[pixl97]

I think a potential problem (depending on ones point of view) is that when parents wait till they are responsible they tend to have one, maybe two kids, which is below replacement rate. When coupled with things like costs, you end up with a rapidly shrinking population.

[jwells89]

Cost and support networks are both big factors here. 30-somethings are probably more likely to have replacement rate or more if it’s affordable to do so and there’s family/friends around to lend a hand, but few enjoy such circumstances.

Things like remote work could’ve helped here, allowing couples to live near family instead of wherever the best employment prospects exist currently, but the RTO push prevented that.

[tuatoru]

The (lack of) social prestige for pregnancy and motherhood among UMC women is a bigger factor. Women have been indoctrinated to place career first and only.

Try saying "soccer mom" with an admiring tone instead of a sneer if you want to understand this.

[lotsofpulp]

Is it possible women could want financial independence without being indoctrinated?

Or are they incapable of desiring power over their own lives, perhaps unlike men?

[carlosjobim]

Of course a lot of people would like financial independence. Young working women (and men) of today normally have almost no financial independence, because they are indebted or renters. They have to work a salary job or be out on the streets.

A stay at home mother in the past with a part time job had much more financial independence together with her husband than most working young people have today, even though they get fancy titles now.

Basically the current elderly generation used indoctrination to turn their children into serfs in some kind of foolish attempt to end humanity.

Also to remember is that traditionally in most cultures, the wife in the family controlled the household's finances.

[lotsofpulp]

> Young working women (and men) of today normally have almost no financial independence,

A greater proportion of women today have more financial independence than they have ever had in the past.

> A stay at home mother in the past with a part time job had much more financial independence together with her husband

This is financial dependence, not independence.

> Basically the current elderly generation used indoctrination to turn their children into serfs in some kind of foolish attempt to end humanity.

Nonsense. I imagine it is pretty insulting for a woman to read that they could only be capable of wanting control of their own lives if they were fooled into it.

> Also to remember is that traditionally in most cultures, the wife in the family controlled the household's finances.

Also nonsense. In almost every culture, for almost all of time, women did not have power over the family’s assets, much less the ability to earn enough to power a family. They were and are literally married off because they were liabilities. Inheritances passed down to sons instead of daughters. And umpteen other examples.

This is ignoring that even with legal/social mechanisms that provide women equal access to power as men, biology throws them a curveball every month with the effects of menstruation cycles and the effects and risks of pregnancy/childbirth.

[carlosjobim]

> This is financial dependence, not independence.

Do you really think that somebody who owns their own house and has supplementary income is less independent than somebody who works full time and owns nothing? The first has the option to stop working, the second will be out on the streets if they do.

> Nonsense. I imagine it is pretty insulting for a woman to read that they could only be capable of wanting control of their own lives if they were fooled into it.

Both women and men, and yes, the indoctrination is massive to convince the young generations that they want to work full time at an extremely elevated productivity and still not afford to own their homes to have families.

> Also nonsense. In almost every culture, for almost all of time, women did not have power over the family’s assets, much less the ability to earn enough to power a family.

Then you are ignorant of history regarding this, which is your problem and not mine. I trust that you will deny this even if you read about it and find out. Just say "Nonsense!" and shut it out.

[arkey]

Independence is cool and all that, but I'd rather go with the teamwork of marriage and family.

Power over their own lives... well, I'd say both men and women give it up in marriage, at least in a functioning, idealistic one.

If you want absolute power over your own life, and your goal in life is financial independence, that's okay, but maybe marriage and family is not for you.

[havblue]

You can simply ask whether women really are financially independent today: You have student debt, mortgage costs, credit cards etc on one hand and the necessity of keeping that job once you're "independent" of your family and significant other on the other hand. How independent are you if you're paycheck to paycheck?

[lotsofpulp]

> How independent are you if you're paycheck to paycheck?

This is a useless measure of independence in the context of this discussion since it applies to men and women. When discussing differences in genders, obviously we are discussing one gender being able to achieve more financial independence than the other due to laws/customs/discrimination.

> You can simply ask whether women really are financially independent today: You have student debt, mortgage costs, credit cards etc on one hand and the necessity of keeping that job once you're "independent" of your family and significant other on the other hand.

Student debt is optional and highly variable, mortgage is irrelevant in this discussion since it applies to men and women, credit cards are also highly variable, and the job thing was also irrelevant as pointed out above.

Also, note that 99% of women (and men) in 99% of the world for 99% of history have never had or been in families with enough wealth such that they did not have to work. They simply worked for their own family, with no explicit pay, and hoped they would get a sufficient spot at the decision making table.

But all of that is irrelevant anyway. The question is does my daughter have the same opportunities available to her as my son? Or would she have to hope for having nice in laws while my son could aim for the stars and secure a high paying job?

[tuatoru]

It is possible to live well enough to raise children with "a job", requiring high school or maybe two-year technical college training, instead of a four year college degree and postgraduate degree as is required for "a career". A job with flexible hours.

Women have been indoctrinated (as have men) to see "a career" as preferable.

[seec]

Independence is a complete illusion, especially in our modern globalized world. Someone has to pay you the money, so even if you go as a solo entrepreneur selling real stuff that you made yourself, you largely depend on your customers at least.

The reality is that it is extremely stressful and for most people with no guarantee of how it will work out overtime.

And the fact is that it is much better to have one person focused on getting the ressource while the other runs the household, "making" other humans in the process.

It could be the man at home, but most woman don't actually want that even if they may say so to win an argument; and there is the added problem that only woman can make other human being.

Then you have people complaining that our society doesn't make babies anymore, well maybe if we didn't push the bullshit of independence on woman we wouldn't have this problem...

[BeFlatXIII]

The sneer of "soccer mom" isn't that she's a mother busy raising children. It's that she's too busy shuffling the kids between enrichment activities to take the downtime to be their mother. That and her children are her personality.

[em-bee]

add that waiting longer also increases the replacement rate.

[gonzo41]

Don't worry, there's plenty of irresponsible people out there still. And the planet is thankful for a bit of steady decline in population.

[DiggyJohnson]

The planet doesn’t care either way. The question is what’s best for the humans - and those things or beings that humans value.