[anon291]

I think we should all be skeptical of any 'expert' views given the recent election being so disastrously misunderstood and unpredicted. In particular, I feel when it comes to these social issues, so much time is spent 'researching' that no one thinks to do the obvious and ask people who do have large families what made them do that. In particular, the book 'Hannah's children' comes to very different conclusions than the sorts of things you see here, and better matches my own understandings of those with large families, as well as my own motivations to have a larger family.

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?537667-16/hannahs-children

To summarize:

> While not all of the women she interviewed cited religious reasons or motivations for their choice to defy the birth dearth, most did. So faith, while not a prerequisite for the choice to have more children, is at least a catalyst. Greater religious liberty, especially with respect to educational choice, would allow for competing narratives of womanhood to re-enter the educational environment and allow women to choose narratives of self that more accurately account for the reciprocal opportunity cost of motherhood and career. I could not agree more.

Every large family I know eschews the public school system FWIW.

[dqv]

> > While not all of the women she interviewed cited religious reasons or motivations for their choice to defy the birth dearth, most did. So faith, while not a prerequisite for the choice to have more children, is at least a catalyst. Greater religious liberty, especially with respect to educational choice, would allow for competing narratives of womanhood to re-enter the educational environment and allow women to choose narratives of self that more accurately account for the reciprocal opportunity cost of motherhood and career. I could not agree more.

lol, never miss an opportunity to make your pet political issue the solution I guess.

Not going to miss mine either. Let's back up to the part about faith playing a role. It is actually not faith itself that plays the role, it is the organization surrounding that faith. Having a support system is incredibly important when raising a child, even if that just means getting moral support at the weekly social gathering for mothers.

But people are turning their backs on these institutions. Why? Because they suck. No, it's not the people who suck, it's the institutions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/13/gen-z-...

It turns out that, in modern times, young women know LGBT people and actually like them! They also don't like organizations that espouse hateful messages about them (yes, saying someone will burn in hell for an eternity for being gay is an incredibly hateful message, no amount of twisting words will change that). The article goes into the other aspects of the conservatism turning people away from organized religion.

Religious institutions are important and can play a role in giving mothers the community they need to flourish. Unfortunately, conservatives would rather destroy community than adapt to the times. As a local "true" Christian said in a review of a local affirming church: "one star, not biblical, they just talk about how to be a nice person". Damn... that affirming church rejecting the good news by *checks notes* telling people to be nice to one another. Maybe that review was an incredible act of compassion, because it really has me considering going to that church.

[anon291]

> even if that just means getting moral support at the weekly social gathering for mothers.

So if you actually engaged with Pakaluk's book, you'll know that this is exactly what she says. Even if you just watched a YouTube interview with her, you would have gotten that. Please don't engage lazily. There is no claim that belief in the divine intrinsically helps with fertility (although perhaps belief in the divine that causes you to seek community might, but that's a secondary effect).

> They also don't like organizations that espouse hateful messages about them (yes, saying someone will burn in hell for an eternity for being gay is an incredibly hateful message, no amount of twisting words will change that). The article goes into the other aspects of the conservatism turning people away from organized religion.

I mean, most churches these days will accept whatever pet social issue you want, so I really doubt anyone cares. People need to stop living in the 90s.

> Unfortunately, conservatives would rather destroy community than adapt to the times.

Based on every poll and all the data, religious conservatives have substantially better communities than most liberals. They could probably teach everyone else how to live better, happier, healthier lives.