I was talking to my stepdad, and he said, “Why are you the only celebrity without a makeup line?” And I said, “’Cause I’m not passionate about it.” And he said, “That’s the right answer.” I feel that way about motherhood. It’s just never been something that I’ve been overly passionate about. It’s a lot of responsibility and devotion and energy, and if you’re not passionate about that, I don’t know how you do sleepless nights and 18 years of what my mom dealt with. And when I say 18 years, I mean 33, ’cause I’m still a baby. So I’ve never felt the burn, you know? And I think for me, the burn is everything.
For any given individual, it's an individual decision... unless you take individuality away.
Posts
90 comments:
Resisting the easy rebuttal…
I'll do that job, Leland. In her case, it may be a good decision. YW.
it’s sad to me that nobody ever taught Miley or she never recognized the joy that comes from parenthood? Having children is multiplying love and joy, out of the air, by your own decision. it is a big commitment and it’s her choice,. I agree. But fewer children means less joy and love. (and yes, it can be more sorrow and the risk of more alienation. But can you have the one without the other? Can the joy even exist without the sorrow or risk of sorrow?)
Worldwide population collapse really isn’t a problem. Humans managed to survive when the global population was much smaller. It is only perceived as a problem if the only finance you know is a ponzi scheme or you’re frustrated you aren’t being subsidized for your genetic imperative…
…I’m happy Miley isn’t persuaded by the imperatives of others, too…
Worldwide population grows 83 million per year with or without her.
Thank God.
She looks like the men's room stall wall at the Detroit Greyhound bus station.
One less celebrity kid to get transed
At 33, Christ had a different passion, and invited us all to become his children.
As a parent of many children, I can say that the only thing I can think of that is worse than having children is the idea of not having children.
A lot of men have been thinking about the collapse of Rome recently. We lament the loss of a central Roman administration, the disappearance of Rome's elite, the decline in cities and a loss of social and political complexity.
Maybe women not having babies is our version of Gothic and Vandal barbarians?
The photographs of her at the link are so off-putting, but it's a good interview and she's thoughtful and articulate. I'd been avoiding reading it for days, especially since I don't care about her music
There was always a certain percentage of the population that didn't procreate for any of a number of reasons (religious calling, lack of necessary family connections, literal inability). But the population as a whole has enough people who want to have enough kids to carry us forward.
What's changed is society itself. There are fewer spaces for kids as childless people are getting more vocal about not wanting kids around (something that will get worse as we have more childless couples). Safetyism is making parenting more difficult and children more expensive while adding a burden to every experience.
Never have parents had more responsibility and expectations put on them yet given less power to fulfill those responsibilities and expectations. If we want people to have more children, we need to make having children less of a burden.
..."she never recognized the joy that comes from parenthood.."
One thing that you understand once you see your own kids grow up, is that we learn from the example our parents set. Too bad for her, but as Dirty Harry once famously said, "Do you have any kids, captain? "No" . "Lucky for them."
"And I think for me, the burn is everything."
There's a great youtube channel called Soft White Underbelly where the owner and interviewer, Mark Laita, posts almost daily men and women for whom "the burn was everything" when they were younger. 99% of them confess - for all the world to hear - how much living like that fucked up their lives, got them addicted to drugs, or caused them to destroy and pass up opportunities they regret profusely. I don't recommend watching some of those interviews unless you're set on feeling bad (for them) afterwards.
As a famous motivational poster once said, "Perhaps your purpose on Earth is to serve as a guide of what not to do". "The burn is everything" life usually leads to some very unhappy places.
I have to wonder if also a big part of the deal is the tremendously overprotection that we put on kids these days. I mean even the school drop off/pick up is something else. So much fear, it is sad.
[Shrug]. She’s 32. Her biological alarm clock has just started to ring. It will get more insistent.
I'm reading her response as very far beyond motherhood - her theme is, "If I'm not passionate about it, I won't do it."
