@ThatWouldBeTelling@mmmfeet When I was 19, I’d not of chosen to be a parent because of the prevalence of anti child notion. In the real world becoming a parent at 20 did change my life. There’s nothing I might of missed could of replaced what I have today. The Anti child message is a terror polt against our people.
@VIcFury@mmmfeet And there are other dimensions to it than the personal burden:
“Kids are cute but they’re not really eco-friendly.”
First reply is from Musk himself, who however tangled his relationships are, has 6-8 children, and lost one to World War T. Plus the first one not counted in the above for real to SIDS.
So back to this message that having kids will burden the Goddess Gaia, I know that’s been a theme since at least the 1970s.
Related is the apocalyptic “don’t bother” messages. Might be some premillennial dispensationalists, sounds inherent to their conceit. In the Cold War the Soviets really pounded on the nuclear apocalypse theme.
Going back to the environmentalists, they claimed much the same with much greater certainty starting with global cooling in the 1960s.
Before then world hunger was a big issue, you can see Heinlein taking it up … then again, Farmer in the Sky really uses it to set up the story, but it still had to be credible in 1950. And is also a necessary setup detail in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in 1966.
Can’t think of where else in his writings, but “finish your plate, children are starving in India” was a trope my parents used, who as early Silent Generation members at least knew hunger second hand.
They grew up on farms, but would have known some of the 25% of the US population the USDA correctly estimated were malnourished by FDR (and if you think deliberately doing that is impossible, see Michelle Obama starving public school kids). Food was a pretty big deal to them…,.
“The San Francisco Chronicle tells its readers that ‘There is nothing more bacchanalian than a kid’s birthday party,’ which may be one reason why: San Francisco is the most childless major city in the U.S.”
@mmmfeet This person has been traumatized by being told their entire life that having children will take away their freedom and ruin their life. They react this way because they believe what they’ve been told. And why wouldn’t they it’s being told from the highest points of power and influence in our society. I think we should help these people instead of attacking them. We can help them by calling out anyone who says children are a burden in any way.
@VIcFury@mmmfeet “We can help them by calling out anyone who says children are a burden in any way.”
Do you mean that at net? Because on the negative side of the ledger they certainly can be, and there are also phases like the “terrible twos.” There’s also the risk you’ll bear a disabled child who’ll consume much more of your time, energy, etc. and do that for all their life. That’s something my early Silent Generation mother noted at one point to me and maybe some of my siblings; low probability but should be weighted.
Of course a parent like this can make the “burden” come true and often if not generally through all too common child abuse, although consuming around nineteen years of your life falls rather short of “ruin your life.” I suppose that perspective is not something the younger set tend to appreciate, I was probably unusual in trying to think things through to the year 2000, which was a convenient milestone a bit before middle age.
As for not attacking them, how many can be redeemed??? I suppose it really doesn’t matter as long as there’s at least one, which we know will statistically happen and have mostly likely read or seen examples of.
@brimshae@mmmfeet Could be… But more likely the grooming they experienced was anti family, anti White, anti male. Child grooming starts with convincing the youth to reject the support of their family. The authority of their father and hate towards men. Only once this is achieved can sexual grooming commence.