MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fees
As a 76 year old American grandmother married for 51 years with 3 married kids and 14 grandkids, I remember the profound comment my late husband made when I was badgering him to share infant care 50-50. He said that he believed our child care would average out 50-50 throughout our parenting. He'd spend more time working out, coaching, camping, hunting, etc. with our sons when they were older and I was better suited when they were younger. This was indeed very true and wise throughout our lives -- and our homelife was so joyful and fulfilling that all our kids have more children than we did!
I am a mother of 3 daughters who substitute teaches in the States. I was in a TK classroom last week. It was an extremely structured classroom for little ones whose brains are developed through play, which was concerning to begin with. There was a 4 year old who was bright and cheery when she walked in, but throughout the morning, you could tell she wasn't feeling well. I tried taking her to the nurse, but I was told that she has "a lot of emotions," so I should just let her "get over it." Time goes on, and eventually, she throws up in front of all of her peers in the cafeteria! 💔 My heart broke for the poor little girl. Not only did the adults not listen to her pleas for help, they also put her in a box of being "too sensitive" and didn't listen to her at all. I'm sure that incident made her feel as tiny as a knat and will carry with her throughout her life. Children are being structured, labeled, & disregarded for the adults to control, manipulate, & emotionally harm. It's disgustingly horrifying!
The education system as you know it was modeled 150 ? years ago after the Prussian system which was engineered to churn out "cogs in a machine" for empire building.
@kennorthunder2428 This is an entity that gives the children the teachers working with no empathy, care, or support that is needed for a young mind to prosper.
Suburban individualist living has isolated first time mothers away from mothers, aunts, grandmothers, sisters, cousins, family friends, neighbors, and community members who would help take of the mother after the birth. In Northeast Asian culture, the new mother rests all day and eats superfoods and nutritious foods, while all the other women do all the household chores and errands that must be done. This severely lowers post-partem depression. When women live alone in a suburb of women without shared values, morals, ethics, social norms, traditions, she will feel alone and isolated.
Louise does such amazing interviews shining a light on issues that so many people don't want to face. But she's still unwilling to see this as anything more than unintentional negative consequences. Feminists- and those that funded and supported them - knew full well what this ideology would lead to. They wanted to destroy the family unit and free women from the "burden" of motherhood.
I've always said this. I'm 63 years old and have seen how women going to work has impacted. Women were coerced into going to work too. They were made to feel they were a drain on their husbands if they didn't contribute financially. Those who still chose to stay home were punished by the rising house prices that forced them to leave the home. Now we are in danger of kids being indoctrinated because parents have to hand over the raising of their kids to a bunch of strangers.
Not building enough houses is the problem. However, the bigger issues here to consider is this...what used to happen when women could not support their family when the father of their children deserted, fell ill, had an accident, or died? What was life like for those children? What happened when women had no financial autonomy? I'm afraid the outcomes for families in those positions was utterly dire.
@@dayamitrasaraswati6276 Never heard of 'Single Mother Pensions' or what qualified you for such a payment and when this was available and where? However...why would you want to live restricted to a fixed income handout that's just enough to get by and also has to fully come from other people hard work who are also trying to support their family? No way I would want to live in a world where I cannot work, not in command of my own fate or that of my family, cannot access work or keep some independence, at the whim of government policy of how much that is, controlled by the state and always having to vote for whoever permitted me the most pennies to feed my children or myself. Horrifying thought.
Nz & Aus also have early childhood curriculums….There are babies and young children who stay in all day commercially run care which can be 7am-6pm every day without a holiday break. It’s not unusual for under 5s to be in childcare longer than the teachers work for the day. Many children are hugely disregulated throughout the day and are certainly absolutely shattered by the end of the day. Painting it as education is quite a creative stretch when some infants, toddlers & young children are in early childhood education for 11 hours a day 5 days a week.
The obsession with GDP is stupid. When government policy doesn't work, do something else. If you want to be pro-family, make housing cheap by reducing demand: block immigration, block foreign and corporate ownership of residential property. If property is cheap, you can have a good life without jumping on the corporate ladder. That is better for women, for families, and for men who would like to experiment with creative but risky business ideas.,
I'm Australian and in the 1970s and 80s we were famous for affordable family housing on 1/4 acre blocks. All gone since mass immigration began. We have not had replacement level birthrates since 1976. If not for immigration and foreign investors we would have ample affordable housing without building any more housing.
@@pbrown0829 Actually you don't know that. "Basic" economics aren't proven to be reproducible experimentally. They are all thought experiments, which makes them useless.
Poland pays an equivalent of ca. £160 a month per child in child benefit which is not means tested (compare that to the measly £16.95/week in the uk for second and every other child!!). There are other benefits for large families like the large family card which entitles large families to a variety of discounts (like public transport). The latest addition to the support package for families are cash incentives for grandparents to look after children of parents who are both professionally active. It’s utterly crazy how hostile the UK is to families.
Australia used to pay married women to raise their children, but inflation has eroded that to enough to buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk. There was talk of grandparents being able to receive the government contribution to child care. But it was decided that for grandparents to qualify they had to do a diploma and register as a childcare provider. And really if you are a grandparent who is providing childcare you don't have time to do the diploma and probably don't have the money to overhaul your house and garden.
@@joane24 I might not have explained it properly. Almost a century of research shows that the daycare situation harms children under three. However the government will pay large corporations to care for children from six weeks of age. There is no evidence that grandparents or other close family members cause this harm as ussually these people genuinely love the child and are safe for an infant to bond with. But grandparents etc are not entitled to any of the government payments, unless they actually become a daycare centre. Many grandparents complain about this. In our case my husbands taxes are paid towards providing inferior care.
Importantly, the idea that little children (under 4) need education that needs to be done outside the home is incredibly demeaning to parents. What do people think of parents that they believe little children need outside professional help with their education? All parents can speak their mother tongue, all parents can count, all parents can recognise colours, all parents are capable of meeting other families with children so the children can play, all parents are capable of taking children to playgrounds. The vast majority of parents are able to read to their children, and there's libraries that offer free books or story times. If parents are not capable of providing early "education" to children in this way, the fault lies surely in the education system that produced such incompetent adults, and the parents need support to make up that deficit. There is an argument to be made for help with young children to learn the language of the country they're in, if the parents speak a different one, but that can still be resolved by providing classes at libraries or children's centres so the parents can do that with the child. Only in a very small number of abusive households are little children better off not being at home. By all means provide day care and even call it education, but please don't imply that a child at home full time isn't being educated.
The problem was the wrong solution to a well stated issue. It's great women got their subjectivity and the culture started to realize its misogynist structures. But the wrong solution was given: instead of requiring men to better themselves in terms of sexual behaviors, it decided women should be equally sexually immoral. Male promiscuity, fathering children from the wedlock, abandoning children - both from the wedlock and the family, extramarital affairs - these all were more or less socially accepted, not necessarily outwardly, but rather implicitly under the sigh 'well, men will be men'. These were the actual problems before the sexual revolution of the 60-ties. The solution was to allow women do the same, starting from female promiscuity. The wrong solution to a real problem.
If men were being sexually immoral prior to the sexual revolution and women's lib, who were they being sexually immoral with? Men were fine the way they were. The bad was were the vast minority and they were shamed for it. They provided for their wives and families. A few ugly women decided they weren't grateful for that.
I’m a Christian, and Jesus gave the proper solution 2000 years ago. Jesus taught that men and women are morally equal. That extends to sexual morality. Jesus put forth the revolutionary principle that a man must be as sexually restrained as a woman. Men must maintain their virginity until marriage, men are not allowed to divorce their wives with exceptions of sexual immorality or abuse, men are not allowed to have extramarital affairs or a second wife. Men are not allowed to have children out of wedlock. Matthew 5:27-32 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Before sexual revolution, were Men banging walls and trees because female were not yet liberated? Feminism is basically bullshit peddled by secular democracies for votes.
Yes, women always worked inside and outside the home - almost all of the work menial. The modern world requires a different, more literate, labor force and women have stepped up to provide the skills and intellectual heft that is necessary. There is nothing wrong with women being fully human using all their talents. Nostalgia for the “good old days” will not bring them back.
At the cost of how children were raised..... Thats what this whole video is about. You say there is nothing wrong when the video outlines so many things wrong with it.
The coming demographic crisis has the potential to crash our civilization, which will erase all social progress gained by women over the last century. So, women can choose to have kids voluntarily, or they can be made to do it in a post-civilization world.
You forget that for the vast majority of men their work was also menial back in time too - only recently are some jobs not menial. The industrial revolution forced work largely outside of the home - before this men did agricultural work mostly, and women did care, crafts such as weaving, and dairy work etc. Obviously with overlap between these roles as women helped with harvest and men were weavers etc too. After the industrial revolution, you get the rise of the middle class that actually get choice over their work, instead of doing whatever to get money for food, and those jobs required a choice between the home and the work. I'm not wanting to "go backwards" as I like many modern things like medicine and food availability etc etc but acknowledging that all families face a choice between child care and work is a modern phenomenon that causes many parents distress and has effects in the economy. It is bizarre to me that the vast majority of child care workers are women, yet the government considers that useful work but when women stay at home with their children, maybe even the same number of children (given the high ratios needed for little children) that is looked down on. My criticism of the modern world is women aren't given the choice feminists promised they'd get - the statistics in the video are clear that lots more women would choose to care for their own small children full time if it was economically viable. Yes there will always be women who choose child care and go to their non menial jobs, but there are many other women forced to use child care and go to a menial job anyway. It's not really liberation for those women, I'd argue.
@@AmyDawson-s1d The issue I have with this podcast is the notion that modern women can be full time mothers and homemakers. I agree with you that this is no longer possible for the majority of women - it is a dangerous nostalgia. Rather than looking to the past for answers we need to consider current circumstances and find appropriate solutions.
Equal opportunities? Where are the Equal Opportunities for men? What do the femunists mean by equal? They mean access for women to 50% of the opportunities created by men. That is parasitism not equality. Where are the 50% of the opportunities created by women and shared with men? How many industries, companies, inventions etc can you count created and built up by men? What is the number for women? Are these numbers equal? So how are your equal opportunities equal exactly?
As Louise commented that she receives almost no child subsidy, I think these need to be expanded to cover more middle class people. My wife and I were paying over $2500CAD/mo which was much more than my mortgage for 2 kids in childcare and 1 in before/after school care. Maybe received a hundred or two dollars in childcare benefits. Other families in a similar situation were paying a total of $600 as they were a lower income family. This was 7 years ago, and at the time I thought I might be better off staying home instead.
