Jump to content

Fertility problems in the 21st century


Lyanna Stark

Recommended Posts

No, but the government can make people more equal by providing opportunities that more priviliged or lucky members of society take for granted. For instance, my son has dyslexia, so he gets 1-2-1 help with his reading and a teacher's assistant to help him understand the questions in tests. Now, to me that's a good thing because it enables him to get as much from the teaching as children who don't have dyslexia. If someone thinks he's being favoured over children who don't suffer his problems, nd therefore don't get as much individual attention, they either are massively selfish or they really don't understand the concept of fair.

Things sure have changed. When my brother was diagnosed with dyslexia 20 years ago, mostly he got abuse. And a few extra lessons, but mainly told he wasn't trying hard enough.

But, at the risk of sounding insensitive, isn't it important for dyslexics to learn how to overcome their disability? If they are given assistants to read for them in tests, isn't there a danger that they will never learn to read well? I understand that most dyslexics can overcome their problem, but it takes effort. After all, many famous novelists are dyslexic.

It is appropriate that dyslexics are given extra tuition and extra time in tests. But I am not sure about the appropriateness of people reading test questions to them. Employers are not going to be so understanding. If they hire a graduate, they are going to expect a high standard of literacy. If it turns out that the graduate passed the tests only with the help of a reader, aren't they going to be pretty annoyed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things sure have changed. When my brother was diagnosed with dyslexia 20 years ago, mostly he got abuse. And a few extra lessons, but mainly told he wasn't trying hard enough.

But, at the risk of sounding insensitive, isn't it important for dyslexics to learn how to overcome their disability? If they are given assistants to read for them in tests, isn't there a danger that they will never learn to read well? I understand that most dyslexics can overcome their problem, but it takes effort. After all, many famous novelists are dyslexic.

It is appropriate that dyslexics are given extra tuition and extra time in tests. But I am not sure about the appropriateness of people reading test questions to them. Employers are not going to be so understanding. If they hire a graduate, they are going to expect a high standard of literacy. If it turns out that the graduate passed the tests only with the help of a reader, aren't they going to be pretty annoyed?

He is learning to overcome his disability, mostly by not becoming totally depressed and demotivated by his inability to keep up. He has made more progress in the last two months than in the previous two years. He has been assessed as being in the 97th percentile for verbal reasoning, so there is no reason he cannot be a high achiever. Telling him to suck it up is not going to motivate him, or indeed anyone else.

As an additional piece of information, I can confirm that not all employers react that way either. I work for the BBC and we provide additional support for dyslexics in our recruitment testing and take people on as a result, in open competition in all other respects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we cannot use things like income and assets as a predictor of what life will be like when getting together with another person, might as well just pick some Joe Schmoe off the street and date him. Or Jill Schmill if you'd like.

I think the problem is expectations. If I were looking for a partner to settle down and have kids with then I, as a man, would probably be looking for certain things too in my prospective partner: Is she young enough not to have fertility issues? Is she actually fertile? Will she be a good mother? Is she good at housekeeping?

From a logical point of view all these considerations make as much sense as your "Is he earning a stable income?" "Is he willing to settle down and adopt a mature lifestyle?", etc.

My problem with it is that I think either approach would lead to pretty shallow judgment making when choosing a partner. It also has potential (I think) for encouraging gender-based role distribution within a couple.

I've already explained why I singled out men and not both men and women. I'm female and fully capable of living on my own with no help needed. I think a male should be at the same standards I set for myself. Used to be that men could cook for themselves, and do their own laundry. I've seen more and more mama's boys - I'm younger than you - and it's my hope that they do grow up soon.

I can understand that you admire independence and self-sufficiency in other people, but I'd be loathe to admit it as a mark of adulthood (my mother didn't start to earn the kind of money that would have allowed her to be totally autonomous until her 40s), or, indeed, manhood. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree about this one, though.

Why wouldn't he also look for someone similarly independent and financially stable? We're not talking rich, or even a homeowner, just someone who is firmly on his or her own. Two financially independent people entering into a relationship is a lot better than your proposal, which is golddigging. I don't condone that.

I didn't mean to suggest you were, but a man who is financially independent and stable might not be that interested in financial stability and independence in his partner. If he's actually making serious money or is a very career-driven person he might actually look for a partnership that doesn't interfere with his work. Put that together with a woman who's looking for financial stability and you have a perfect recipe for gender-based role distribution right there, specially if the female half is looking to have kids soon in a moment where the male part may be seriously concerned about promotion, consolidating a good position within the company, making a name for himself, etc.

