Birth rates / Fertility

[Sergeant Wilson]

I admire the positivity of posters extended families. I don't think anyone had any expectations of me, therefore haven't been disappointed.

[Monkey Tennis]

25 minutes ago, virginton said:

No thanks for you regurgitating right-wing claptrap about the family as some sort of reasonable perspective though.

That's not remotely what I did though.

Instead, I was highlighting how madly right wing some of the stuff on here is.   The quest for individualism stretches even to the point where there are meant to be no obligations between loved ones.

[Thorongil]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Some excellent drivel in evidence about family members owing each other absolutely nothing.

Even Thatcher acknowledged that such obligations exist.  It was just society that apparently didn't.

It’s not Eastenders.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Thorongil said:

It’s not Eastenders.

That's correct.

Clearly we need to either behave like the Mitchells or feel no bonds or ties at all.  There can be no alternatives.

Good point.

[Thorongil]

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's correct.

Clearly we need to either behave like the Mitchells or feel no bonds or ties at all.  There can be no alternatives.

Good point.

Clearly we must have no love whatsoever for our families or families must hold one another in obligation and duty, like a marriage, but one people haven’t chosen. 

There can be no middle way.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

My wife being one - she was not only willing but proud to be working abroad (Hong Kong) to sustain the family back home in the Philippines.  Unfortunately, it does create a culture "back home" where many, many families are reliant on handouts from OFWs and once this dries up as it inevitably does they are f****d. And, not to mention families that are split because the wife/husband is working abroad and there is simply no way they can afford to (or are willing to) give up the standard of living the family have become accustomed to. 

To put some perspective on the scale of the "problem" - in my street every single family bar maybe 2 (around 16 families) have OFWs.  

I could go on and on detailing the pros and cons of the OFWs but it is what it is.  

 

 

You're in the Philippines right? 

My work has recently started employing in the Philippines on recommendation from an Australian firm that employs several people over there. These are qualified professionals doing jobs that we have shortages of in the UK and are paid well by local standards (so they tell us). 

This isn't outsourcing, routine admin or telesales. 

It's not ideal for domestic life, working UK hours, but it's not as bad as going to the Gulf to be mistreated. 

It's only the last five years or so that tech has made this a feasible arrangement. 

Are you hearing much about this sort of thing increasing? What's the view from the other side? 

[jimbaxters]

On 16/07/2022 at 18:54, oaksoft said:

Not so sure about that.

In 1990 I was paying about 33% of my disposable income on rent.

Is it as bad as that now for most people?

Those in cities on low incomes? Probably yes.

Most people are probably paying less as a percentage though.

That sentence doesn't make sense. If your rent has to be taken from it then it's not disposable income. 

[Monkey Tennis]

17 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Clearly we must have no love whatsoever for our families or families must hold one another in obligation and duty, like a marriage, but one people haven’t chosen. 

There can be no middle way.

But that's not what I'm saying.  

I'm merely questioning the bizarrely strident cases some are making about us not having any obligations towards loved ones.  

[Thorongil]

16 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

But that's not what I'm saying.  

I'm merely questioning the bizarrely strident cases some are making about us not having any obligations towards loved ones.  

Mostly people have good reasons for the positions they take. They may not be universally applicable, but so what?

[RH33]

20 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

That sentence doesn't make sense. If your rent has to be taken from it then it's not disposable income. 

Had I not secured a mortgage my monthly wage of £1300 would've seen £1000. I went full time and gave up housing benefit to do so.

Was served notice in March, the uncertainty had been stressful, social housing would've meant bumping around homelessness accommodation for goodness knows how long.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

34 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Mostly people have good reasons for the positions they take. They may not be universally applicable, but so what?

Indeed.

The ones I'm scoffing at haven't aimed for much of an 'each to their own' vibe.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[SweeperDee]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS 50 years hence takes that decision out of our hands. Once you've exhausted your assets you'll be released into the wild or offered a surfeit of diamorphine. 

Top way to go. Syringe driver of dia, oxy and regular morphine would be fantastic. Fully on board of the NHS contribute or die model.

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's not remotely what I did though.

Instead, I was highlighting how madly right wing some of the stuff on here is.   The quest for individualism stretches even to the point where there are meant to be no obligations between loved ones.

^^^ idiot found

The abolition of family obligations is in fact a core principle of the left and not the right. As demonstrated in that notorious, right-wing tract The Communist Manifesto, which states that:

Quote

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.