I hate it when women turn their husbands/partners into housekeepers & complain when they don't do enough. Two-income couples certainly raised the cost of housing, they can offer more & have led to the high housing costs. Split couples add to the housing crisis by needing 2 homes in one family. All things that are never talked about. As for child care, the most cruel thing you can do to children is putting them there. No wonder there is so much mental stress in young people.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 i think that is one of many things those " far right " MRAs have been pointing out. Occasionally they tell me things because of the hypocrisy
Do we know children to divorce? Parents are doing worse than those with couples that stay together? Or rather, couples that are forced to stay together for other things than choice? I have plenty of divorced mothers in my friends group, and sadly they all agree on that the divorce what was it took for their husbands to grow up and take responsibility over the children. They are now stress-free, and the children have engaged and responsible parents in both homes. I also have friends to divorced parents, who definitely witness of being happy and relieved that the arguing and fights stopped.
@aemma_official Such BS divorce damages children and they have stats to show that for decades. Far too many selfish me first women. " i am not perfectly happy needing to compromise" 🤮
There are certain areas of social housing where it would be utterly impossible for the middle class to raise their children,to some extent I don't blame them
In the US parenting and housework is still like a 90/10 time split women to men, with like 85% of mothers having to work outside the home. The "increase" in men's participation in the household is a whopping 2 hours a week or something on average. £70k might be great but $70k is scraping by at this point in the places that have jobs that pay that here and still in a two income household. The means test to qualify for aid like food stamps with two people is $26k or something currently. We end up with a lot of families that if the parents get married they lose food, healthcare, subsidized childcare, and of course this makes it easier for the father to leave. One thing not discussed in the US is how many "single mothers" aren't actually single but if they want to feed their children they can't declare the father on the birth certificate. I know at least three, two of which have been together decades, where the parents just can't get married and feed the kids at the same time. All parents except 1 mother work, the family would lose money if she put the kids in daycare to get a job. One child policy is right, if even that.
@@katansi So that does mean why are they not responsible enough to wait till they have a reliable partner, marry them who is able to support the family BEFORE having children ? 🤷
@@non_ideological_transexual7414 The majority of couples require two full time incomes to raise even a single child and the average cost of daycare for that single child is about as much as the average rent. Full time working adults are no longer able to afford families during their most fertile, healthy years. It has nothing to do with a reliable partner, it has to do with basic costs of living. A child born today will cost about half a million dollars in resources for the 18 years before college and saving for any post secondary education. This is not for private schools and caviar, this is for basic food, shelter, clothing, public education and daycare/babysitting. That's $28k/yr or almost $40k/yr alone before taxes and mostly front loaded in the first few years when the adults in the family are making less in their careers.That is an entire full time job. If one parent doesn't work in order to save on childcare that only saves 50% of the cost in the first few years while at the same time the working parent needs to make another $20k to bring the rest home. The only thing that doesn't change if you have two children is you don't have to upgrade your living situation assuming you had two rooms already but the cost of everything else doubles. Do you really think so many people aren't having kids just because they don't want them? The reliability of a partner has little to do with their income. Plenty of garbage unstable humans make millions, it's called the financial sector. A reliable 22 year old isn't making enough to support a family on their own, so they wait til they're 40 and the fertility has gone through the floor.
A wonderfully tragic balance that we go through over the ages; economic boom -> comfort -> economic collapse -> recovery. We’re in comfort / economic collapse unfortunately. Still, in a way we’ll recover, the real wisdom is in finding the balance between economic and social prosperity. The West lost ours when we gave up our Christianity as national and local identities, in the 60s.
There is no solution. Women were not happy or they wouldn't have joined the Women's Movement so enthusiastically. It just created a different set of problems. Since men didn't evolve, now women are joining 4B.
No, we can give women real equality! No more special protections! Equality in homelessness - the majority of homeless are men but women receive preferential treatment in access to social housing! Evict 70% of women from council houses to equalise those on the streets. Equality in prison - increase the number of women arrested, charged and imprisoned. Also desegregate the prisons - give women the same level of protection from prison rape that the male prisoners get! Equality in taxes - double women's taxes to be equal to the taxes men have to play! Equality in social spending - reduce the over spending on women by 20%! Equality in murder - double to number of women murdered! Equality in life expectancy - reduce women's life span by 5 years! For equality! Once women get equality in the bad side of life, not just the good side, they will reject equality!
Women demanded equality in the good parts of life eg education. Women are not so keen on equality in the bad side of life eg homelessness. They will increasingly find that their special protections are being removed!
By definition the women who joined were the most mannish and the lesbians (the most masculine), and not the mass of normal women. The solution men collectively chose of trying to accommodate this fraction is looking more and more like a misreading of how best to respond.
It was said that the domestic duties that women traditionally did are not valued anymore, but I do believe our governments have put monetary values to them in the form of subsidies for childcare and elder care facilities. Presumably they've figured out a cost per day or month to administer the subsidies. I had a policy idea while I had children in daycare. The provincial government was discussing $10/day daycare, and since they probably figured out how much per child this was going to cost, a simpler solution would be giving a tax deduction for one parent to look after the kid(s) at a similar rate the daycare would charge the government to do it per child and the income earner could apply the deduction on their pay. If I recall correctly, and there may be other reasons as well, there was a shortage of qualified Early Childhood Educators and daycares to implement the $10/day policy here in British Columbia and haven't instituted it to my knowledge, but there would presumably be no such shortage of homes and parents... By just giving a tax deduction, there would be little to spend on government busy-bodies inspecting and licensing all these facilities and other administration tasks, probably saving many millions from an otherwise much larger program and would potentially cover the cost of the tax revenue loss of not having both parents taxed. This idea could also be potentially used for caring for one's elders as well, and thereby the domestic duties could now be compensated. Edit: I guess he makes a similar argument at minute 24.
It was so predictable that women's entry into the workplace would not lead to increased wealth. Simple economics: supply and demand and the impact on prices. Doubling the supply of workers basically reduced the value (ie price) of work.
100% intended. Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon of the 60's and 70's worked for the CIA disrupting socialist youth festivals before beginning her feminist activism. The CIA bankrolled her activism and her magazine Mrs. Magazine. The CIA has always acted on the material interest of America's oligarchs and they determined that they could direct and shape the women's movement to extract the most amount of wealth out of the working class to the benefit of the elite while suppressing the risk of the working class developing class consciousness and solidarity.
I'm 65 and never raised a child,I feel guilty,I knew nothing about being a Father,my own Father left home when I was 7 and left for USA aged 10,it would never come natural to me
Fascinating. Sadly I think this is only the beginning of the impact as well. I think men will give up entirely in a world where women don't provide domestic care. That is the only thing men used to work for. Work has never been fun for the majority of men. They worked for their women and children and the sanctuary that provided. They fought wars to protect the collective sanctuary. Women have left the sanctuary. Why would they bother now? Women have largely abandoned the work of care and entered the GDP economy where men were. That has changed the nature and purpose of the work itself. Men are losing interest in a lot of it as a result and no longer benefit from the care of women for their sacrifices, so why do it? I don't think this can be dismissed as an incel talking point. In large part, if women work, then men won't. This will shape our political lives more than we recognise over the next several decades.
Exactly. I'm a Conservative Christian, a Trad Catholic to be exact, and it annoys me to see fellow Conservative Christians dismiss these men who makes these points as red pillers who are just giving up. These men are worn out and are given absolutely no hope and when they express how they feel, they get called incels. Their points need to be addressed or nothing will be solved.
The UK is in my opinion the most riddled society in the Planet,two big parties two cultures and ne'er the twain shall meet,the private school thing sums it all up
The middle class need two wages to buy a house in a good area because they simply could not raise thier children in other environments because their values are at odds
The Taxation system should be based on marriage income divided by two. For every child you should pay a 20% percentage less in tax. 5 children means you don't pay tax at all
The class devide up here in Scotland is cringeworthy the middle classes or aspirational working classes try hard as they may to avoid traditional Scots speech out of fear of being seen as low class
Increasing the role of the domestic/care but still having small family size just plain does not work. It would lead to helicopter parenting. Individual kids were LESS pampered in past eras, not more, despite the larger role of the domestic. If we don't want to make it so women are expected to have kids 5+ times in their lives, their energies need to be channeled somehow else. A semi-non-serous answer is that in an alternate world where animals/pets play a greater role, women would tend more to those (rather than trying to make the rat race and consumerism work). And of course civil engagement in general.
I think helicopter parenting has raised as less parenting takes place... You only get a little time with your children so use it to the max. Don't spend those precious hours with your kids out to play with other kids. Also, because there aren't other kids out, because there's no sense of a community keeping an eye on them, kids can't go and play in playgrounds with other kids. These are the things that people previous generations had that prevented helicopter parenting - the Famous Five idea that the kids are just out and about all day with other kids and back by suppertime. The only way to get that culture back is to have more stay at home parents imo - we know friends who are studying on a campus (modern equivalent of a village) and most of the women don't work, the kids run out and in of each other's houses all the time, and are off playing on site together. When all the kids are off in daycare, there are no other kids to play with and stay at home parents can feel isolated and it breeds the helicopter parenting. If there's more families out and about in playgrounds, mums and dads can chat to each other, children can play with other children without parents following them around everywhere. Just my thoughts.
@@AmyDawson-s1d There is something to what you have said. Perhaps it's correct. I can see how "fear" what happens to the kid if neither mum nor dad are at home can lead to a helicoptery perspective
I approve of the series MMM. I admire its Christian and none woke values. Housewives, i have always held in high esteem , not so career women who are mothers at the same time. There is asociety Mothers at Home Matter MAMA.i think like minded women, housewive znd mothers should unite and rise against the authories and stick up for their rights. Motherhood is not just about young children as older children need you., too. Also sahms also csre for the old frail in the family instead of leaving them to institional care. It works in the olden dsys and in could again. Working mothers had a lot to answer for:- they jacked up the cost of living and made it difficult for tradwives. My neighbour, a headmistress poured scorn on me for staying at home with a bevy of children , yet had the nerve to demand that i babysat her children while she was attendingg a scool meeting. She didn't care that i needed a doze having been up every night twice a night feeding a baby, and i was milk donor too. I did oblige but was glad when she left the area. Fathers cannot breastfeed and expressed milk in bottles is not as good. So, fathers being mothers is not a good idea. The benefits of feeding naturally are innumerable to both mother and child. Politicians please take note. Breast feeding should go on for a long time and then weaned slowly. Nature (ie God) has desgned it this way. I looked after my mother in law when i was pregnant when i could. Food is free if you breastfeed. My mother worked as a schoolteacher since mye age of nine, and i really felt deprived and was, well into my late teens. She was too tired to notice me and far more interested in her career and enjoyed the status. This is why i refused to work afer marriage but i did a lot of voluntary work when i could. Unfortunately one child got sick and i needed to care for him until he died. If you feed naturally, you don't have to buy baby food which is expensive and not as good. You can make do and mend. I had a sewing machine, and knitted, crocheted and darned. Iput all children in sandals when possible, they sre cheaper and better for feet and last longer. I am surevi made the right decision.You can swap around with other friends and parents. As for expensive toys, they like playing with the dog and vice versa, climbing trees and jumping on beds. The mothers in the area thought toys were expensive and so we all encouraged jumping on beds. We bought books etc. Some women relied on a low number of nappies. They got to know when their children needed to pass urine znd feaces and acted accordingly. I think you have to be an expert to do this, but nappies were avoided and bottles and tins of food, so these measures reduced the costs of babyhood somewhat. I and my friends werenot expert enough to lessen the use of nappies but i have known mothers who were expert. (I think that is how Mary , mother of Jesus must have managed). If i ran out of nappies, rarely, i used very old towels as a substitute. I was always there for my children and alert to picking up nonverbal communication. The spoken word is only 7 per cent used in communication, so body language is important and says more when it is picked up. I used to think housewives were dim when i was young and when i became one, i knew it was sll the unseen work that they do including night feeds. They also pick up thr slack that career women have neglected like olf frail family members. Polticians please heed what i say. Mothers promote family life so there is less crime in the cuture, and already we have overcrowded prisons, and mabe we would less prisons in the future with tradwives.