The reason why my husband's co-worker broke up with her ex was because he was not living on his own yet, and she was not willing to put up with that behavior in a married man. She wasn't about to move into his mother's basement, and if he moved into her apartment it'd be a lot like living in his mother's basement, except he would have swapped his mother for his wife-to-be.

The way you previously described it your husband's co-worker's ex-partner (that was long, it would have been easier if it had been you :P ) was actually making money, but just wasn't interested in leaving the nest because his mother was taking very good care of him. His ex-girlfriend was worried he wanted her as a mother surrogate? This is actually an incredibly traditional and manly male role where I come from. It's pretty shallow, selfish and sexist, but there's nothing unmanly about it.

The independent woman you mention should be looking for an equally independent partner who has demonstrated he or she has the skills to survive and thrive in current society. Living in your mother's basement does not demonstrate that. Being of a certain age also does not demonstrate that. I don't see why any person of either gender wouldn't want someone who is low-maintenance.

My problem is that many of the variables in this equation can be a matter of life-style choice. One of the main reasons I left the nest is that I didn't get on that well with my father's second wife. Had he not re-married I might have stayed at home with him, even though I could obviously afford to live on my own. Why would my decision be anybody elses business or make me less of a man? Choosing a career is another. I have a friend who fought hard during seven years for his dream of becoming a professional sculptor. During these years he fluttered from part-time job to part-time job, not really making enough money to get along. He lived in his girlfriend's apartment, always meaning to pay her some sort of rent, which he did when he could. After 7 years of not thriving in current society he gave up and decided to become a teacher instead.

Well, this is going nowhere. I tried to explain myself, and it's like you've ignored what I've said previously, so I'll leave off here.

I'm not trying to be purposefully obtuse (though I've been informed I can often manage unpurposefully pretty neatly). If you feel it isn't worth your time to answer that's fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

litechick:

Please read Eloisa's run down of why these flats are bad ideas. That did not come from me.

really? to me it's quite obvious. A "helping hand" is designed to help you get back on your feet, i.e. be a productive member of society again. A "handout" has no such aim. I think Lyanna made it quite clear.

This.

I simply cannot understand why this is so extremely hard to wrap your head around. Is it a language barrier thing? I don't get it.

Nobody European here, as far as I can tell, have said that free handouts are great and the way forward. I am centre right on many work related issues in my homeland, due to me being extremely "pro work". I want people to work. The more the better.

Hereward's example is also a very good one: his son is getting much needed support in order to make him achieve more, also helping him get a better education, higher confidence and a larger chance at succeeding in life. Why is this a bad thing? Enabling people to achieve well and helping them through rougher patches makes good economic sense. Why waste resources if you can harness them and coax them into their full potential?

Back to the original question of fertility rates and financial incentives for parents, I'll use bullet points:

* Europe has a low birthrate, it needs to be at a certain level in order for us to have people enough to provide taxable income to sustain pension payments and the general running of society.

* Since it is basically needed to have two incomes for a vast majority of people (unless you've managed a higher paying job or very good property investments at a good time) it makes the financial hit of having a baby quite large for many, hence why tax breaks, paid maternity leave, child care subventions etc. are very helpful in:

a) getting mothers back to work and paying taxes

b) increasing the spending power of families, whcih is something the Government is very interested in in these "bad" times.

* From an equality point of view, it is also very helpful for women without significant financial clout to be able to choose both work and family, and not be forced into the age old "pick one of the other" where most would automatically submit to what Simone de Beauvoir referred to as "slavery to biology". Parents should be able to choose which solution works for them, and the state shold help enable them to do so, by supporting them if they choose to have both parents working, since this is, for the state, in the long run the most lucrative option.

* It makes financial sense. See bullet point above. Both parents working will provide more taxable income and more spending power to families, hence it makes a lot more financial sense to support families who make this decision.

What I'd like to see is somebody actually taking on the "it makes macroeconomic sense" angle, instead of just screaming "OMG GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS!!!!1111oneoneone"

Tell me why it doesn't make sense instead and we'll talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are dead to me now.

I know, I know, my bourgeois ideals will put me first against the wall when the revolution comes. But until then, I will keep on grinding the faces of the poor!! :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know, my bourgeois ideals will put me first against the wall when the revolution comes. But until then, I will keep on grinding the faces of the poor!! :pirate:

Well, we Swedes don't really do violence, excepting that bout of over-enthusiasm in Germany back in the 17th century, but, come the Glorious Day, you will most certainly be subject to more than an occasional disapproving look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...