To that, all I can say is, "Must be nice." I enjoy a lot of things, but there's only one thing in my entire life that I've ever wanted so much that it moved the needle, affected my choices, defined my actions - and that was motherhood, as it happens. But there's so much that you just have to do (if you're not damn wealthy, anyway), passion or no.
I don't really believe that she only does what "burns." I'm pretty sure she spends a lot of time on her appearance, because her brand enables her to do what does burn for her - performing music - and her brand depends on not being (sorry for the offense these words will surely give somebody) fat and grossly ugly. (I haven't looked at the pictures, but from prior exposure I know that she's always been a pretty girl and woman; any ugliness she displays now is deliberately chosen, not the result of a lack of attention to personal care or a failure to correct obvious deficiencies.) Yet she says she doesn't have a makeup line because she's not passionate about it. So her claim is an exaggeration...
...but how many young people who don't have the kind of drive that carries all before it, will hear her and say, "So, passion for what I'm doing needs to be a prerequisite for everything I do"? A lot certainly act like it.
"For any given individual, it's an individual decision... unless you take individuality away." Depends on the meaning of "individuality." For some, individuality is fully realized through relations to others, most intensely in romantic love and parenthood. What greater "burn" is there?
But avoiding parenthood is hardly just an "individual decision." Young women and men avoid too-close relations early, looking for something better, a bigger "burn," and then find, without "deciding," that they somehow missed out on children. And that they do not through some rational process of deciding but under the delusions of a zeitgeist to which they unwittingly submit, laughably imagining themselves "individuals." Not just in US, of course.
I did not have my first child until I was 39, and for a while there I wrestled with the proposition of childlessness like many other people my age or that you read about here. I was still 50/50 until about a week after my eldest was born when his complete helplessness made me realize how much I loved him and was willing to do to make him happy. I think that's a large part of what love is.
Now I can't think of what my life would be like without my kids, and there are parts of my life before they were born where I can'[t recognize the person I was...it's like looking at myself in a movie playing a part. They changed my life. For the better.
The solution to population collapse is certainly not to be found in making people like Cyrus have children (God forbid), but rather in redirecting society away from producing so many people like her.
When motherhood became about choice women lost the chance to be overwhelmed by immanence.
I can't fault her for not ranting to be an indifferent mother. Parenting is such a leap into the unknown that some people let themselves get scared off when in fact they'd be good parents, and that's a shame, but of course the opposite is true too. Some people have kids and really mess them up. Her experience as a child star probably skews her perceptions.
She also has man hands - scratch that - man voice.
Parenthood is the ultimate expression of empathy. There in our baby lives a man and a woman in sympathetic union. Now if we can just get our house in order. #HateLovesAbortion
--- Safetyism is making parenting more difficult and children more expensive while adding a burden to every experience.
+1
Every experience inclusive of many other non-child activities. Undo those regulations, Prez Trump. But that is jjust a start.
I got around to checking Wikipedia. She’s divorced. Being a single mother, even if one has plenty of money, is very difficult.
The deepness of her voice may be disconcerting, but I'm seeing that it is said to be caused by a vocal cord disorder called Reinke's edema. It may have been caused by overuse of her voice, beginning when she was quite young. Per Grok: "Starting her career at age 12, Cyrus toured extensively, straining her voice. Post-show adrenaline led to late-night talking, which later turned into smoking, further irritating her vocal cords." Then there's the trauma explanation: "Cyrus noted her voice changed after the 2018 Malibu wildfire, which destroyed her home. She attributed this to emotional trauma, suggesting it added a "heaviness" to her voice." And she had surgery for the edema, which also caused change.
Watched a show some years ago on PBS on "Keystone Species". Anyone else see it?
It was really fascinating. I forget if the show was NOVA or...?
Anyway - the current panic on population has more to do with the giant global ponzi scheme. We need more consumers to keep the BS rolling!
Reality is - possibly - (and I'm not saying humans are a keystone species) that it might be possible that our over-populated situation is retreating naturally. ..and it might be a good thing.