Times have changed. Technology is here to stay. Get over it. Push forward. Create something new instead of lamenting the loss of the past. We're in probably the biggest cultural transition in history. There is no such thing as a final state. Change is continuous. Go forward, not backward.
@@racheljames7I totally agree! We need to avoid changes that are destructive to our humanity future. We need to celebrate care, motherhood and childcare. Its more important than economic development
Is so wrong parting children from mothers. I was still feeding my babies at nine months as nature intended completely . Mils espessed in bottles is not as good for babies. I was a tradwife and ite not just away babies but the old infirm in the family. I fed my children myself well into the second year. I had a school phobia and made myself ill so as not to go aged seven. Some children are not ready for school aged five. I couldn't fo my sums or knitting. Mum eould have made me go as she didn't understand. I hated her working and felt deprived even when I was quite old. She love here carer more than me and only worked school hours (there was homewrk) as a schoolteacher. I would not dream to send my children to daycare except in emergencies. I did all the care myself and better and we socialized very well with other families! I listed on feeding naturally for so long as the benefits to mother and child , if possible, are too numerous and great to mention here and parting mothers and children does not have the same benefits. Politicians please note. I know what I am talking about emphatically. Tradwives pick up the slack for neglected old people that careerwoma have neglecte d. What is paternity leave for? Fathers cannot feed their children naturally which is best, and the havnt carried the child for nine months and been through labour which the mother needs to recover from. Mothers have mothers intuition and instinct also. Fathers are important but in a different way from the mothers. The headmistress next door poured scorn on me for being a trad wife but she had the nerve to demand that I babysat for her children and free. Double standars here and never mind that I had my own commitments a baby that needed feeding often and at nights, a bevy of children , a cat and dog with issues . I did oblige but thought to myself I was a better parent. I also did voluntary work by dy donating to a milk band for premature babies like many of my friends who were young mothers. So I and my friends DID help society. Tradwives are the salt of the earth but motherhood and careers do not go together at the same time. Something has got to go.i and other tradwives put our families first. I was looked upon by society but I would do the same again. I was deprived by my mother working in her career. Women are ingrained to care for the household and young children. Fathers have a wisdom that is different. My husband didn't understand about shoe size children. They can gro w every three months! Men are the breadwinners and women are the breadmakers. Men read the headlines and women read the smallprint. Why have children if you are not allowed to care for them? Mothers and careers don't go together, tough. There is a society Mothers at Home Matter and I agree with totally, and the membership is growing. I take it further having been a trad wife, I looked after the frail in the family aa most trad wives do. I did various forms of voluntary work like most trad wives. Working mothers have jacked up the cost of living, we could live on one income in the past, and we could again! I used to thing tradwives were dim as a child and when I became one myself I realized it was exhaustion. I had a bevy of children and they became good citizens which we need. It was my contribution to society (I contributed to society in other ways too). Pain relief in labour can be controlled extremely well!!! A mother forgets about the pain after the birth to a great extent but probably a mother would not admit it. Z mother needs to rest after childbirth and the sleepless nights which in my case went on for a year with each child (I didn't mind because the child's needs must be met). It can take up to two years to recover completely from childbirth, so society should not put on mothers with young children. There is danger of post natal depression which is serious, and that can manifest itself up to two years. Politicians lay off tradwives, they need looking after by their husbands. Support families properly znd I don't mean childcare and work for mothers or prolong paternity care.
I consider this to be a very good, and important episode. However, what now occurs to me is probably the clearest possible way, to express some of the main ideas I've been circling around (as a fan of this channel and medium). One idea involves, just about the entire economic focus. I suggested recently, that beyond 'politics being downstream from culture,' culture also arguably is downstream from economics (and from resource considerations). An important qualifier, is that I was speaking about government policy from the sociopolitical macro-level. I suggest a heuristic, stating that government/macro should prioritize: 1st) economics 2nd) culture 3rd) populism. (Arguably the usual culture/politics adage pertains to a populist subcategory, of contemporary "culture war" politics). While the personal-individual/micro should prioritize the inverse: 1st) populism 2nd) culture 3rd) economics. The former supports the healthy development of productive individuals from the 'top-down,' while the latter charts the individual's development from the 'bottom-up'. Concerning "populist sentiments": I suggest that beginning in childhood/adolescence, continuing through early adulthood, individuals who develop so as to meaningfully contribute to society, undergo a gradual process which involves gearing their specific, prosocial tendencies, sentiments and interests, toward a well-matched, supportive subculture. When economics are completely, prohibitively, and immediately prioritized at any point during an individual's development, the result is a kind of 'freeze effect'. "Developing one's personal interests" sounds perhaps like an often-described luxury, available to some. However "personal interests" could probably be semantically better understood as a stand-in, for "developing capabilities". If there is no supportive culture present to help develop people's tendencies, in a 'socially integrated' manner, and if there is economic strain 'pressing down from above' (thus perhaps part-time, pre-career work is untenable while attempting to develop within some cultural context, especially for young families) then a society's most well-rounded, competent careerists, with greater personal investment in society having established a family, will simply not exist in sufficient numbers. Individual development stops when totalizing economic demands start, especially when these entail particularly excessive pressures. Personal sentiments lacking context, and associated with populist attitudes, are representative of a raw, early stage in an individual's social development, and the layer of culture gradually mediates the integration of these tendencies into a maximally productive economic role. This process describes the healthy development of an economically productive individual. Small governments should optimally manage fairly minimal economic policies, as well as resource-driven geopolitical concerns. When the order of priorities is 'flipped,' the would-be professional class becomes underdeveloped, and therefore underutilized. With fewer skills, and little freedom, due to omnipresent economic constraints. These excessive constraints produce a vicious cycle, whereby government and societal mismanagement become the norm, when strained, underdeveloped professionals afflicted with scarcity-mindset, comprise the incoming members of the upper social strata at any given time. On the UK in particular: To my mind (as an American observer) these kinds of economic constraints are all-encompassing, and inhibitory for any developed country to maintain its normal functionality. Aside from specific details discussed, from the outset of this entire discourse: It is simply not possible, to have a solitary viable locale in which for all middle/upper-middle class citizens to reside, when that locale cannot support its population. Nor to negotiate the apparent necessity, for leading professionals to double as lower-level civil servants. (Everyone stands to benefit, from the optimal social positioning of individuals). Nor to struggle economically, despite multiple forms of work undertaken in a given family, spanning multiple social strata. Nor for a middle/upper-middle, productive strata of a society, to forgo appropriate development of skills and knowledge on an ongoing basis, as a result of the above. My opinion, is that many policy considerations in this discussion are insufficient to address foundational problems. Government must be better managed, and an economic future must be secured, for a prosperous sovereign nation to remain as such.
Most. And the ones who vote no will say, "it should be the woman's choice," forgetting that no man has ever said men should have the choice. Its expected of men to get out there and earn to provide for his family, and rightly so. But women moan on about how they should have the choice, rather than just doing their duty the way men always have. And to any woman who says, "But my ex didn't work," more fool that woman for being sexually attracted to a layabout.
The mothers should stay at home and not ghe fathers. Mothers can only breastfeed and not fathers. Expressed milk in bottles is not as good. Feeding naturaly should go on for a long time and day and night. Daycare is alright in emergencies or special cases.mothrs and chidren need to bond.
@@stacykay4072 I mean that's true, but you need to recognize your own culpability as a demographic of society in creating an environment where you depreciated the value of labor, compete with men for opportunity, and then judge men as insufficient on the back end when men can't maintain the traditional standard of provision to which you are accustomed. For every lonely bitter incel who's upset because he's not attractive to women, there's a lonely bitter cat lady who makes 150,000 a year and can't find men who are attractive to her and also willing to commit.
While it's possible, as implied, that considerations of "status" extend beyond the officially-designated, workforce-hierarchy, and are appropriately understood to also encompass home-life, and non-designated caregivers etc., I suspect that "status" especially in the context discussed on this channel, is most aptly associated with formal hierarchy. I think stay-at-home mothers should be socially appreciated, of course, just as much as Louise. Although perhaps somewhat semantic, I think mothers can be socially appreciated, without necessarily receiving "status" per se. I think status, especially as discussed here, is only needed when women or men enter the workforce. The term probably demands a qualifier, like "official status". Status seems to me to be a signal-monitoring mechanism, for valuation in the marketplace. If this approximate definition is tenable, then status isn't really needed at home. There's no competitive marketplace, no fluctuating valuation. At least, not in any form that the average person would recognize. I don't think a change in the perception of status is necessary to justify non-typical, pro-natalist policies amidst a dangerously plummeting birthrate. I generally resist such policy prescriptions, however I also recognize necessities in potential emergency scenarios.
I remember when it was still unusual for the mother's of young children to work in my country. And yet there was status, or should I say a hierarchy among housewives. How clean is your house? Are you a good cook? Do you sew? Do you grow fruit and vegetables or keep poultry? And ofcourse, as other women always judge do you dress nicely and style your hair? Certainly these were how women measured their self esteem, and indeed their status. Many of these activities were also economically productive, and created a barter economy that could not be taxed by government. It was also healthier, as so much good quality food was produced, rather than the rubbish many working mothers buy. I also believe people were happier, but perhaps it's just the nostalgia of remembering our youthful selves.