We can extend this in our 21st century conditions to any dependence of care, which would also be done communally like the education of children if we directly follow Marx and Engels' logic. The Bolsheviks literally punted people into communal apartments all over the Soviet Union to abolish the family as an economic and social unit. 

Insisting on family obligations as well as family rights - such as passing on material property advantages to ill-deserving sprogs - is in fact a hallmark of bourgeois right-wing societies and their individual (more accurately: nuclear family unit) basis of economic thought. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

And in case Marx and Engels aren't enough, we can also look at the anarchist left. Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism calls for (emphasis mine):

Quote

 

Abolition not of the natural family but of the legal family founded on law and property. Religious and civil marriage to be replaced by free marriage. Adult men and women have the right to unite and separate as they please, nor has society the right to hinder their union or to force them to maintain it. With the abolition of the right of inheritance and the education of children assured by society, all the legal reasons for the irrevocability of marriage will disappear. The union of a man and a woman must be free, for a free choice is the indispensable condition for moral sincerity. In marriage, man and woman must enjoy absolute liberty. Neither violence nor passion nor rights surrendered in the past can justify an invasion by one of the liberty of another, and every such invasion shall be considered a crime.

From the moment of pregnancy to birth, a woman and her children shall be subsidized by the communal organization. Women who wish to nurse and wean their children shall also be subsidized.

Parents shall have the right to care for and guide the education of their children, under the ultimate control of the commune which retains the right and the obligation to take children away from parents who, by example or by cruel and inhuman treatment, demoralize or otherwise hinder the physical and mental development of their children.

 Children belong neither to their parents nor to society. They belong to themselves and to their own future liberty. Until old enough to take care of themselves, children must be brought up under the guidance of their elders. It is true that parents are their natural tutors, but since the very future of the commune itself depends upon the intellectual and moral training it gives to children, the commune must be the tutor. The freedom of adults is possible only when the free society looks after the education of minors.

 

TL;Dr - There are absolutely no "obligations to loved ones" that the anarchist left would therefore uphold over the principle of individual liberty, and the commitment to communal support is central to anarchism as well. 

[BFTD]

4 hours ago, SweeperDee said:

Top way to go. Syringe driver of dia, oxy and regular morphine would be fantastic. Fully on board of the NHS contribute or die model.

Our betters won't stand for that. Unless you've made a proper contribution, you'll not be getting off that easy.

It'll be a bag of rusty razors after digging your own unmarked grave, m'laddo.

[Monkey Tennis]

48 minutes ago, virginton said:

And in case Marx and Engels aren't enough, we can also look at the anarchist left. Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism calls for (emphasis mine):

TL;Dr - There are absolutely no "obligations to loved ones" that the anarchist left would therefore uphold over the principle of individual liberty, and the commitment to communal support is central to anarchism as well. 

What, the extreme left aren't fans of the traditional nuclear family?

You're full of revelations today.

 

 

Even there, you're highlighting the obvious common ground between a libertarian outlook and an anarchist one.  

Edited July 18, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What, the extreme left aren't fans of the traditional nuclear family?

Your full of revelations today.

The nuclear family is not even remotely traditional and the only self-described groups on the left who would hold your loopy position on "family obligations" are so revisionist that they actually exist on the centre right. 

Congratulations, you're now Keir Starmer. 

Quote

Even there, you're highlighting the obvious common ground between a libertarian outlook and an anarchist one.  

If you either skipped over or failed to understand the key principle of communal organisation, sure. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by vikingTON

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

The nuclear family is not even remotely traditional and the only self-described groups on the left who would hold your loopy position on "family obligations" are so revisionist that they actually exist on the centre right. 

Congratulations, you're now Keir Starmer.  

I don't particularly hold a strong stance on "family obligations".   I felt the posts on here at pains to denounce the very notion, however, were a bit odd.

I'll not tell you what you are VT.    Deep down, I suspect you know.

[vikingTON]

37 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'll not tell you what you are VT.    

A bold claim given your 0% hit rate with factual reality on the thread so far. 

But please tell us more about how nuclear families are a proud and ancient tradition in society. Then explain why only 'extreme leftists' could object to,this institution, and its hare-brained notions of right and responsibilities being imposed unequally both within it and upon society as a whole.

[Monkey Tennis]

31 minutes ago, virginton said:

A bold claim given your 0% hit rate with factual reality on the thread so far. 

But please tell us more about how nuclear families are a proud and ancient tradition in society. Then explain why only 'extreme leftists' could object to,this institution, and its hare-brained notions of right and responsibilities being imposed unequally both within it and upon society as a whole.

I didn't say any of those things so do go away you tiresome little twerp.