She’s another product of what Disney does to young talent. She deems to tell us insightful things. However, I have mostly pity for her, if I think of her at all. Go ahead girl, buy yourself flowers and put your name in the sand. All of that will be gone in a week and then what do you have?
I would think it would be difficult to promote a line of cosmetics when you’re a twenty-something with a voice that sounds like Marge Simpson’s 8 pack-a-day cigarette smoking sister.
"If I'm not passionate about it, I won't do it."
I'm not passionate about cleaning the house and taking out the garbage.
But I do it.
Heh… make that thirty something…
Spiros said...
A lot of men have been thinking about the collapse of Rome recently. We lament the loss of a central Roman administration, the disappearance of Rome's elite, the decline in cities and a loss of social and political complexity.
Maybe women not having babies is our version of Gothic and Vandal barbarians?
This is the primary malady in our society right here. We do not have large families anymore.
When I was younger we had a giant 4th of July party with hundreds of people in our grass field. We would burn some apple wood in a hole and bury a pig in there. Dig it up the next morning and set up tables. A clan softball game. Eventually you find out that everyone there was a 2nd or 3rd or 5th cousin. We all had a several uncles and everyone knew everyone. There was a strong social fabric.
Now we don't even know how to open a bar tab.
Kate at 8:42!
We need some heavy influencer to exhort the masses to go forth and multiply.
I did not have my first child until I was 22. I didn't have my first grandchild until I was 45. What you don't realize is all that responsibility at such a young age forces you into adult choices. More importantly what you don't realize early on is that by starting your family when you're still basically a kid means that you get to enjoy the company of your favorite people in life for decades longer than most.
There are 340 million people in the country. We put men on the moon with less than half that. We don’t need more people. We need more parking.
>Achilles said...
Single mothers and people who do not have at least a replacement number of children should not be able to vote.
If you don't have a positive stake in the future you shouldn't be a part of shaping it.<
Yeah, because the only possible way to participate in the shaping of the future is by having kids. Tell it to James Madison, Isaac Newton, and millions of lessers. Good god, you're an idiot.
Iman: I always called that voice, which was very common growing up in the sixties and seventies, two packs of Lucky's and a pint of Jack Daniels. Lucky's are over-toasted. The cigarette equivalent of Charbucks.
I don't agree with everything Theodore Beale (Vox Day) says, but today's post is very pertinent:
"Prior to being “liberated” she would not have been expected to show up to an office and put in the same effort and hours as a man regardless of her physical state, but accepting false premises invariably leads to suboptimal consequences.
If you’re a young woman, think very, very carefully about what you actually want, not what some ugly Jewish feminists from the 1960s told you that you should want. Because if you pursue it, you’re probably going to get it. And while being a man is many things, two of those things are not “easy” or “fun”. Also, it’s exceedingly stupid to follow the path set by mentally unstable women whose lives were burning trash fires and whose ends were ugly."
"No one was more important to the birth and flourishing of early women’s liberation than this singular persona. Shulamith Firestone died alone in New York, in her East Village apartment, where apparently she had expired some days before. No one had known of her passing."
Liberals finance their lifestyles by transferring the costs to the children they are not having.
Agreed about Kate @8:42 - VERY well said!
.."unless you take individuality away"..
so, Here's a fun thought!
imagine two completing cultures.
culture A) is sophisticated, and cool! and worldly, and NEAT!
culture B) treats women like chattel (they treat their men like chattel too)
culture A has a replacement rate of about one half to one child per woman (if that high)
culture B has a replacement rate of about 3 to 4 children per woman (or higher!)
in three or four generations.. which culture is still in existence?
FUN! the first three letters, in the word: Funeral
Many women have ambivalence toward having children. (My own mother did, as she told us, but gave in to an ultimatum from my father after seven years of marriage, and then went on to have four kids in seven years.) But they overcome it, take the plunge, and then discover it's the greatest decision they ever made. No doubt some regret it, but I suspect that's a small minority. I don't care about Miley Cyrus, but it's a shame that so many go childless and miss out on the pleasures.