Feminism or women’s liberation is the result of massive technological advances which occurred between about 1900 and 1970. Prior to 1800, most people supported themselves by subsistence agriculture, meaning that they ate what they grew. Farm work was physically strenuous and a woman could not support herself and her children, especially with frequent periods of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. A single mom could starve to death. Widows and orphans suffered greatly and depended on charity to survive. For a woman to voluntarily live a life of single motherhood was suicidal. Therefore women did not have sex before marriage and after marriage she was submissive to her husband on whom she depended for survival. However during the 1800’s well paying jobs for women became available in factories. After about 1900, single motherhood was still extremely difficult however it was possible. In the 1930’s condoms became available making it more practical to have sex without pregnancy or STDs. Social services also began appearing in the 1930’s. So did better paying office jobs for women. Pre-marital sex and divorce were still uncommon however they were both increasing significantly. After 1945 more women went to college and were able to find well paying office jobs afterwards. Social services were improving. Penicillin, which cured most STDs, became available. In 1960 the birth control pill became available. Finally in 1973 safe, legal medical abortion became available everywhere in the United States. This was the end of traditional marriage except in some small, very religious communities. After that men and women entered into relationships of varying length. There was no real distinction between a girlfriend and a wife. Men and women who cohabited were “partners”. Women no longer needed to live with a man and they often didn’t, or at least they didn’t live with the same man for too long. Once there was a disagreement about something or one partner became bored with the other, the relationship ended. Women usually had only one or two children in spite of having sex regularly starting at age 16. Single moms could support themselves and their child through working, child support and welfare. In the beginning all of this started out really well. Instead of being stuck in some boring old marriage and women getting pregnant constantly, everyone could now have sex with whoever they wanted to whenever they wanted to. And women no longer had to listen to some bossy husband who was telling them what to do. But there were unintended consequences. First of all, low birth rates will lead to extinction. Long before that there will not be enough young working people who are prepared to care for elderly people who can no longer support themselves. Probably assisted suicide and euthanasia are going to become much more popular in the decades ahead. Fentynal is the new pension plan. Additionally, with all the sexual freedom, it seems as if more men are beating and raping women. Women are constantly competing for men and therefore dress more and more provocatively. Women commonly go to parties with men and get drunk. Women stagger out of bars alone late at night. Men, imagining that women want sex with anyone, rape them. If refused by women, men may beat them or in some extreme cases kill them. Stories of women being kidnapped, raped and murdered became fairly common in the US, something unheard of before 1970. Ted Bundy, active from 1974 to 1978, was a pioneer in this field and thanks to him the expression “serial killer” was invented. Also male employers began demanding sex from female workers. Why not? There is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. This has resulted in a backlash of women demanding more and more legal protections. Men are being evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expelled from college or fired from their jobs based on nothing except the baseless accusation of a woman which is often false. This has resulted in a backlash of men avoiding women at all cost, being afraid that following an argument or a breakup, they will lose their home, children, education or career. The safest way for men to have sex, if they have sex at all, is anonymous, casual sex through dating apps like tinder or by paying for sex on websites like seeking. Populations are shrinking, the elderly are endangered, children have no fathers and there is a Cold War between men and women. What started as a lot of fun in the 1960’s with the Playboy philosophy evolves into the miserable collapse of a civilization.
My goodness, a lot of historical facts there. Some conclusions that may be a leap of faith for some, but your summary of history is pretty undeniable. Your opinion of the future consequences of the past are very grave, but the facts are the facts.. statistically most of the planet is running well below replacement birth rate (2.1), ageing population, huge pension bills in the future. Gloria Stienham will be smirking from the grave. Do we have the capability of righting the ship?? It keeps me awake at night 😢
@@jamescomber5531 Many experts believe that our species will become extinct within a thousand years, as a result of low birth rates, nuclear weapons and climate change. Like the dinosaurs and thousands of others before us we will exit the stage of life.
I am not optimistic that we will be able to do so because it would requre some really dire and painful choices that we aren't up to. I am pretty confident that it will take a true collapse to wring the rot from the system. That saying about weak/strong men --> bad/good times is true.
Did woman gain their freedom or did they just go from one form of depression to another? form being underlayed the husband to begin underlayed the employer! and do people really believe that the employe care more about the woman than her husband? I highly doubt that.
Hah I just noticed something hilarious. (Rewatched end of this episode. Was reminded of this by something on another channel). Ends with discussion of ways to increase birthrates. Maintaining lifestyle, etc. Then: "yes, but..." HITS PAYWALL. Lol. So hilariously apropos. An argument's to be made, that money is an extension of below-discussed "status," as signal-monitoring mechanism for valuation in the marketplace. Short version, core problem with society: Signal is distorted. Radar must be improved. Putting on my mild-troll hat... As per channel name life-trajectory, the earlier pokemon version of Louise was brainwashed by a sleeper cell (back in the woke days) to actively distort signal-monitoring of the social hierarchy. Now, middle-stage pokemon peers through a murky lens, at the current seemingly static, cost-benefit analysis picture of the society and its respective inhabitants, existing in a confused state of apparent existential decline. The irony is so rich, that I'll be using it to smelt ore. It's ok LP, I have regrets too. Like being a semi-burnout, back in the day. Only weed, heh. See. Now we're both mildly embarrassed, for a brief moment. Fairness. Implies qualitative value. (One must be able to read signals).
Will politicians give high status to tradwives. Mothers are the first teachers and not educators. Feeding naturally, notbexpressed mik in bottle, enhances the intelligence of young children and this has been known about at least for many decades. Young children should be with mothers to bond. Mothersbhave instinct and intuition, which educators have not.
[I was just trwling Sargon for once, king of trwls. Seemed like a reasonable repost for some reason. Probably because after previously trwling the queen of trwls myself, she clearly counter-trwled by email-chaining my documented foibles, to absolutely everyone in the Skull and Bones Club. Most recently Nina Power on Boyce show, talkin bout 'everything's made of numbers, it's all about numbers, lolz'. Yeah, yeah. Ironic: which of us actually knows how Catholics adapted that model, plus its use in psych? And which of us just recently joined-up with the god-botherers, to establish 'gang cred' because things in society are getting hairy? Lolz. Also lookin at you, LP.] This is well-written. However, this sounds like a critique of "scientism," as opposed to "science". The semantics are relevant, because the Aristotelian approach you describe, is obviously an analog of the scientific method (properly applied) or rather, its exact application. One thing I get from this piece, is that Aristotle was simply a better behavioral psychologist than most modern ones, a couple millennia ago. By any other name. One can try to understand a culture, empirically, without subverting the culture. "Moral" is also used somewhat interestingly. It sounds from context, in essence, like "mitigating one's impulses". Facilitated by a somewhat rigid, yet traditional, cultural framework. At least to the extent it's not also/instead an individualized, almost mercenary, implied process of 'whatever works,' self-mitigation. I dunno Sargon, it sort of always sounds like people (apparently) can't control their impulses very well, yet those impulses ought to be their main basis for influencing the cultural ethos, and those separate entities are mutually, positively reinforcing, however this doesn't work as intended unless something like (probably) autocracy enters the picture, and amidst all of this, we also can't even conceive of being able to do science very well. At least, not in a way that has any direct bearing on the above concerns. I think I almost agree with the first half of that summary, because I think it's necessary to reconcile the findings of empiricist psychometricians, with the heuristic modus operandi of the liberal governing apparatus. As it used to function, and is intended to function. Sure, conservative culture can exist 'in-between' the two. Between the people, and the superstructure. But that doesn't mean we can't live under liberal governance. Or that we can't do science, in a way that's applicable when studying sociological or cultural systems. (Current universities can't really do the latter. Not lately. Which doesn't mean it can't be done).
Think about what you just said. If everything is transactional and men pay for sex, house cleaning, eating out, and child care, then how have women improved their situation from a hundred years ago?
@bellbeaker7014 That was not about men and women. I'm talking about people like her who demand that others have kids. If you're not willing to pay for it, then shut up!
@Myahpd I'm a woman. Second both if you have terrible reading comprehension skills if that's what you thought I meant. I'm not talking about the relationship between the sexes. I'm talking about people like the 2 in this video who think they can simply demand that others have kids. If they want them then they'll have to pay for their upbringing or shut up!
@@kaybrown7733that’s true. This woman has been spreading the idea that since women have more autonomy, they decided to stop having children. They never talk about the high costs of raising children. They think that women don’t want to be housewives, but the reality is that most don’t have the luxury to make this choice because it’s extremely expensive to raise children and one wage in the house is not enough. If the younger generations can’t afford to buy a house literally anywhere in the world, if something so basic as a place to live is extremely expensive, then how can people afford to raise children?
A wonderfully tragic balance that we go through over the ages; economic boom -> comfort -> economic collapse -> recovery. We’re in comfort / economic collapse unfortunately. Still, in a way we’ll recover, the real wisdom is in finding the balance between economic and social prosperity. The West lost ours when we gave up our Christianity as national and local identities, in the 60s.
MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fees
As a 76 year old American grandmother married for 51 years with 3 married kids and 14 grandkids, I remember the profound comment my late husband made when I was badgering him to share infant care 50-50. He said that he believed our child care would average out 50-50 throughout our parenting. He'd spend more time working out, coaching, camping, hunting, etc. with our sons when they were older and I was better suited when they were younger. This was indeed very true and wise throughout our lives -- and our homelife was so joyful and fulfilling that all our kids have more children than we did!
So if you'd just had daughters they were on you?
@katansi wow that is what you took from this wonderful comment about a beautiful and fulfilled life, I feel sorry for you.
Don't stupid most fathers do things with their daughters . Feminist thinking 🤮 Lets count everything up as if parents are interchangeable 🤡@@katansi
@@Slade89She is an ardent feminist cultist .No surprises
Well done. I'm 38 and that's what I'm finding with my 12 year old twins and my 10 year old. They're doing more with Dad now.
I am a mother of 3 daughters who substitute teaches in the States. I was in a TK classroom last week. It was an extremely structured classroom for little ones whose brains are developed through play, which was concerning to begin with. There was a 4 year old who was bright and cheery when she walked in, but throughout the morning, you could tell she wasn't feeling well. I tried taking her to the nurse, but I was told that she has "a lot of emotions," so I should just let her "get over it." Time goes on, and eventually, she throws up in front of all of her peers in the cafeteria! 💔 My heart broke for the poor little girl. Not only did the adults not listen to her pleas for help, they also put her in a box of being "too sensitive" and didn't listen to her at all. I'm sure that incident made her feel as tiny as a knat and will carry with her throughout her life.
Children are being structured, labeled, & disregarded for the adults to control, manipulate, & emotionally harm. It's disgustingly horrifying!
Big nanny state ....😮
@zenden6564 this is an example of the opposite of a nanny state. The child was ignored and told to get over it.
The education system as you know it was modeled 150 ? years ago after the Prussian system which was engineered to churn out "cogs in a machine" for empire building.
@kennorthunder2428 This is an entity that gives the children the teachers working with no empathy, care, or support that is needed for a young mind to prosper.
