To play devil’s advocate since I’ve been a little energetic in this thread already, I’ll go ahead and agree that they’re probably correct about single-income, two-parent homes having better outcomes for children.
I disagree that it should always be the woman staying home (or always the same parent through the children’s adolescence, or that both parents should have different genders, or) but I think the premise is sound.
They’re also objectively correct that women should, on average, be having children earlier (but wrong when they want it to be before the age of majority, or when they want to lower that age, or permit child marriage, or want to deny that couple sound sex education and medical care.)
Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history. It's also still the norm outside of the US. Where is the evidence that children are worse off because both parents work? Kids (5+) barely spend any time at home during a typical work day, so I'm not sure what "they" are correct about.
How is it objectively correct that women should, on average, have children earlier? Sorry, but this is purely a subjective statement and women are free to agree or disagree with that statement.
Having been raised by my grandparents, I personally believe the only secret for success is to show up for children, and love them and provide them a stable environment to thrive in. Everything else is just window dressing.
> Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history.
You dont really have income and non income on a household farm. You have patriarch making decisions and everybody else working. This included slave owning farms where she had managing/organizing responsibilities.
Also, women in lower classes needed income and did worked for it. They did not had professional occupations and they were responsible for children, so it was things that fit into those boundaries - low income non professional work. But it was not really done for funsies. Then again, kids as small as 5 were left to handle by themselves and older kids were supposed to contribute.
It is really incomparable to being stay at home parent now, isolated and literally having nothing useful to do except existing and playing.
Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context that these are widely-held, American right-wing opinions that I happen to agree with.
> How is it objectively correct that women should, on average, have children earlier?
There are a few specific birth defects that are more common in younger mothers but most become much more common as the mother ages, and the overall risk of complication & death increases with maternal age.
> Having been raised by my grandparents, I personally believe the only secret for success is to show up for children, and love them and provide them a stable environment to thrive in. Everything else is just window dressing.
That’s a great sentiment but of little practical use in deciding policy.
Ah, sorry, I guess I'm not sure what it is you're actually debating needs to be fixed. Are children being born today with more birth defects and we (society) now want to concern ourselves with the issue that if parents want to have children, they need to plan for it and start earlier? Is that what a supposed objective policy would try to address?
Men also have a clock and birth defects are known to go up the older they are. So this can't be limited to women regardless of policy decisions.
I'm also not sure there could be any actual conversative government policy that could fix what is ultimately a financial incentives problem. Lots of parents would start earlier if they were able to have things like home ownership and space to raise kids in, and education systems that don't skew towards needing upper middle class levels of access to. Any potential new idea with any realistic long term fix would end up looking quite progressive and in our current hostile environment become a no-go for any conservative political appointee.
Just to also play the devils advocate, why SHOULD women be having children earlier. Its very much a very personal choice in their own freedom. I don't think this should be a political take at all. In this decision there is nothing any Government should have a say in.
> Just to also play the devils advocate, why SHOULD women be having children earlier.
Lower prevalence of complications, lower risk of death, lower risk of birth defects.
> Its very much a very personal choice in their own freedom.
We don’t disagree.
> I don't think this should be a political take at all. In this decision there is nothing any Government should have a say in.
Unfortunately, Americans don’t live in that world. The government makes decisions that impact the health of pregnant mothers and children all the time.
> It's not something government should regulate but it is something that government policy should incentivize.
Every time this comes up, there are numerous instances reported of welfare states in Europe, Asia, etc. trying this and it not working.
The west, and especially the US is falling out of love with republicans and liberal democracy as they learn that some problems need to solved with an iron fist.
The "iron fist" is merely creating new problems at an alarming rate. Sure, in theory a wise benevolent monarch could institute reforms that are hard in a democracy. In practice, the current crop is nothing but performative grifters and their cheerleaders are unwilling to draw the distinction.
Markets being completely free got us in this mess, and while sound on paper has so many potential ways to go wrong it should be controlled by the working class either directly or indirectly through voting
Theft is a symptom, not a disease. Eliminate the disease and theft effectively disappears
Educational choice deserves to be respected so long as it isn't being used to propagate objectively false information
> Markets being completely free got us in this mess, and while sound on paper has so many potential ways to go wrong it should be controlled by the working class either directly or indirectly through voting
Is that what got us into this mess? (Which mess?) Take medical care, for instance. Is that a free market? Not really, no.
I mean, there are clearly markets that can be too free. No, you can't put poison in food and call it "free market". You can't roll through the farmer's market with guns and take everybody's stuff and call it "free market". There is a level of regulation where markets work best, and they work worse with either too much or too little regulation.
But something like the medical market... most people can't shop around for insurance; their employer works with only one insurer. Most people can't shop around freely for doctors; they have to go to someone within their plan. And so on. That's not even close to a free market.
> Theft is a symptom, not a disease. Eliminate the disease and theft effectively disappears
Great. Now tell us what you think the disease is, and how you think we should eliminate it.
> Educational choice deserves to be respected so long as it isn't being used to propagate objectively false information
And who is going to authoritatively determine what is objectively false? You just appointed that person dictator of the educational system. (See previous remarks about free markets.)
The disease is poverty most of the time, if not directly then indirectly. Solving it is wealth redistribution at a massive scale but unfortunately our masters need another yacht
The educational system was working pretty well in terms of objectivity until the right wing started screaming about kids pissing in litter boxes and universities censoring right wing ideology.
The reality is that right wing ideology is unpopular when exposed to objective discussion. Turns out most people dont agree those concepts.
So now we have an administration who's actively working to censor universities to compel speech and censor ideas it doesnt like via lawsuits, executive orders, and funding elimination.
Neither of these is right wing value. They are right wing talking points right uses when it suits them and completely ignores when it does not suit them.