Ann Althouse said...
“…especially since I don't care about her music…”
I don’t particularly care for her music either, but she does a good cover of Dolly Parton’s “Jolene”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwblaKmyVw
Spiros said...
“A lot of men have been thinking about the collapse of Rome recently. We lament the loss of a central Roman administration, the disappearance of Rome's elite, the decline in cities and a loss of social and political complexity.”
Towards the end, the Romans had an extremely low birth rate, too.
gilbar said...
“So here’sa fun thought!
imagine two completing cultures.
culture A) is sophisticated, and cool! and worldly, and NEAT!
culture B) treats women like chattel (they treat their men like chattel too)
culture A has a replacement rate of about one half to one child per woman (if that high)
culture B has a replacement rate of about 3 to 4 children per woman (or higher!)
in three or four generations.. which culture is still in existence?””
And women in culture A usually have their children in their late 30s whereas culture B women usually start in their late teens. Culture B has nearly two generations in the time it takes culture A to have just one.
Rocco said, "Towards the end, the Romans had an extremely low birth rate, too."
Once again, a post from Scott Alexander, provides an anecdote:
"By the Imperial era, Roman fertility was plummeting. Partly this was because the Romans practiced sex-selective infanticide, there were 130 men for every 100 women, and so many men would never be able to find a wife. But partly this was because the men who could find wives dragged their feet. (Male) Roman culture took it as a given that women were terrible, that you couldn’t possibly enjoy interacting with them, and that there was no reason besides duty that you would ever marry one.
In 131 BC, the Roman censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus2 proposed that that the senate make marriage compulsory because so many men, especially in the upper classes, preferred to stay single. Acknowledging that “we cannot have a really harmonious life with our wives”, the censor pointed out that "since “we cannot have any sort of life without them,” the long term welfare of the state must be served”… As Beryl Rawsom has reported, “one theme that recurs in Latin literature is that wives are difficult and therefore men do not care much for marriage.”
The Romans understood that this was long-term fatal for their empire, and tried all sorts of schemes to increase family formation. In the mid-first-century BC, Cicero re-proposed Metellus’ scheme to make marriage compulsory, but it failed once again. Augustus contented himself with punitive taxes and second-class citizenship for unmarried and childless couples, combined with subsidies and affirmative action for men with at least three children."
The worldwide freakout about the population explosion was wrong. The worldwide freakout about population collapse is also wrong. The people and cultures that value children will end up running the future. I won't be around to see it, so I'll leave it to them.
If you don't want kids have them anyway. That way you get grandkids who go home after visiting.
LOTS of y'all are saying things like:
The population of the USA used to be half of what it is now, and that was fine..
In a generation, when the population of the USA is half of what it is now.. Do you think that women will stop using birth control?
WHY? why do you thing that?
in reality, in two generations, the population of the USA will be a Quarter of what it is now.. and then in the next gen on eighth (then one 16th, one 32nd, one 64th)
Serious Question: what was the replacement rate in ancient Rome?
https://www.learnancientrome.com/what-is-child-exposure-in-ancient-rome/
Steve Austin Showed Up For Work. said...
The people and cultures that value children will end up running the future.
as i'm fond of saying: The future Belongs, to those who show up
Ice Nine said...
>Achilles said...
Single mothers and people who do not have at least a replacement number of children should not be able to vote.
If you don't have a positive stake in the future you shouldn't be a part of shaping it.<
Yeah, because the only possible way to participate in the shaping of the future is by having kids. Tell it to James Madison, Isaac Newton, and millions of lessers. Good god, you're an idiot.
When you don’t have an argument you resort to exception and ad hominem.
Try to make an actual systematic argument for letting people who don’t have kids to vote.
I will agree there should be alternative ways to support society like military service and potentially a path for infertile women to support fertile women.
And to open up with the stupid comment is dangerous. Especially when you are looking up. You should probably be a little less assertive on that front.
