And why are we now comfortable with not having kids? Because of atomism.
The "golden age" argument is flawed. No one seriously argues that literally everything was better in the past. Rather, the criticism is that it's absurd to have gotten rid of something positive we already had, only to replace it with something worse and gain no net benefit as a result.
It's all a matter of interconnected systems, including systems like social shaming. If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care.
At the end of the day, atomism harms everyone and everything.
> If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care.
Is it not socially unacceptable for men to abuse their wives? Yet it still happens. So I don’t know what you’re going on about atomism and whatnot, but I’m happy my sisters and my daughters will have the ability to stand on their own.
And if women’s freedom causes the problem of parents not having enough time to spend with children, then that has something to do with minimum wage and overtime/maximum hours at work laws than it does women’s freedom.
In the past it was understood if you didn't have a family and kids, and find a way to make an income within the family unit, no one would help you. It is only within the last 100 years that social safety nets became cradle-to-grave regardless of your family circumstances.
The "golden age" argument is flawed. No one seriously argues that literally everything was better in the past. Rather, the criticism is that it's absurd to have gotten rid of something positive we already had, only to replace it with something worse and gain no net benefit as a result.
It's all a matter of interconnected systems, including systems like social shaming. If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care.
At the end of the day, atomism harms everyone and everything.