• BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think it’s more to do with the general sense of no future worth continuing that people have, and a cultural attitude of hating kids

    Yeah, while finances are an issue i agree its more that sense that the future will be worse. Blaming finances is easier, not just to communicate but also for people to wrap their minds around without having to confront the dread of the future if things continue the way they are.

    Part of me feels the hatred of children and antinatalism in general is a reaction to people not being able to afford kids/feeling there’s no future for children of their own. The way antinatalists speak, there has to be something more there

    • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Agreed. I’ve been a teacher before and I don’t hate kids. So I think the problem is that “I hate kids” is more of a lie we tell ourselves because we cannot in good conscience have kids.

      There’s also the fact that the onus is always on women, so we know this is a proxy for something else. If more kids was that much of a priority the bourgeoisie would make some concessions in order to get it. They’d allow more building in “prime real estate” walkable cities and introduce the idea of “community” to America. They’d take a hit on their rent prices and let young people move to the walkable cities they yearn for so they can actually meet people, and you know, get laid to have kids.

      But no, their idea is that they want to mandate that women reproduce or be tossed in jail, and further hammer in the idea for men that if they don’t get laid by age 30 they’re a hopeless loser.

      • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        If more kids was that much of a priority the bourgeoisie would make some concessions in order to get it.

        They are making about as much concession as for mitigating climate change, so they are consistent.

    • This survey does an awful job of separating out the motivations.

      Financial freedom (43%) was equal to financial inability (43%), and a smaller group (31%) “attribute this to the social and political world their children would inherit.”

      I would argue that increasing financial pressures are social and political realities, rather than something separate.

      And there’s no mention of an option for “not wanting to bring children into this hell world based on aspects other than social or political realities” - like climate change or ecological destruction.

      Regardless, it does look like there are multiple factors at play here, including a concern for the future that goes beyond personal finance.