I saw the Letterman interview with her. She seemed in control, but there were a lot of demons trying to bust out. Maybe someday they will.....I read somewhere that Jessica Alba, Rihanna, Selena Gomez, and one of the Kardashians have all achieved billionaire status by means of their beauty product lines. I'm sure that this is a field that Miley will eventually get into. A billion dollars generates its own burn.
I don't think Gwyneth Paltrow is a billionaire, but she probably does all right. Why do some women make a billion dollars selling beauty products? The above listed women are famous, but not super stars, and not especially more beautiful than the average beautiful woman.
I checked out that Jolene cover. It's OK, nothing special. But one strange thing I noticed; The Dolly Parton original says
"... please don't take my man.
Don't take him from me just because you can."
Cyrus changes that to
"Don't take him from me even though you can."
Strange.
I don't see it as a population collapse so much as a delayed natural die off for people with in-born issues. Before modern medical science, a huge percentage of all humans died off every year. The population was small, but people with strong bodies who loved children kept making loads and loads of babies with random potential.
After science figured out germs and surgery and effective drugs, those who wouldn't otherwise breed, bred. Then, the weaker offspring who were living on borrowed time and wouldn't otherwise breed, bred. It only takes 3 or 4 generations for a population initially boom and than naturally collapse.
Evolutionary fitness is a brutal master, but one who will not be denied. Grim Reaper. Final Destination.
if you’re not passionate about that, I don’t know how you do sleepless nights and 18 years of what my mom dealt with. And when I say 18 years, I mean 33, ’cause I’m still a baby.
An unexpectedly perceptive and honest comment from an unlikely source. I would sooner have expected flapdoodle about grrrl power and feminine energy and not bringing children into the world who are going to be killed by melting icebergs.
Go Miley. Her music is not my cup of tea but I respect her level of self-awareness. So many dumb, dull, cringy and very stupid women who proudly wave their "motherhood" on instagram for everyone to see, oh god, please save us from these idiot "mothers." They have the mentality and voice of a messed up fourteen year old. These "mothers" do more damage than good for humanity. Stupid people raise stupid children. This is why the world is a shithole.
Don't sweat it. The Amish actually enjoy life.
Even better said, Howard @10:00AM.
Can we please stop horriblizing the future. I hated it when the left did it. Now people on the right are doing it. You want young people to have kids? You want them to have happy lives? Then be optimistic about the future. Even if you don’t believe it. The greatest gift we can give to future generations is to be optimistic about the future.
We can’t predict who the next president will be but we know exactly what’s going to happen a hundred years from now and whatever it is the one thing we are sure of - it’s going to be awful.
No. Just no.
Happy Women with a cause...
Just Another Day in Minneapolis.
https://x.com/ProjectConstitu/status/1930142748293714132
Do they look like motherly types?
The low birth rate is the effect, not the cause.
And the cause is not any one single thing (beyond the introduction of effective contraceptives), but the combination of lots of small things, many of them economic.
Others have pointed out how car safety seat rules end up pricing many families out of having more than two children.
College tuition does the same thing, as do ineffective or dangerous public schools (which require parents to come up with parochial or private school tuition).
"Safetyism" prevents the stay-at-home parent from just letting the kids play in the yard while cleaning the house, making meals, etc.
Fewer stay-at-home parents make it more difficult for groups of kids just to play around the neighborhood with parents knowing that somebody's ears were be open if a kid fell and broke an arm. Therefore more supervision is required, using up labor hours.
Massive immigration puts a lot of pressure on housing, job market, school capacity, etc.
Every one of these things--and even the combination of all of them--can be and is overcome by individual families, but average this stuff out across the entire economy and you end up with lower birthrates (in the same way that although no one decides whether or not to get married based on the tax rate, having a "marriage penalty" reduces marriages across the whole economy when everything is averaged out).
However, the single most influential factor in the decision to have children and the number sought is OPTIMISM about the future. On average, people have fewer children when they are pessimistic about the future of their society and more when they think those children will have a good life.
