Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are some of the more "interesting" proposals being considered to boost fertility in the US that are mentioned in the article:

*Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married applicants or those with children. [I thought the current admin was eliminating the Fullbright program?]

*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

*Funding programs to teach women about their menstrual cycles and fertility awareness. [I'm all for women knowing more about their bodies, but conservatives have been attacking sex ed programs for decades].

*National Medal of Motherhood for women with 6+ children. [Gives Soviet Union vibes.]

These ideas will cause no one to change their minds and have a baby. These are the dumb ideas of men, who know exactly zero about motherhood.

Well, they know that they want you to embrace it. These policies are a soft launch to turn public opinion against working mothers, and then when the birthrate does not rise they will enact policies against contraception, as well as keep chipping away against universal suffrage and things like having your own bank account/credit, etc.

Anonymous wrote:If you want a higher birth rate, baby bonuses don’t work. They need to address the housing problem, the economic uncertainty, and the unavailability of daycare/expense of daycare. Men also need to modernize their approach to marriage and family. (Gift article)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/baby-bonuses-fertility-planning-trump-aides-assess-ideas-to-boost-birthrate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU8.NtkN.WagWczUEi5e6&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Read this article this morning. I like the coverage, but I have some questions:

1) the US has very high maternal and infant mortality rates compared to our peer countries. Why don't we address that first? (I emailed the author - Caroline Kitchener on this point and she actually responded and said she is tracking that);

2) isn't AI supposed to allow humans to great boost their productivity (or push them out of a job, depending on who you talk to). Why do we need all these extra people if one person will be able to do the work of 3 or 4 people in the future.

Don't let the proponents of these policies weasel out of these questions. Their true motives will either have to be explained or they will slink off once they realize they can't snow us with "strong famillies" rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I play with my grandkids I’ll think of the women here who won’t have the same opportunity because their daughters are alone.

Since when do children ‘owe’ their parents grandchildren?

They don’t. Most normal ones want to have a family. I’m thankful for my grandchildren.

Half of your generation was known as the ME generation raising latchkey kids and still on their own pursuits rather than family into old age. They don't act like grandchildren is a priority.

Don’t confuse me with a Boomer. I’m a Gen Xer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:someone who thinks of them as a tool, an appliance, a therapist, and a warm hole … but not a fully fleshed out human. Which is how a lot of young men see women.

Do any of the young men in your extended family feel this way? This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that leads to lonely, unhappy women in their 50s.

There arr also unhappy martied women. I know a few childless women who are quite happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are some of the more "interesting" proposals being considered to boost fertility in the US that are mentioned in the article:

*Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married applicants or those with children. [I thought the current admin was eliminating the Fullbright program?]

*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

*Funding programs to teach women about their menstrual cycles and fertility awareness. [I'm all for women knowing more about their bodies, but conservatives have been attacking sex ed programs for decades].

*National Medal of Motherhood for women with 6+ children. [Gives Soviet Union vibes.]

These ideas will cause no one to change their minds and have a baby. These are the dumb ideas of men, who know exactly zero about motherhood.

THIS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I play with my grandkids I’ll think of the women here who won’t have the same opportunity because their daughters are alone.

Since when do children ‘owe’ their parents grandchildren?

They don’t. Most normal ones want to have a family. I’m thankful for my grandchildren.

Half of your generation was known as the ME generation raising latchkey kids and still on their own pursuits rather than family into old age. They don't act like grandchildren is a priority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:someone who thinks of them as a tool, an appliance, a therapist, and a warm hole … but not a fully fleshed out human. Which is how a lot of young men see women.

Do any of the young men in your extended family feel this way? This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that leads to lonely, unhappy women in their 50s.

Well, most of the men in my extended family are relatively older - Millennials getting into their 30s at the youngest. Or they are very young children. But this is absolutely an issue amongst the Gen Z generation who should be getting married in large numbers by now … but they aren’t. Because young women don’t trust young men, and young men want a “trad wife” but no one wants to be a “trad husband!”

