Anyone tried to move away from this model where there is two people of opposite gender, living together as a family, working, and raising child(ren) at the same time? Why not have dedicated facilities that handle raising children professionally?
Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/19/kibbutz...
The theorized reason is these children all grew together and therefore had sexual aversion similar to siblings
It's called the Westermarck Effect, but with anything in Psychology you can take it with a grain of salt
It would be simply better (probably harder) to improve society so one could have a great work-life balance.
As another commenter pointed out, I don’t have children, and don’t plan to ever have children, so I may not have the full picture here.
But spending time with their children seems to be just a selfish want of parents, and not something that is beneficial to children themselves. I think people need to think of their children first, and not only of themselves.
Homeschooled children, also, have higher educational attainments on average, by a lot. I think you'll find that if you come up with your own proxy measurement for this question it will also point towards more parent time being better.
Two distinct groups of people who for different reasons show kids do better with parents. The point is parents are better at raising kids an people who are trained but not family.
> Then, homeschooling is probably only better because it is 1 on 1, and not 1 on dozens as it is in public schools.
Its not all one to one though. Even when it is one to one it is almost always far fewer hours than at school. A lot of school kids get one to one attention of top of classes (tuition for teenagers has really taken off here in the UK in recent years).
My kids did classes and online courses and taught themselves for some subjects and still did a lot better in those subjects than school kids do. There are advantages to being outside a system individualisation, efficient use or time, learning study skills and self-discipline, etc.
> if you assume that the professional educators are actually motivated and care
Most do, some do not care (they should not be in the profession, but they exist) or are demotivated by the system them work in.
They are also often constrained by the school system. They are pressured to hit metrics which are often not in the best interest of children (especially in the long term). It tends to lead to a lot of studying the exam rather than the subject, for example.
I can understand people with really fascinating jobs that they care about deeply making that decision, but very few people have such great jobs or hobbies. Yes, if you are an academic, or a monk/nun, or something else you deeply believe in, but for most people there is very little that is more rewarding than having children.
However, there are not going to be factors specific to some countries. As it is so widespread its most likely its a common factor or factors. The underlying reasons are probably not that different from those in South Korea.
"By the time a child turns ten, their mother will have seen her earnings fall by an average of 66 percent, considerably higher than the earnings penalty in countries including the US (31 percent), UK (44 percent), and Sweden (32 percent)"
So Sweden is not as bad as SK, but slightly worse than the US on that particular economic factor.
"But South Korea is even worse. Almost 80 percent of children attend a hagwon, a type of private cram school operating in the evenings and on weekends"
I think that sort of thing is a factor too, and, again, in many countries.
People in general have a built-in biological incentive to treat their own biological children well. People child-rearing just as a job generally treat children worse than biological parents, and the empirical evidence supports this (e.g. the earlier children enter paid childcare, the worse their outcomes on average). Only a small minority of extremely moral people treat other people's kids as well as their own biological children.
Incentives matter far more than education; parents have a built-in biological incentive to care for their children, so on average they put in more effort, that's why children at orphanages do so poorly, and homeschooled children do better on standardised testing than public schooled children.
PS: POS and FDJ are not really daycare but school and youth org, but they provided services exceeding what we connect with those ideas.
One wonders how much of this viewpoint was itself indoctrinated.
If you are a child living under parents, your parents also have ample opportunity to indoctrinate. There is zero viewpoint diversity.
Why not have dedicated facilities that handle raising children professionally?
Who pays for it? How often can the parents see the kids? How much influence can the parents have on the kids? How does this differ from schools?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian_o...
I feel really lucky I worked from home and home educated my kids, and feel most people already miss a significant amount of the joy of having kids because of work and school. Your idea would make a significant part of it into all of it.
We have far more problems caused by governments doing a bad job than parents doing a bad job. In general parents do a far better job than government employees do.
You may not have the incentive, but the country population will decline if you don't. If you are a government, I'm sure there is a number of ways to make people have children, for example https://nhentai.net/g/609087/. If you are something like Russia or Ukraine, you can force women to have children, just like you force men to go to war.
> We have far more problems caused by governments doing a bad job than parents doing a bad job. In general parents do a far better job than government employees do.
But yes, if there is no way to make education workers do good job, then I guess this system will not work.
For those who might be at work, or are otherwise sensible, this links to a hentai manga called "Vacation in a room you can't leave until you have sex", the cover of which has a picture of a naked lady with implausible anatomy; the tags include but are not limited to "rape" and "incest".
One wonders the reasons behind the choice of this particular example.
> Next, we'll talk about the "room you can't leave until you have sex"
> which as introduced as a measure to address the declining marriage rate and birthrate
I don't see why I wouldn't use this as an example.
> I don't know why it is tagged as "rape" and "incest" as it has neither
Incest: The dramatis personae (https://nhentai.net/g/609087/4/, mostly SFW if your boss doesn't mind fully-clothed underboobs) introduces the characters as step-siblings. (And page 11 the male character refers to the female character as "family".
Rape: The premise is inherently rapey as one is not allowed to withdraw consent after entering the room. Also the bottom of page 15 the male does not look like he had consented to the events of that page and the previous.
It's not "incest" if they are not blood-related.
> Rape: The premise is inherently rapey as one is not allowed to withdraw consent after entering the room.
As I understand it, entering the room does not constitute giving consent, and one can withdraw their consent any time, which the protagonist chose not to do.
> Also the bottom of page 15 the male does not look like he had consented to the events of that page and the previous.
The way I read it, especially with previous two pages in mind, it appears to me that he does not mind.
Because to even contemplate that means dismissing the entire notion of a parent child bond. Of course socialism, with it's inherent disdain of existing social structures have tried collective living, famously some kibbutzim in israel tried it, but most sensible people are horrified by such an idea.
I want to let it go but i can't. The suggestion that trained professionals would somehow do a better job of raising a child then parents would is terrible. It's one of the worst ideas i've ever seen here.
As a single dad in the UK its obvious to me that a lot of people still do not expect men to be raising kids or for a man to be the primary parent (which I was even before I divorced).
Even in some dystopian future where there are dedicated facilities that raise people, I can only think of labour and military being raised.
Otherwise you would realize what dystopian hellscape of an idea you are suggesting.
>I currently think the opposite—that humanity is inherently flawed, and that the vast majority of humans will always live miserably.
His user name has a korean vibe to it. If my suspicions are correct then they could be exhibit a of the problem SK is facing.
What makes you say that? To me it's clearly Japanese (the "-chan" by itself is a dead giveaway) and there's way too many open syllables to feel Korean.