Some fifties advertising will show three kids. Never, ever more.
Five kids was a very ordinary family size before then.
Fifties advertising emphasized how rich you would be if you stopped at two kids. The house was luxurious.
Every present trouble started with the two-kid idea. Of course two kids is not a replacement birthrate! There is always somebody who doesn't have any kids, so after several generations of two-kids only, you have a diminished population.
Every present trouble can be traced to there simply not being enough of you. That goes back seventy years.
Too-few children promotes divorce. That promotes all other ills.
Too much R strategy, not enough K strategy. People are designed to do both, not just one of those.
Siblings are of use to each other. Margaret Sanger had many siblings, and they helped her at various times in her career.
If you think about the greatest generation, they had to work for everything, the fields, the factories, wars, famine, fight to survive. Their children on the other hand, the boomers, enjoyed pretty easy life’s and too much time on their hands and rebelled against values and found something to fight. Unfortunately it was all crap, drugs, sexual deviancy, the values of previous generations, I always think back to the Simpson’s episode where Bart says something to the effect “we need another Vietnam”. Also who is antifa, BLM? More often than not, privileged, they don’t have to work, they have nothing better to do than make up strife and conflict. Find it where there is none. People who work for a living have no time for that nonsense. Teens should get jobs if possible, or have some real purpose.
Society advancements in maternity and pediatric care ensured child death became rare. And the move from a family owned farm life to living in a city/suburb and the father workin in an industry/factory has made the need for more than 2 children not necessary anymore. Children = labor for the farm, no farm, no need for labor.
Im not agreeing that pedes should have less children, but understand where it came from.
It was also advertised to death from every angle. Today, having a third child is on a par with running down the street naked. It's possible, but you will be the only one doing it, and people will talk.
It is a career killer for a woman. Two children, her colleagues will be understanding. She will lose a little time, not be available when needed. But grudgingly they will still accept that she is serious about her work.
Three kids and it's, "Oh well. Forget her. She has now been out for a month or two, three times, and she has three children under twelve running around at home. We won't fire her, but she will never be promoted or taken seriously. At any moment, one of her brood can get a cold or be in a play, and she won't be there when we need her. She has made her choice." She is now second-tier in her profession.
No, nannies won't help. The act of birthing requires absence from work. And she will hesitate to travel, work late, relocate.
She and her husband will be looked at as hippy weirdos, and will be suspected of right-wing opinions. Doesn't she care about the earth? Or the patriarchy?
Two kids are still allowed. But that third.....
And anything beyond that is left to the third world. A badge of insanity or oppression. Beh.
yeah that is the forced social aspect of it. and it is so odd too, because on the other hand you have corporate shills pushing for more immigration to "bolster the ageing population", supposedly form a new tax base, or whatever BS. They want more people but dont want the people here to make more people.
You put it exactly. They want more people, but don't want the people here to make more people.
Not to get Marxist on you, but Marx says Capital will always seek cheaper and less assertive labor. In our age, maybe no labor. Just robots.
The new people are not here to do anything. Of course, some do. Many. But their purpose here is to financially drain, and de-fertile, you. They don't mean any harm; they are being used.
Beh. Complaining may be useful, but should be done with a Bible in one hand and several children on your hip, or it's just words.
Deeds: be pregnant or be quiet.
And that will take cunning. Like-minded allies, financial strategies, different ideas about what is fun and what is enough and what is necessary, and buying food in bulk and cooking it. And pulling back from the mind benders on the screens.
It seems like Hollywood and TV pushed the concept of only having only one or two kids.
Yes.
Some fifties advertising will show three kids. Never, ever more.
Five kids was a very ordinary family size before then.
Fifties advertising emphasized how rich you would be if you stopped at two kids. The house was luxurious.
Every present trouble started with the two-kid idea. Of course two kids is not a replacement birthrate! There is always somebody who doesn't have any kids, so after several generations of two-kids only, you have a diminished population.
Every present trouble can be traced to there simply not being enough of you. That goes back seventy years.
Too-few children promotes divorce. That promotes all other ills.
Too much R strategy, not enough K strategy. People are designed to do both, not just one of those.
Siblings are of use to each other. Margaret Sanger had many siblings, and they helped her at various times in her career.
There is no ally like a sibling.
Dang it you are right. Even my beloved "Leave it to Beaver" was a two kid family.
If you think about the greatest generation, they had to work for everything, the fields, the factories, wars, famine, fight to survive. Their children on the other hand, the boomers, enjoyed pretty easy life’s and too much time on their hands and rebelled against values and found something to fight. Unfortunately it was all crap, drugs, sexual deviancy, the values of previous generations, I always think back to the Simpson’s episode where Bart says something to the effect “we need another Vietnam”. Also who is antifa, BLM? More often than not, privileged, they don’t have to work, they have nothing better to do than make up strife and conflict. Find it where there is none. People who work for a living have no time for that nonsense. Teens should get jobs if possible, or have some real purpose.
Society advancements in maternity and pediatric care ensured child death became rare. And the move from a family owned farm life to living in a city/suburb and the father workin in an industry/factory has made the need for more than 2 children not necessary anymore. Children = labor for the farm, no farm, no need for labor.
Im not agreeing that pedes should have less children, but understand where it came from.
Yes. That's where it came from.
It was also advertised to death from every angle. Today, having a third child is on a par with running down the street naked. It's possible, but you will be the only one doing it, and people will talk.
It is a career killer for a woman. Two children, her colleagues will be understanding. She will lose a little time, not be available when needed. But grudgingly they will still accept that she is serious about her work.
Three kids and it's, "Oh well. Forget her. She has now been out for a month or two, three times, and she has three children under twelve running around at home. We won't fire her, but she will never be promoted or taken seriously. At any moment, one of her brood can get a cold or be in a play, and she won't be there when we need her. She has made her choice." She is now second-tier in her profession.
No, nannies won't help. The act of birthing requires absence from work. And she will hesitate to travel, work late, relocate.
She and her husband will be looked at as hippy weirdos, and will be suspected of right-wing opinions. Doesn't she care about the earth? Or the patriarchy?
Two kids are still allowed. But that third.....
And anything beyond that is left to the third world. A badge of insanity or oppression. Beh.
THAT is our PROBLEM, HERE.
yeah that is the forced social aspect of it. and it is so odd too, because on the other hand you have corporate shills pushing for more immigration to "bolster the ageing population", supposedly form a new tax base, or whatever BS. They want more people but dont want the people here to make more people.
You put it exactly. They want more people, but don't want the people here to make more people.
Not to get Marxist on you, but Marx says Capital will always seek cheaper and less assertive labor. In our age, maybe no labor. Just robots.
The new people are not here to do anything. Of course, some do. Many. But their purpose here is to financially drain, and de-fertile, you. They don't mean any harm; they are being used.
Beh. Complaining may be useful, but should be done with a Bible in one hand and several children on your hip, or it's just words.
Deeds: be pregnant or be quiet.
And that will take cunning. Like-minded allies, financial strategies, different ideas about what is fun and what is enough and what is necessary, and buying food in bulk and cooking it. And pulling back from the mind benders on the screens.
Thats why the "N-word" to those people is "nationalist" not the derogatory term for a jogger.
100% agree