Suburban individualist living has isolated first time mothers away from mothers, aunts, grandmothers, sisters, cousins, family friends, neighbors, and community members who would help take of the mother after the birth. In Northeast Asian culture, the new mother rests all day and eats superfoods and nutritious foods, while all the other women do all the household chores and errands that must be done. This severely lowers post-partem depression. When women live alone in a suburb of women without shared values, morals, ethics, social norms, traditions, she will feel alone and isolated.
Louise does such amazing interviews shining a light on issues that so many people don't want to face. But she's still unwilling to see this as anything more than unintentional negative consequences. Feminists- and those that funded and supported them - knew full well what this ideology would lead to. They wanted to destroy the family unit and free women from the "burden" of motherhood.
Careful! If you try and impute a financial value to domestic work, the government will try and tax it.
Can't believe Louise admitted that women entering the work force raised house prices. Credit where credit is due!
Also depressed wages. When you suddenly double the labor pool without doubling the number of jobs, wages don't go up.
I've always said this. I'm 63 years old and have seen how women going to work has impacted. Women were coerced into going to work too. They were made to feel they were a drain on their husbands if they didn't contribute financially. Those who still chose to stay home were punished by the rising house prices that forced them to leave the home. Now we are in danger of kids being indoctrinated because parents have to hand over the raising of their kids to a bunch of strangers.
Not building enough houses is the problem.
However, the bigger issues here to consider is this...what used to happen when women could not support their family when the father of their children deserted, fell ill, had an accident, or died? What was life like for those children?
What happened when women had no financial autonomy?
I'm afraid the outcomes for families in those positions was utterly dire.
@@shelleyphilcox4743
Single mother pensions were brought in for that reason. It wasn't a fortune but you could live on it.
@@dayamitrasaraswati6276 Never heard of 'Single Mother Pensions' or what qualified you for such a payment and when this was available and where?
However...why would you want to live restricted to a fixed income handout that's just enough to get by and also has to fully come from other people hard work who are also trying to support their family?
No way I would want to live in a world where I cannot work, not in command of my own fate or that of my family, cannot access work or keep some independence, at the whim of government policy of how much that is, controlled by the state and always having to vote for whoever permitted me the most pennies to feed my children or myself. Horrifying thought.
Nz & Aus also have early childhood curriculums….There are babies and young children who stay in all day commercially run care which can be 7am-6pm every day without a holiday break. It’s not unusual for under 5s to be in childcare longer than the teachers work for the day. Many children are hugely disregulated throughout the day and are certainly absolutely shattered by the end of the day. Painting it as education is quite a creative stretch when some infants, toddlers & young children are in early childhood education for 11 hours a day 5 days a week.
The obsession with GDP is stupid. When government policy doesn't work, do something else. If you want to be pro-family, make housing cheap by reducing demand: block immigration, block foreign and corporate ownership of residential property.
If property is cheap, you can have a good life without jumping on the corporate ladder. That is better for women, for families, and for men who would like to experiment with creative but risky business ideas.,
@@dennism4481subsidies would just cause the price to rise. Basic economics man
@@pbrown0829 . He actually was saying that it should NOT be subsidized.
I'm Australian and in the 1970s and 80s we were famous for affordable family housing on 1/4 acre blocks. All gone since mass immigration began. We have not had replacement level birthrates since 1976. If not for immigration and foreign investors we would have ample affordable housing without building any more housing.
@@pbrown0829 Actually you don't know that. "Basic" economics aren't proven to be reproducible experimentally. They are all thought experiments, which makes them useless.
David Goodhart is a National Treasure. Smart, compassionate and desperately keen to see fair play for all.
Poland pays an equivalent of ca. £160 a month per child in child benefit which is not means tested (compare that to the measly £16.95/week in the uk for second and every other child!!). There are other benefits for large families like the large family card which entitles large families to a variety of discounts (like public transport). The latest addition to the support package for families are cash incentives for grandparents to look after children of parents who are both professionally active. It’s utterly crazy how hostile the UK is to families.
Australia used to pay married women to raise their children, but inflation has eroded that to enough to buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk. There was talk of grandparents being able to receive the government contribution to child care. But it was decided that for grandparents to qualify they had to do a diploma and register as a childcare provider. And really if you are a grandparent who is providing childcare you don't have time to do the diploma and probably don't have the money to overhaul your house and garden.
@@grannyannie2948 The grandparents needing to be certified child care providers 😲🤯
In Austria it starts with 133 €/Month at birth and it increases till 193 €/m with age 18
@@joane24 I might not have explained it properly. Almost a century of research shows that the daycare situation harms children under three. However the government will pay large corporations to care for children from six weeks of age.
There is no evidence that grandparents or other close family members cause this harm as ussually these people genuinely love the child and are safe for an infant to bond with.
But grandparents etc are not entitled to any of the government payments, unless they actually become a daycare centre. Many grandparents complain about this. In our case my husbands taxes are paid towards providing inferior care.
@@grannyannie2948 Yes, I understood that. I still think it's strange.
Importantly, the idea that little children (under 4) need education that needs to be done outside the home is incredibly demeaning to parents. What do people think of parents that they believe little children need outside professional help with their education? All parents can speak their mother tongue, all parents can count, all parents can recognise colours, all parents are capable of meeting other families with children so the children can play, all parents are capable of taking children to playgrounds. The vast majority of parents are able to read to their children, and there's libraries that offer free books or story times. If parents are not capable of providing early "education" to children in this way, the fault lies surely in the education system that produced such incompetent adults, and the parents need support to make up that deficit. There is an argument to be made for help with young children to learn the language of the country they're in, if the parents speak a different one, but that can still be resolved by providing classes at libraries or children's centres so the parents can do that with the child. Only in a very small number of abusive households are little children better off not being at home. By all means provide day care and even call it education, but please don't imply that a child at home full time isn't being educated.
100%
Mother keep children safe and alive.
Father's teach them grow to be a competent adult that can deal with the realities of the world
The problem was the wrong solution to a well stated issue. It's great women got their subjectivity and the culture started to realize its misogynist structures. But the wrong solution was given: instead of requiring men to better themselves in terms of sexual behaviors, it decided women should be equally sexually immoral. Male promiscuity, fathering children from the wedlock, abandoning children - both from the wedlock and the family, extramarital affairs - these all were more or less socially accepted, not necessarily outwardly, but rather implicitly under the sigh 'well, men will be men'. These were the actual problems before the sexual revolution of the 60-ties. The solution was to allow women do the same, starting from female promiscuity. The wrong solution to a real problem.
If men were being sexually immoral prior to the sexual revolution and women's lib, who were they being sexually immoral with? Men were fine the way they were. The bad was were the vast minority and they were shamed for it. They provided for their wives and families. A few ugly women decided they weren't grateful for that.
Lol women always Look at bad boy 😊 and want be like him 😭
I’m a Christian, and Jesus gave the proper solution 2000 years ago. Jesus taught that men and women are morally equal. That extends to sexual morality. Jesus put forth the revolutionary principle that a man must be as sexually restrained as a woman. Men must maintain their virginity until marriage, men are not allowed to divorce their wives with exceptions of sexual immorality or abuse, men are not allowed to have extramarital affairs or a second wife. Men are not allowed to have children out of wedlock.
Matthew 5:27-32 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Before sexual revolution, were Men banging walls and trees because female were not yet liberated? Feminism is basically bullshit peddled by secular democracies for votes.
Maybe if you did not hate men your life might work. Women choose who they get pregnant to. Women.
Yes, women always worked inside and outside the home - almost all of the work menial. The modern world requires a different, more literate, labor force and women have stepped up to provide the skills and intellectual heft that is necessary. There is nothing wrong with women being fully human using all their talents. Nostalgia for the “good old days” will not bring them back.
At the cost of how children were raised..... Thats what this whole video is about. You say there is nothing wrong when the video outlines so many things wrong with it.
The coming demographic crisis has the potential to crash our civilization, which will erase all social progress gained by women over the last century. So, women can choose to have kids voluntarily, or they can be made to do it in a post-civilization world.
You forget that for the vast majority of men their work was also menial back in time too - only recently are some jobs not menial. The industrial revolution forced work largely outside of the home - before this men did agricultural work mostly, and women did care, crafts such as weaving, and dairy work etc. Obviously with overlap between these roles as women helped with harvest and men were weavers etc too. After the industrial revolution, you get the rise of the middle class that actually get choice over their work, instead of doing whatever to get money for food, and those jobs required a choice between the home and the work. I'm not wanting to "go backwards" as I like many modern things like medicine and food availability etc etc but acknowledging that all families face a choice between child care and work is a modern phenomenon that causes many parents distress and has effects in the economy. It is bizarre to me that the vast majority of child care workers are women, yet the government considers that useful work but when women stay at home with their children, maybe even the same number of children (given the high ratios needed for little children) that is looked down on. My criticism of the modern world is women aren't given the choice feminists promised they'd get - the statistics in the video are clear that lots more women would choose to care for their own small children full time if it was economically viable. Yes there will always be women who choose child care and go to their non menial jobs, but there are many other women forced to use child care and go to a menial job anyway. It's not really liberation for those women, I'd argue.
@@AmyDawson-s1d
The issue I have with this podcast is the notion that modern women can be full time mothers and homemakers. I agree with you that this is no longer possible for the majority of women - it is a dangerous nostalgia. Rather than looking to the past for answers we need to consider current circumstances and find appropriate solutions.
Equal opportunities?
Where are the Equal Opportunities for men?
What do the femunists mean by equal? They mean access for women to 50% of the opportunities created by men.
That is parasitism not equality.
Where are the 50% of the opportunities created by women and shared with men?
How many industries, companies, inventions etc can you count created and built up by men?
What is the number for women?
Are these numbers equal? So how are your equal opportunities equal exactly?
As Louise commented that she receives almost no child subsidy, I think these need to be expanded to cover more middle class people. My wife and I were paying over $2500CAD/mo which was much more than my mortgage for 2 kids in childcare and 1 in before/after school care. Maybe received a hundred or two dollars in childcare benefits. Other families in a similar situation were paying a total of $600 as they were a lower income family. This was 7 years ago, and at the time I thought I might be better off staying home instead.
I hate it when women turn their husbands/partners into housekeepers & complain when they don't do enough. Two-income couples certainly raised the cost of housing, they
can offer more & have led to the high housing costs. Split couples add to the housing crisis by needing 2 homes in one family. All things that are never talked about. As for
child care, the most cruel thing you can do to children is putting them there. No wonder there is so much mental stress in young people.
that's a good point. children of divorced parents shuttle between two houses when ideally they'd be living in one intact family household.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 i think that is one of many things those " far right " MRAs have been pointing out. Occasionally they tell me things because of the hypocrisy
Do we know children to divorce? Parents are doing worse than those with couples that stay together? Or rather, couples that are forced to stay together for other things than choice? I have plenty of divorced mothers in my friends group, and sadly they all agree on that the divorce what was it took for their husbands to grow up and take responsibility over the children. They are now stress-free, and the children have engaged and responsible parents in both homes.