They are barely dating each other. Here is an article about it but here is the important stat.https://www.americansurveycenter.org/commentary/gen-zs-romance-gap-why-nearly-half-of-young-men-arent-dating/

“Teens are dating less. A survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that only 56 percent of Gen Z adults—and 54 percent of Gen Z men—said they were involved in a romantic relationship at any point during their teenage years. This represents a remarkable change from previous generations, where teenage dating was much more common. More than three-quarters of Baby Boomers (78 percent) and Generation Xers (76 percent) report having had a boyfriend or girlfriend as teenagers.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:someone who thinks of them as a tool, an appliance, a therapist, and a warm hole … but not a fully fleshed out human. Which is how a lot of young men see women.

Do any of the young men in your extended family feel this way? This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that leads to lonely, unhappy women in their 50s.

Well, most of the men in my extended family are relatively older - Millennials getting into their 30s at the youngest. Or they are very young children. But this is absolutely an issue amongst the Gen Z generation who should be getting married in large numbers by now … but they aren’t. Because young women don’t trust young men, and young men want a “trad wife” but no one wants to be a “trad husband!”

Anonymous wrote:But no, women aren’t “alone” just because they are childless.

Like you said, they have cats.

Remember why Clinton forced the transition from AFDC to TANF?

Anyone familiar with the military…and how young men quickly marry and have kids for a better housing stipend?

I mean, sure it acts as an incentive…but…

Most fiscally responsible people aim to marry before having one or two kids. $5k wouldn’t prompt any responsible person to have another baby.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear here. There is a sizable population of Latino Americans, citizens/born here, who have high birthrates. It’s white birthrates that are low. The birthrates freak out is 100% about white supremist ideology.

True but their fertility rate is dropping too. The general fertility rate (GFR) for Hispanic women declined from approximately 70.6 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2016 to 63.4 in 2021 . This represents a significant decrease over the decade.​ (white and Black birthrates are like 53 per 1,000)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I play with my grandkids I’ll think of the women here who won’t have the same opportunity because their daughters are alone.

Since when do children ‘owe’ their parents grandchildren?

They don’t. Most normal ones want to have a family. I’m thankful for my grandchildren.

So who gets to define what’s normal and what’s not? Has it occurred to you that there might be women with zero interest in having children? And that’s is ok and even NORMAL to feel that way?

+1. And that we have enough unwanted kids in this country. No women should be bringing a kid into this world unless she wants that child, and she, with her partner I’d there is one, are prepared to make the sacrifices to parent well. And there are sacrifices— to your body from pregnancy, to your finances, your time, often your career. And if you want to make those sacrifices- Great! I did and don’t regret it. But I’m glad women who don’t no longer feel pressured to have kid they don’t really want. That’s not good for the kid or the mom.

Anonymous wrote:Every time I play with my grandkids I’ll think of the women here who won’t have the same opportunity because their daughters are alone.

My daughter isn’t alone. She has family and friends and a full social life and a job she loves but that is very demanding and yes— a couple cats. She’s an amazing Aunt to her nieces and nephews. She doesn’t want marriage and kids, and that’s her choice. I made my choices, for better or worse (usually better). And I fully support her right to make hers. And to change her mind if she wants. Or not. She doesn’t owe me grandkids. And I have them through my son, but if I had none and really felt some need to connect with kids after retirement, I would do big brothers/big sisters or a similar program.

But no, women aren’t “alone” just because they are childless.

Anonymous wrote:If they want more kids then theyll need to pay for someone to stay home or fully subsidize childcare, the latter of which wont work but the former will reduce the strain on childcare. I would stay home with my kid if I could re-enter the workforce and still have an income so that I dont lose retirement. It is most difficult during the early years barring special needs. Its more labor intensive, kids require constant oversight and school hasnt started yet. But no, 6k isnt going to make shi%. And they already couldnt keep the expanded childcare credit so its never been about helping families with children.

The problem is that the supply of childcare is too low and demand too high. If the government gives people 6 or 10 k , it will just raise the cost of childcare. You have to reduce demand and increase the supply.

1. Allow telework
2. Expand public school to include free before and aftercare for all.
3. Expand public school to include preschool.
3. Set up government funded and run infant to preK centers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I play with my grandkids I’ll think of the women here who won’t have the same opportunity because their daughters are alone.

Since when do children ‘owe’ their parents grandchildren?

They don’t. Most normal ones want to have a family. I’m thankful for my grandchildren.

So who gets to define what’s normal and what’s not? Has it occurred to you that there might be women with zero interest in having children? And that’s is ok and even NORMAL to feel that way?

Congratulations to you and your new normal. Good luck with that.