Look at the graph of birthrates since 1980: they shoot up when everybody is optimistic in '84-'90, slide down through the early '90s (people forget that the economy was pretty rough from '88-94), then pick up when the economy improved in early 95. This upward trajectory was flattened by Sept 11 but then grew steadily to the peak in 2007. But the Second Depression that started in 2008 really knocked the stuffing out of Americans' confidence, which didn't really recover in Trump I and absolutely cratered with the response to covid.
Birthrates are a lagging indicator but way more accurate as a measure of "right track / wrong track" sentiments.
Miley was raised in an environment of fame and wealth beyond my imagination.
Miley is not personally responsible for assuring the world's population is maintained.
She sounds honest to me when she says why no kids.
At least she's thought about it, unlike far too many who wake up pregnant.
The Hollywood showbiz types shouldn't be allowed to breed. To be charitable Cyrus has around a decade left perhaps and then she goes to the knackery, career wise.
Miley is terribly messed up. Drugs. Exhibitionism. Bisexuality. She was married to Liam Hemsworth, but he cheated on her. It's probably for the best that she's not having a kid now. Maybe she'll get her act together eventually. Maybe not.
She did go out with Patrick Schwarzenegger for a while (theme of the day?). Now her father is with Liz Hurley, which would have been totally unbelievable when they first became famous.
Plot a graph of birth rates against house prices, and against the cost of living.
You’ll see your answer clear as day.
currently,
it's ILLEGAL to have children NOT in car seats/not in the back seats
there are ALSO, *NO* cars that can hold 3 car seats in the back seats; and cost less than: a ZILLION Dollars
This means, that ONLY SUPER RICH can legally have more than two kids..
Unless you're Amish, and then BREED AWAY!!
Human beings continue to exist because the genome that they have evolved evolved inclines almost all of them to engage in sexual intercourse. Again and again and again, even after two or three or four or five children. Once the eugenicists succeeded in separating reproduction from sexual intercourse in modern cultures, the members of those cultures, if they were to survive, needed behavioral patterns that would persuade the large majority of individuals to decide to repeatedly give birth to children. It became a matter of "individuality". It is as if eating or breathing became a matter of individual choice.
This radically altered the course of humanity in ways more numerous than you are interested in hearing about.
You’ll see your answer clear as day.
Miley skipping children because she can’t afford a home for them?
Maybe you should stop with economic analysis, because you suck at it. But if you are advising Democrats, well carry on.
The world's problem is that the people procreating above replacement rate are the 'Death to America' sects. If this keeps up my grandchildren's kids may be forced to bend the knee.
No matter. The unassimilable Muslims we're importing, and which she approves of, will more than make up for it.
She'd be a lousy mother anyway.
There should be many more women who admit they are not parent material. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Nice, Kate!
the Romans had an extremely low birth rate, too.
Their birth rate was fine.
Their infanticide rate was off the charts.
Choose life - but if you don't choose life, understand your choice including its economic consequences.
We understand the economic regime we live in but not the demographic regime and yet each generation as a group chooses its demographic regime while largely inheriting its economic regime. The lack of understanding of the current demographic regime will have major consequences by the 2030's because starting then the large group of the childless will try to collect Social Security. They will then understand that in their regime the childless are (relatively) rich when they are young and poor when they are old.
When I was younger about 5% of women in the US never had children; now it's 15% and still rising. In the present demographic regime 15% of the population will have no working adult to support them when they are old nad can't work. At present the childless group believes it is providing for old age via Social Security contributions. Actually they are providing for their parents by those contributions. And their children will provide for them - except they have no children. That's the demographic regime the childless are living in by choice. But, as I say, the childless aren't making a fully informed choice since they don't understand how Social Security really works.
Furthermore, the childless don't understand that in their chosen demographic regime they have to ask the parents who had less because they raised children to continue to have less because the childless want those children to support them as well as their own parents. This becomes a significant problem when a significant number of the childless reach old age - say in the 2030's. What will be the response?