I also have friends to divorced parents, who definitely witness of being happy and relieved that the arguing and fights stopped.
@aemma_official Such BS divorce damages children and they have stats to show that for decades.
Far too many selfish me first women.
" i am not perfectly happy needing to compromise" 🤮
There are certain areas of social housing where it would be utterly impossible for the middle class to raise their children,to some extent I don't blame them
Is it just me or is the consequences and side effects of all of our choices swinging us right back to the truth
In the US parenting and housework is still like a 90/10 time split women to men, with like 85% of mothers having to work outside the home. The "increase" in men's participation in the household is a whopping 2 hours a week or something on average. £70k might be great but $70k is scraping by at this point in the places that have jobs that pay that here and still in a two income household. The means test to qualify for aid like food stamps with two people is $26k or something currently. We end up with a lot of families that if the parents get married they lose food, healthcare, subsidized childcare, and of course this makes it easier for the father to leave. One thing not discussed in the US is how many "single mothers" aren't actually single but if they want to feed their children they can't declare the father on the birth certificate. I know at least three, two of which have been together decades, where the parents just can't get married and feed the kids at the same time. All parents except 1 mother work, the family would lose money if she put the kids in daycare to get a job. One child policy is right, if even that.
Intentionally structured that way as are divorce laws etc
@@katansi So that does mean why are they not responsible enough to wait till they have a reliable partner, marry them who is able to support the family BEFORE having children ? 🤷
@@non_ideological_transexual7414 The majority of couples require two full time incomes to raise even a single child and the average cost of daycare for that single child is about as much as the average rent. Full time working adults are no longer able to afford families during their most fertile, healthy years. It has nothing to do with a reliable partner, it has to do with basic costs of living. A child born today will cost about half a million dollars in resources for the 18 years before college and saving for any post secondary education. This is not for private schools and caviar, this is for basic food, shelter, clothing, public education and daycare/babysitting. That's $28k/yr or almost $40k/yr alone before taxes and mostly front loaded in the first few years when the adults in the family are making less in their careers.That is an entire full time job.
If one parent doesn't work in order to save on childcare that only saves 50% of the cost in the first few years while at the same time the working parent needs to make another $20k to bring the rest home. The only thing that doesn't change if you have two children is you don't have to upgrade your living situation assuming you had two rooms already but the cost of everything else doubles. Do you really think so many people aren't having kids just because they don't want them? The reliability of a partner has little to do with their income. Plenty of garbage unstable humans make millions, it's called the financial sector. A reliable 22 year old isn't making enough to support a family on their own, so they wait til they're 40 and the fertility has gone through the floor.
This is so sad and twisted and exactly what was intended.I just cannot watch anymore of this today 😑
A wonderfully tragic balance that we go through over the ages; economic boom -> comfort -> economic collapse -> recovery. We’re in comfort / economic collapse unfortunately. Still, in a way we’ll recover, the real wisdom is in finding the balance between economic and social prosperity. The West lost ours when we gave up our Christianity as national and local identities, in the 60s.
Who says it’s unintended?
There is no solution. Women were not happy or they wouldn't have joined the Women's Movement so enthusiastically. It just created a different set of problems. Since men didn't evolve, now women are joining 4B.
No, we can give women real equality! No more special protections!
Equality in homelessness - the majority of homeless are men but women receive preferential treatment in access to social housing! Evict 70% of women from council houses to equalise those on the streets.
Equality in prison - increase the number of women arrested, charged and imprisoned. Also desegregate the prisons - give women the same level of protection from prison rape that the male prisoners get!
Equality in taxes - double women's taxes to be equal to the taxes men have to play!
Equality in social spending - reduce the over spending on women by 20%!
Equality in murder - double to number of women murdered!
Equality in life expectancy - reduce women's life span by 5 years! For equality!
Once women get equality in the bad side of life, not just the good side, they will reject equality!
Women demanded equality in the good parts of life eg education.
Women are not so keen on equality in the bad side of life eg homelessness.
They will increasingly find that their special protections are being removed!
By definition the women who joined were the most mannish and the lesbians (the most masculine), and not the mass of normal women. The solution men collectively chose of trying to accommodate this fraction is looking more and more like a misreading of how best to respond.
What do you mean men haven't evolved?
Fantastic!!
It was said that the domestic duties that women traditionally did are not valued anymore, but I do believe our governments have put monetary values to them in the form of subsidies for childcare and elder care facilities. Presumably they've figured out a cost per day or month to administer the subsidies.
I had a policy idea while I had children in daycare. The provincial government was discussing $10/day daycare, and since they probably figured out how much per child this was going to cost, a simpler solution would be giving a tax deduction for one parent to look after the kid(s) at a similar rate the daycare would charge the government to do it per child and the income earner could apply the deduction on their pay.
If I recall correctly, and there may be other reasons as well, there was a shortage of qualified Early Childhood Educators and daycares to implement the $10/day policy here in British Columbia and haven't instituted it to my knowledge, but there would presumably be no such shortage of homes and parents...
By just giving a tax deduction, there would be little to spend on government busy-bodies inspecting and licensing all these facilities and other administration tasks, probably saving many millions from an otherwise much larger program and would potentially cover the cost of the tax revenue loss of not having both parents taxed.
This idea could also be potentially used for caring for one's elders as well, and thereby the domestic duties could now be compensated.
Edit: I guess he makes a similar argument at minute 24.
It was so predictable that women's entry into the workplace would not lead to increased wealth. Simple economics: supply and demand and the impact on prices. Doubling the supply of workers basically reduced the value (ie price) of work.
It's amazing that this isn't discussed more and understood. The people that push UBI apparently don't understand this either.
It made corporations wealthy, but not the public at large.
100% intended. Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon of the 60's and 70's worked for the CIA disrupting socialist youth festivals before beginning her feminist activism. The CIA bankrolled her activism and her magazine Mrs. Magazine. The CIA has always acted on the material interest of America's oligarchs and they determined that they could direct and shape the women's movement to extract the most amount of wealth out of the working class to the benefit of the elite while suppressing the risk of the working class developing class consciousness and solidarity.
How could these consequences possibly be unintended?
The wording is to avoid suggesting that women have any agency in their choices
I'm 65 and never raised a child,I feel guilty,I knew nothing about being a Father,my own Father left home when I was 7 and left for USA aged 10,it would never come natural to me
Fascinating. Sadly I think this is only the beginning of the impact as well. I think men will give up entirely in a world where women don't provide domestic care. That is the only thing men used to work for. Work has never been fun for the majority of men. They worked for their women and children and the sanctuary that provided. They fought wars to protect the collective sanctuary. Women have left the sanctuary. Why would they bother now? Women have largely abandoned the work of care and entered the GDP economy where men were. That has changed the nature and purpose of the work itself. Men are losing interest in a lot of it as a result and no longer benefit from the care of women for their sacrifices, so why do it? I don't think this can be dismissed as an incel talking point. In large part, if women work, then men won't. This will shape our political lives more than we recognise over the next several decades.
Exactly. I'm a Conservative Christian, a Trad Catholic to be exact, and it annoys me to see fellow Conservative Christians dismiss these men who makes these points as red pillers who are just giving up. These men are worn out and are given absolutely no hope and when they express how they feel, they get called incels. Their points need to be addressed or nothing will be solved.
@@racheljames7can I ask whether you're a woman?
Question: Could these men find a new purpose? Telling women to sacrifice their lives just so man have purpose doesn’t seem like a good solution
The UK is in my opinion the most riddled society in the Planet,two big parties two cultures and ne'er the twain shall meet,the private school thing sums it all up
It takes a village to raise a child,not many villages in UK left
The middle class need two wages to buy a house in a good area because they simply could not raise thier children in other environments because their values are at odds
A key thing in this interview is kinda why Isreal has a good birthrate - lots of family involvement instead of a childcare system.
Well, regretting motherhood was a movement that started in Israel.
The Taxation system should be based on marriage income divided by two.
For every child you should pay a 20% percentage less in tax. 5 children means you don't pay tax at all
Nice video.🤐
Great discussion but the clock is not going back,take comfort from the fact there was never a Golden Age
The class devide up here in Scotland is cringeworthy the middle classes or aspirational working classes try hard as they may to avoid traditional Scots speech out of fear of being seen as low class
Increasing the role of the domestic/care but still having small family size just plain does not work. It would lead to helicopter parenting. Individual kids were LESS pampered in past eras, not more, despite the larger role of the domestic. If we don't want to make it so women are expected to have kids 5+ times in their lives, their energies need to be channeled somehow else. A semi-non-serous answer is that in an alternate world where animals/pets play a greater role, women would tend more to those (rather than trying to make the rat race and consumerism work). And of course civil engagement in general.
I think helicopter parenting has raised as less parenting takes place... You only get a little time with your children so use it to the max. Don't spend those precious hours with your kids out to play with other kids. Also, because there aren't other kids out, because there's no sense of a community keeping an eye on them, kids can't go and play in playgrounds with other kids. These are the things that people previous generations had that prevented helicopter parenting - the Famous Five idea that the kids are just out and about all day with other kids and back by suppertime. The only way to get that culture back is to have more stay at home parents imo - we know friends who are studying on a campus (modern equivalent of a village) and most of the women don't work, the kids run out and in of each other's houses all the time, and are off playing on site together. When all the kids are off in daycare, there are no other kids to play with and stay at home parents can feel isolated and it breeds the helicopter parenting. If there's more families out and about in playgrounds, mums and dads can chat to each other, children can play with other children without parents following them around everywhere. Just my thoughts.
@@AmyDawson-s1d There is something to what you have said. Perhaps it's correct. I can see how "fear" what happens to the kid if neither mum nor dad are at home can lead to a helicoptery perspective
Leah Libresco Sargeant would be a marvelous follow-up interview to this one.
I approve of the series MMM. I admire its Christian and none woke values. Housewives, i have always held in high esteem , not so career women who are mothers at the same time. There is asociety Mothers at Home Matter
MAMA.i think like minded women, housewive znd mothers should unite and rise against the authories and stick up for their rights. Motherhood is not just about young children as older children need you., too. Also sahms also csre for the old frail in the family instead of leaving them to institional care. It works in the olden dsys and in could again. Working mothers had a lot to answer for:- they jacked up the cost of living and made it difficult for tradwives. My neighbour, a headmistress poured scorn on me for staying at home with a bevy of children , yet had the nerve to demand that i babysat her children while she was attendingg a scool meeting. She didn't care that i needed a doze having been up every night twice a night feeding a baby, and i was milk donor too. I did oblige but was glad when she left the area. Fathers cannot breastfeed and expressed milk in bottles is not as good. So, fathers being mothers is not a good idea. The benefits of feeding naturally are innumerable to both mother and child. Politicians please take note. Breast feeding should go on for a long time and then weaned slowly. Nature (ie God) has desgned it this way. I looked after my mother in law when i was pregnant when i could. Food is free if you breastfeed. My mother worked as a schoolteacher since mye age of nine, and i really felt deprived and was, well into my late teens. She was too tired to notice me and far more interested in her career and enjoyed the status. This is why i refused to work afer marriage but i did a lot of voluntary work when i could. Unfortunately one child got sick and i needed to care for him until he died. If you feed naturally, you don't have to buy baby food which is expensive and not as good. You can make do and mend. I had a sewing machine, and knitted, crocheted and darned. Iput all children in sandals when possible, they sre cheaper and better for feet and last longer. I am surevi made the right decision.You can swap around with other friends and parents. As for expensive toys, they like playing with the dog and vice versa, climbing trees and jumping on beds. The mothers in the area thought toys were expensive and so we all encouraged jumping on beds. We bought books etc.
