- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Anti-natalism is a toxic, doomer philosophy. And I wish this post went into more detail on how we can rebuild communal child-care networks.
I’m currently trying to procreate but due to fertility issues I find myself behind the rest of my friends who have all disappeared into atomized, suburban lives. So I’ve been thinking a lot about how to avoid this fate. If anyone has insights please share.
There’s always the “cool aunt/uncle/friend with no children who’s always available to babysit” option. Communal child rearing generally starts with extended family - those without minor children pitch in to help the adults with minor children - and you don’t need kids of your own to help out that way.
But you do kind of need a trusting relationship with those adults first, so they’ll be willing to trust you with their kids, and it’s hard to build those relationships from scratch, or rebuild them with family members if you’ve lost that trust already.
This is the issue I have with the article—it recognizes the problem but it doesn’t go far enough.
Having an uncle babysit once a month is barely different from the failed nuclear family model. I’m trying to find or build child-care that is truly communal.
You might look up cohousing.
I think it’s quite literally supposed the be the village. We lived in smaller groups for most of history and would have known all of our neighbours. They’d be our friends and family. You don’t need to get babysitters because the kids just run around outside all day and whatever adult is around and free would supervise them.
We kind of have this going on where I live. I’m on a dead-end street and the kids all play outside together and there’s usually at least one adult outside keeping an eye on them. I’m way too shy unfortunately but the other parents have made friends with each other and they take turns taking their kids out for activities and having sleepovers.
I hate to recommend it, but facebook has some groups for finding commune-minded people. “Intentional community” would be a good search term
Atomization of families also occurs under communism.
Part of the reason for atomization is because the economic necessity for extended families keeping together isn’t there.
Yes, this is a good observation, but the question is what is really the cause of this? Clearly it isn’t economics alone. I would guess it is mostly due to specific family dynamics and this wouldn’t necessarily extend to non-biological extended “families” of your choosing.
You also have stability of government and the role of government a person’s life.
A civil dispute in a society with a strong government can be handled between two individuals and a judge. A similar dispute in a weak government usually relies more on two families negotiating.
Most wealthy nations have some form of welfare and pension system, poorer ones usually rely more on family support.
Multiple different perspectives FTW!
Says who?
“Supposed to be” presumes some authoritative source.
In this case, the “who” is human biology. Humans evolved in tribes, not nuclear families.
Meant by whom?
I have mixed feelings about this because it often ends up meaning that people feel entitled to free female labor. What do I get out of this village, huh? Do I at least get a casserole?
So many deadbeat dudes who finally got served divorce papers just turn around and snag another woman to dump all the domestic labor onto.
It is now for the most part, actual parents do nothing but deliver food and internet enabled devices, the rest of the world educates the kids and corrupts them
