across the globe demonstrate this demographic truth: a second-order polynomial regression on five decades of data from forty-three countries yields an R-squared of 0.33 and a p-value of < .00001.3
Demographers point to several underlying forces to explain why, as a country grows more prosperous, its people have fewer children. In the first place, large families become less desirable in more advanced economies. In poorer countries, which typically have agriculture-heavy economies, children are seen as an asset to the household because they are useful for farm work. Parents also rely on them for economic security in their old age, as less developed countries tend to lack adequate pension systems. As countries become wealthier, however, economies are transformed in ways that undermine these incentives toward childbearing: the agricultural sector shrinks relative to the total economy; agricultural labor becomes mechanized, requiring fewer workers; and pension systems are created. Children therefore are no longer seen as an asset to their families.
But the shift from an agrarian to industrial economy can account for only some of the decline in the birth rate. It perhaps explains why people might opt to have only two or four children instead of six or eight. But it does not explain why economies that achieve great wealth stop even having enough children for the population to replace itself (an average of 2.1 children per woman). It appears that in wealthy societies people increasingly see themselves as workers and consumers first and progenitors second. Family life is no longer a core aspiration of every person but becomes a “luxury,” another consumer choice to be made when one’s career goals are achieved and one’s optimal material consumption level has been reached. Recent studies show, for example, that 83 percent of women over the age of twenty-five purposely postpone starting a family so that they can focus on their career, thus maximizing work and material consumption. This decline in family formation has introduced a number of social pathologies, including an epidemic of loneliness and isolation. It also contributes to the mortality rate, insofar as nonparents on average have shorter lifespans and a higher rate of suicide than parents.4
In addition to these human-scale effects, the expected economic consequences of this decline in birth rates are clear. In short, this trend is already raising obstacles to continued growth, and the economic and political effects seem likely to intensify. The phenomenon is perhaps most pronounced in East Asia, where rapid growth has gone hand in hand with rapid collapses in fertility. Countries that were among the most successful in transitioning from agrarian poverty to advanced economies in the last half century have experienced astonishing declines in birth rates. South Korea and Taiwan have the lowest fertility rates in the world, at around 0.8 and 1.1 births per woman, respectively. China’s fertility rate, estimated at 1.16 in 2021, has been well below replacement for years. Beijing has notably shifted from its infamous “one-child policy” to limit population growth to policies intended to encourage more children. Of course, Japan’s population has been shrinking for some time, limiting overall economic growth despite reasonable per capita performance.
The observed correlation suggests that as capitalist growth proceeds and a society becomes wealthier, the birth rate falls; eventually, as the overall population ages and fewer people join the workforce, economic growth collapses. I refer to this tendency, which appears to be inherent in capitalism itself, as the “tendency of the rate of people to fall.”
You referred to them as selfish and shallow. You inferred that they had no life purpose and claimed their lives were empty. Feel free to apologize for ALL of that.
Ok I'm sorry I shouldn't have judged individual cases.
However I do think that the culture rewards selfishness.
Well the wedding is about the bride and groom not some special needs kids being so distracting. I take it nobody wants to babysit your kids that’s why you don’t go? Sounds like it might be a nice break for you and the Mrs…
I think encourages is a better word. Hyper-individualism is ingrained in our society from a very young age and on. As the article I linked suggests - more and more people are viewing having children as a luxury decision that's made after meeting their other needs; needs that are increasingly more difficult to attain for many.
Can it be considered selfish when it's happening on a macro level in most countries around the world with very strong correlation or is it simply a built-in byproduct of our system?
Do you always make every celebration about you and your family. Why should someone be forced to include your kids when it's an adult celebration. Someone has to pay for everyone that attends, they don't want to pay for every kid. Not understanding that is really odd. You sound like a Montessori parent.