Some women relied on a low number of nappies. They got to know when their children needed to pass urine znd feaces and acted accordingly. I think you have to be an expert to do this, but nappies were avoided and bottles and tins of food, so these measures reduced the costs of babyhood somewhat. I and my friends werenot expert enough to lessen the use of nappies but i have known mothers who were expert. (I think that is how Mary , mother of Jesus must have managed). If i ran out of nappies, rarely, i used very old towels as a substitute. I was always there for my children and alert to picking up nonverbal communication. The spoken word is only 7 per cent used in communication, so body language is important and says more when it is picked up. I used to think housewives were dim when i was young and when i became one, i knew it was sll the unseen work that they do including night feeds. They also pick up thr slack that career women have neglected like olf frail family members. Polticians please heed what i say. Mothers promote family life so there is less crime in the cuture, and already we have overcrowded prisons, and mabe we would less prisons in the future with tradwives.
Rollo Tomassi and Rian stone have a lot better explanation for empirical data of society.
Damn this guy takes such big breaths
Add a comment...
Lots of mothers feed their children as nature intended exclusively, for long periods. Mothers havebto go out to work with young children.
I can't see things changing
Two tribes and ne'er the twain shall meet
Times have changed. Technology is here to stay. Get over it. Push forward. Create something new instead of lamenting the loss of the past. We're in probably the biggest cultural transition in history. There is no such thing as a final state. Change is continuous. Go forward, not backward.
What lunacy to keep going forward into what we can see is hell. I'm not willing to play a part in humanity's destruction.
@@racheljames7I totally agree! We need to avoid changes that are destructive to our humanity future. We need to celebrate care, motherhood and childcare. Its more important than economic development
@@racheljames7exactly. Just go with it - says people unable to engage in honest conversation and admit that we simply have taken wrong direction
Is so wrong parting children from mothers. I was still feeding my babies at nine months as nature intended completely . Mils espessed in bottles is not as good for babies. I was a tradwife and ite not just away babies but the old infirm in the family. I fed my children myself well into the second year. I had a school phobia and made myself ill so as not to go aged seven. Some children are not ready for school aged five. I couldn't fo my sums or knitting. Mum eould have made me go as she didn't understand. I hated her working and felt deprived even when I was quite old. She love here carer more than me and only worked school hours (there was homewrk) as a schoolteacher. I would not dream to send my children to daycare except in emergencies. I did all the care myself and better and we socialized very well with other families! I listed on feeding naturally for so long as the benefits to mother and child , if possible, are too numerous and great to mention here and parting mothers and children does not have the same benefits. Politicians please note. I know what I am talking about emphatically. Tradwives pick up the slack for neglected old people that careerwoma have neglecte d. What is paternity leave for? Fathers cannot feed their children naturally which is best, and the havnt carried the child for nine months and been through labour which the mother needs to recover from. Mothers have mothers intuition and instinct also. Fathers are important but in a different way from the mothers. The headmistress next door poured scorn on me for being a trad wife but she had the nerve to demand that I babysat for her children and free. Double standars here and never mind that I had my own commitments a baby that needed feeding often and at nights, a bevy of children , a cat and dog with issues . I did oblige but thought to myself I was a better parent. I also did voluntary work by dy donating to a milk band for premature babies like many of my friends who were young mothers. So I and my friends DID help society. Tradwives are the salt of the earth but motherhood and careers do not go together at the same time. Something has got to go.i and other tradwives put our families first. I was looked upon by society but I would do the same again. I was deprived by my mother working in her career. Women are ingrained to care for the household and young children. Fathers have a wisdom that is different. My husband didn't understand about shoe size children. They can gro w every three months! Men are the breadwinners and women are the breadmakers. Men read the headlines and women read the smallprint. Why have children if you are not allowed to care for them? Mothers and careers don't go together, tough. There is a society Mothers at Home Matter and I agree with totally, and the membership is growing. I take it further having been a trad wife, I looked after the frail in the family aa most trad wives do. I did various forms of voluntary work like most trad wives. Working mothers have jacked up the cost of living, we could live on one income in the past, and we could again! I used to thing tradwives were dim as a child and when I became one myself I realized it was exhaustion. I had a bevy of children and they became good citizens which we need. It was my contribution to society (I contributed to society in other ways too). Pain relief in labour can be controlled extremely well!!! A mother forgets about the pain after the birth to a great extent but probably a mother would not admit it. Z mother needs to rest after childbirth and the sleepless nights which in my case went on for a year with each child (I didn't mind because the child's needs must be met). It can take up to two years to recover completely from childbirth, so society should not put on mothers with young children. There is danger of post natal depression which is serious, and that can manifest itself up to two years. Politicians lay off tradwives, they need looking after by their husbands. Support families properly znd I don't mean childcare and work for mothers or prolong paternity care.
louise .... your ring light broken?
Women not liking the consequences of their own their own choices!
Colour me surprised!
I consider this to be a very good, and important episode.
However, what now occurs to me is probably the clearest possible way, to express some of the main ideas I've been circling around (as a fan of this channel and medium).
One idea involves, just about the entire economic focus.
I suggested recently, that beyond 'politics being downstream from culture,' culture also arguably is downstream from economics (and from resource considerations).
An important qualifier, is that I was speaking about government policy from the sociopolitical macro-level.
I suggest a heuristic, stating that government/macro should prioritize: 1st) economics 2nd) culture 3rd) populism.
(Arguably the usual culture/politics adage pertains to a populist subcategory, of contemporary "culture war" politics).
While the personal-individual/micro should prioritize the inverse: 1st) populism 2nd) culture 3rd) economics.
The former supports the healthy development of productive individuals from the 'top-down,' while the latter charts the individual's development from the 'bottom-up'.
Concerning "populist sentiments":
I suggest that beginning in childhood/adolescence, continuing through early adulthood, individuals who develop so as to meaningfully contribute to society, undergo a gradual process which involves gearing their specific, prosocial tendencies, sentiments and interests, toward a well-matched, supportive subculture.
When economics are completely, prohibitively, and immediately prioritized at any point during an individual's development, the result is a kind of 'freeze effect'.
"Developing one's personal interests" sounds perhaps like an often-described luxury, available to some.
However "personal interests" could probably be semantically better understood as a stand-in, for "developing capabilities".
If there is no supportive culture present to help develop people's tendencies, in a 'socially integrated' manner, and if there is economic strain 'pressing down from above' (thus perhaps part-time, pre-career work is untenable while attempting to develop within some cultural context, especially for young families) then a society's most well-rounded, competent careerists, with greater personal investment in society having established a family, will simply not exist in sufficient numbers.
Individual development stops when totalizing economic demands start, especially when these entail particularly excessive pressures.
Personal sentiments lacking context, and associated with populist attitudes, are representative of a raw, early stage in an individual's social development, and the layer of culture gradually mediates the integration of these tendencies into a maximally productive economic role.
This process describes the healthy development of an economically productive individual.
Small governments should optimally manage fairly minimal economic policies, as well as resource-driven geopolitical concerns.
When the order of priorities is 'flipped,' the would-be professional class becomes underdeveloped, and therefore underutilized.
With fewer skills, and little freedom, due to omnipresent economic constraints.
These excessive constraints produce a vicious cycle, whereby government and societal mismanagement become the norm, when strained, underdeveloped professionals afflicted with scarcity-mindset, comprise the incoming members of the upper social strata at any given time.
On the UK in particular:
To my mind (as an American observer) these kinds of economic constraints are all-encompassing, and inhibitory for any developed country to maintain its normal functionality.
Aside from specific details discussed, from the outset of this entire discourse:
It is simply not possible, to have a solitary viable locale in which for all middle/upper-middle class citizens to reside, when that locale cannot support its population.
Nor to negotiate the apparent necessity, for leading professionals to double as lower-level civil servants.
(Everyone stands to benefit, from the optimal social positioning of individuals).
Nor to struggle economically, despite multiple forms of work undertaken in a given family, spanning multiple social strata.
Nor for a middle/upper-middle, productive strata of a society, to forgo appropriate development of skills and knowledge on an ongoing basis, as a result of the above.
My opinion, is that many policy considerations in this discussion are insufficient to address foundational problems.
Government must be better managed, and an economic future must be secured, for a prosperous sovereign nation to remain as such.
What percentage of feminists would poll yes to both parents working fulltime?
Most. And the ones who vote no will say, "it should be the woman's choice," forgetting that no man has ever said men should have the choice. Its expected of men to get out there and earn to provide for his family, and rightly so. But women moan on about how they should have the choice, rather than just doing their duty the way men always have. And to any woman who says, "But my ex didn't work," more fool that woman for being sexually attracted to a layabout.
The mothers should stay at home and not ghe fathers. Mothers can only breastfeed and not fathers. Expressed milk in bottles is not as good. Feeding naturaly should go on for a long time and day and night. Daycare is alright in emergencies or special cases.mothrs and chidren need to bond.
UK has a huge class divide
I don’t know if the UK has more of a class divide than any other country, but the UK is infinitely more obsessed with class than any other country.
Consequences is men arw no longer interested in courting women at all since women wanted to be liberated.
No one cares, especially the women
And those men have become bitter, lonely incels?
Because God forbid women should want to be liberated and have opportunities and choices vs getting stuck with some man child.
@@stacykay4072 😄 🤣 😂 😆
@@stacykay4072 I mean that's true, but you need to recognize your own culpability as a demographic of society in creating an environment where you depreciated the value of labor, compete with men for opportunity, and then judge men as insufficient on the back end when men can't maintain the traditional standard of provision to which you are accustomed.
For every lonely bitter incel who's upset because he's not attractive to women, there's a lonely bitter cat lady who makes 150,000 a year and can't find men who are attractive to her and also willing to commit.
While it's possible, as implied, that considerations of "status" extend beyond the officially-designated, workforce-hierarchy, and are appropriately understood to also encompass home-life, and non-designated caregivers etc., I suspect that "status" especially in the context discussed on this channel, is most aptly associated with formal hierarchy.