At present, the thinking of those who have 3 or more children doesn't matter because those adults are only 25% of the voting population. But their children will be a majority. The childless seniors will be asking those children, a voting majority, to support them as well as their own parents. The childless will even think that they are entitled to more of the wealth created by other people's children than those children's own mothers because the childless made higher salaries than the moms. However, the childless will not be a voting majority.
So no one should be forced to have children but when each one of us has a choice, we should choose wisely with a regard for consequences.
Not having children may seem like an individual choice, but, just like the obesity epidemic, it is a choice encouraged by society in various ways.
This is similar to the thinking of 18th century (or longer ago) aristocrats, but extended to almost the whole of society, because modern society has reached a level of affluence where the lifestyle that was once the monopoly of a small percentage is now shared by more than half.
Both diabetes and not having children even though one can afford it fall in this category.
Just like the world went on even though a small number of rich people refused to have children and/or died of diabetes centuries ago, so it will keep going now. However, since these diseases of affluence now affect more than half of society, the impact may be more visible now. The future will tell.
Cyrus would have been better of watching Hannah Montana than starring in it. For the myriad of reasons listed above we have disincentivized the middle class from having kids and incentivized the poor to have kids. The wealthy can afford them. Another issues is paternity. Paternity should be mandatory to incentivize the actual parents to man-up and rest fears that many men have of being played into being a provider.
There are so many things I wish I had done differently with my two children, but somehow they managed to produce perfect grandchildren for me to spoil.
My child bride, twelve years my junior and seventy, has been watching The Handmaid's Tale. I think it's soured her on having more kids.
This is our great filter. It would seem the dominant culture has elevated hedonism and individualism to such an extreme that fewer and fewer people see the point in investing in our future. Children and families are no longer seen as a gift but as a resource drain which would better be applied to other more pleasurable pursuits.This is not universal as there are small, but flourishing subcultures bucking this trend. They have been able to navigate the urban monoculture and modernism and not abandon the values which lead to strong flourishing family life. The future belongs to them as those groups which can’t do this will go extinct. Lets just hope the death throws of our dying global culture doesn’t take them with it.
I explored where this heads a year ago with my essay on Cyrus' song Flowers. https://frank-hood.com/2023/06/09/the-flowers-phenomenon/
Parenthood, like marriage, is the antithesis of an individual decision. Inability to grasp this is your cratered demographics.
I'm going to generalise here, but as a group women tend toward being risk adverse. Through history women didn't really have the choice to have or to not have children. They needed men for both protection and resources, and then natural outcome of sex was children. Once women had the ability to access birth control, and no longer required men for protection and resources the factors that lead to children being inevitable were reduced or removed, however the tendency of women to avoid risk did not change - which inevitably lead to less women choosing to have children. Not only that, the left has pushed the view that women as individuals should pursue goals other than motherhood, and that motherhood is oppressive, whilst pursuing a career is rewarding and liberating.
As commenter after commenter above has noted from personal experience - they often changed their view on children more favourable after they actually had the experience of children. Previously this also was encouraged via seeing friends and peers having children. Now we have reached a critical mass where there is not the same level of experience of peers having children which overcome that initial risk aversion.
And thats how we got to where we are.
"Darwinism" protects us again. Thanks, Chuck...
So basically she was an asshole as a child and is afraid she might get the same so she ain't having none of that~
It will indeed be a strange turn if the traditional means of population control - war, famine, pestilence, and catastrophe -are solved and cancelled by reason, leaving reason as the ultimate means of population control. Check out some of the Hans Rosling Ted Talks on population growth.
Rather silly arguments. If a woman wants children she should try to have them. If a woman doesn't want children she shouldn't. The ideas that all woman want to have children and must have children is just silly. Note that the argument that men should all be dads and want to be dads isn't mentioned. For the most part people who want children tend to be good mothers and father's and those that don't aren't. Exceptions of course as in everything.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.