"Declines in fertility and marriage rates can be taken not just as indications that something may be wrong with the economy or housing policy or college debt, but as problems in themselves."
@mpjgregoire I think conservatives have a larger issue affecting all of these things.
What are you trying to conserve?
the nuclear family?
You can't conserve the traditional family without reverting to a more traditional economy and perhaps patriarchy as well. Is that worth it? The article weighs addressing the issue of declining rates of marriage and reproduction directly vs indirectly but seems to take it as a given that some level of childlessness and non-marriage is somehow unacceptable.
Why not just accept the trend and adapt to its effects in other ways?
@mpjgregoire well... considering my question...
Perhaps today's conservatives aren't conserving the right things
The article you shared presented a debate between those who figured addressing things like general affordability would enable people to decide for themselves vs. ..I guess...those who favoured a more direct approach encouraging women to start their families earlier.
But maybe it is ok if women don't want as many children too? Maybe they "want" more kids because their spouses or parents or others want that many? I don't know.
But also it seems evident that today's conservatives are bery much business conservatives and that their policies are hostile to young families. Such conservatives resist addressing severe downward pressure on wages for decades along with massive increase in housing costs, yet also resist assisting with childcare, guaranteeing parental leave, addressing gender pay gaps etc.
Basically, supporting young families has come to be seen as "socialist".
Hometown is adapted from Mastodon, a decentralized social network with no ads, no corporate surveillance, and ethical design.