I think stay-at-home mothers should be socially appreciated, of course, just as much as Louise.
Although perhaps somewhat semantic, I think mothers can be socially appreciated, without necessarily receiving "status" per se.
I think status, especially as discussed here, is only needed when women or men enter the workforce.
The term probably demands a qualifier, like "official status".
Status seems to me to be a signal-monitoring mechanism, for valuation in the marketplace.
If this approximate definition is tenable, then status isn't really needed at home.
There's no competitive marketplace, no fluctuating valuation.
At least, not in any form that the average person would recognize.
I don't think a change in the perception of status is necessary to justify non-typical, pro-natalist policies amidst a dangerously plummeting birthrate.
I generally resist such policy prescriptions, however I also recognize necessities in potential emergency scenarios.
I remember when it was still unusual for the mother's of young children to work in my country. And yet there was status, or should I say a hierarchy among housewives.
How clean is your house? Are you a good cook? Do you sew? Do you grow fruit and vegetables or keep poultry?
And ofcourse, as other women always judge do you dress nicely and style your hair?
Certainly these were how women measured their self esteem, and indeed their status. Many of these activities were also economically productive, and created a barter economy that could not be taxed by government. It was also healthier, as so much good quality food was produced, rather than the rubbish many working mothers buy. I also believe people were happier, but perhaps it's just the nostalgia of remembering our youthful selves.
Feminism or women’s liberation is the result of massive technological advances which occurred between about 1900 and 1970.
Prior to 1800, most people supported themselves by subsistence agriculture, meaning that they ate what they grew. Farm work was physically strenuous and a woman could not support herself and her children, especially with frequent periods of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. A single mom could starve to death. Widows and orphans suffered greatly and depended on charity to survive. For a woman to voluntarily live a life of single motherhood was suicidal. Therefore women did not have sex before marriage and after marriage she was submissive to her husband on whom she depended for survival.
However during the 1800’s well paying jobs for women became available in factories. After about 1900, single motherhood was still extremely difficult however it was possible. In the 1930’s condoms became available making it more practical to have sex without pregnancy or STDs. Social services also began appearing in the 1930’s. So did better paying office jobs for women. Pre-marital sex and divorce were still uncommon however they were both increasing significantly.
After 1945 more women went to college and were able to find well paying office jobs afterwards. Social services were improving. Penicillin, which cured most STDs, became available. In 1960 the birth control pill became available.
Finally in 1973 safe, legal medical abortion became available everywhere in the United States. This was the end of traditional marriage except in some small, very religious communities. After that men and women entered into relationships of varying length. There was no real distinction between a girlfriend and a wife. Men and women who cohabited were “partners”. Women no longer needed to live with a man and they often didn’t, or at least they didn’t live with the same man for too long. Once there was a disagreement about something or one partner became bored with the other, the relationship ended. Women usually had only one or two children in spite of having sex regularly starting at age 16. Single moms could support themselves and their child through working, child support and welfare.
In the beginning all of this started out really well. Instead of being stuck in some boring old marriage and women getting pregnant constantly, everyone could now have sex with whoever they wanted to whenever they wanted to. And women no longer had to listen to some bossy husband who was telling them what to do.
But there were unintended consequences.
First of all, low birth rates will lead to extinction. Long before that there will not be enough young working people who are prepared to care for elderly people who can no longer support themselves. Probably assisted suicide and euthanasia are going to become much more popular in the decades ahead. Fentynal is the new pension plan.
Additionally, with all the sexual freedom, it seems as if more men are beating and raping women. Women are constantly competing for men and therefore dress more and more provocatively. Women commonly go to parties with men and get drunk. Women stagger out of bars alone late at night. Men, imagining that women want sex with anyone, rape them. If refused by women, men may beat them or in some extreme cases kill them. Stories of women being kidnapped, raped and murdered became fairly common in the US, something unheard of before 1970. Ted Bundy, active from 1974 to 1978, was a pioneer in this field and thanks to him the expression “serial killer” was invented. Also male employers began demanding sex from female workers. Why not? There is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage.
This has resulted in a backlash of women demanding more and more legal protections. Men are being evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expelled from college or fired from their jobs based on nothing except the baseless accusation of a woman which is often false.
This has resulted in a backlash of men avoiding women at all cost, being afraid that following an argument or a breakup, they will lose their home, children, education or career. The safest way for men to have sex, if they have sex at all, is anonymous, casual sex through dating apps like tinder or by paying for sex on websites like seeking.
Populations are shrinking, the elderly are endangered, children have no fathers and there is a Cold War between men and women. What started as a lot of fun in the 1960’s with the Playboy philosophy evolves into the miserable collapse of a civilization.
My goodness, a lot of historical facts there. Some conclusions that may be a leap of faith for some, but your summary of history is pretty undeniable. Your opinion of the future consequences of the past are very grave, but the facts are the facts.. statistically most of the planet is running well below replacement birth rate (2.1), ageing population, huge pension bills in the future. Gloria Stienham will be smirking from the grave. Do we have the capability of righting the ship?? It keeps me awake at night 😢
@@jamescomber5531 Many experts believe that our species will become extinct within a thousand years, as a result of low birth rates, nuclear weapons and climate change. Like the dinosaurs and thousands of others before us we will exit the stage of life.
I am not optimistic that we will be able to do so because it would requre some really dire and painful choices that we aren't up to. I am pretty confident that it will take a true collapse to wring the rot from the system. That saying about weak/strong men --> bad/good times is true.
@@jamescomber5531 The toothpaste isn't going back into this tube. We are apparently heading for extinction, like many species before us.
You completely missed that automation is increasing and we will not need as high a population.
Did woman gain their freedom or did they just go from one form of depression to another? form being underlayed the husband to begin underlayed the employer! and do people really believe that the employe care more about the woman than her husband? I highly doubt that.
Hah I just noticed something hilarious.
(Rewatched end of this episode. Was reminded of this by something on another channel).
Ends with discussion of ways to increase birthrates. Maintaining lifestyle, etc.
Then: "yes, but..." HITS PAYWALL.
Lol. So hilariously apropos.
An argument's to be made, that money is an extension of below-discussed "status," as signal-monitoring mechanism for valuation in the marketplace.
Short version, core problem with society:
Signal is distorted. Radar must be improved.
Putting on my mild-troll hat...
As per channel name life-trajectory, the earlier pokemon version of Louise was brainwashed by a sleeper cell (back in the woke days) to actively distort signal-monitoring of the social hierarchy.
Now, middle-stage pokemon peers through a murky lens, at the current seemingly static, cost-benefit analysis picture of the society and its respective inhabitants, existing in a confused state of apparent existential decline.
The irony is so rich, that I'll be using it to smelt ore.
It's ok LP, I have regrets too.
Like being a semi-burnout, back in the day.
Only weed, heh.
See. Now we're both mildly embarrassed, for a brief moment.
Fairness. Implies qualitative value. (One must be able to read signals).
Will politicians give high status to tradwives. Mothers are the first teachers and not educators. Feeding naturally, notbexpressed mik in bottle, enhances the intelligence of young children and this has been known about at least for many decades. Young children should be with mothers to bond. Mothersbhave instinct and intuition, which educators have not.
[I was just trwling Sargon for once, king of trwls. Seemed like a reasonable repost for some reason.
Probably because after previously trwling the queen of trwls myself, she clearly counter-trwled by email-chaining my documented foibles, to absolutely everyone in the Skull and Bones Club.
Most recently Nina Power on Boyce show, talkin bout 'everything's made of numbers, it's all about numbers, lolz'.
Yeah, yeah.
Ironic: which of us actually knows how Catholics adapted that model, plus its use in psych?
And which of us just recently joined-up with the god-botherers, to establish 'gang cred' because things in society are getting hairy?
Lolz. Also lookin at you, LP.]
This is well-written.
However, this sounds like a critique of "scientism," as opposed to "science".
The semantics are relevant, because the Aristotelian approach you describe, is obviously an analog of the scientific method (properly applied) or rather, its exact application.
One thing I get from this piece, is that Aristotle was simply a better behavioral psychologist than most modern ones, a couple millennia ago.
By any other name.
One can try to understand a culture, empirically, without subverting the culture.
"Moral" is also used somewhat interestingly.
It sounds from context, in essence, like "mitigating one's impulses".
Facilitated by a somewhat rigid, yet traditional, cultural framework.
At least to the extent it's not also/instead an individualized, almost mercenary, implied process of 'whatever works,' self-mitigation.
I dunno Sargon, it sort of always sounds like people (apparently) can't control their impulses very well, yet those impulses ought to be their main basis for influencing the cultural ethos, and those separate entities are mutually, positively reinforcing, however this doesn't work as intended unless something like (probably) autocracy enters the picture, and amidst all of this, we also can't even conceive of being able to do science very well.
At least, not in a way that has any direct bearing on the above concerns.
I think I almost agree with the first half of that summary, because I think it's necessary to reconcile the findings of empiricist psychometricians, with the heuristic modus operandi of the liberal governing apparatus.
As it used to function, and is intended to function.
Sure, conservative culture can exist 'in-between' the two.
Between the people, and the superstructure.
But that doesn't mean we can't live under liberal governance.
Or that we can't do science, in a way that's applicable when studying sociological or cultural systems.
(Current universities can't really do the latter. Not lately. Which doesn't mean it can't be done).
Lady everything's has a trade-off. Either pay people for what you want them to do or shut up!
Think about what you just said. If everything is transactional and men pay for sex, house cleaning, eating out, and child care, then how have women improved their situation from a hundred years ago?
@@bellbeaker7014 men like this see us as commodities now... it's about what we can do for them.
@bellbeaker7014 That was not about men and women. I'm talking about people like her who demand that others have kids. If you're not willing to pay for it, then shut up!
@Myahpd I'm a woman. Second both if you have terrible reading comprehension skills if that's what you thought I meant. I'm not talking about the relationship between the sexes. I'm talking about people like the 2 in this video who think they can simply demand that others have kids. If they want them then they'll have to pay for their upbringing or shut up!
@@kaybrown7733that’s true. This woman has been spreading the idea that since women have more autonomy, they decided to stop having children. They never talk about the high costs of raising children. They think that women don’t want to be housewives, but the reality is that most don’t have the luxury to make this choice because it’s extremely expensive to raise children and one wage in the house is not enough. If the younger generations can’t afford to buy a house literally anywhere in the world, if something so basic as a place to live is extremely expensive, then how can people afford to raise children?
A wonderfully tragic balance that we go through over the ages; economic boom -> comfort -> economic collapse -> recovery. We’re in comfort / economic collapse unfortunately. Still, in a way we’ll recover, the real wisdom is in finding the balance between economic and social prosperity. The West lost ours when we gave up our Christianity as national and local identities, in the 60s.