The kids question

The estimable Jules Crittenden takes on the questions stay-at-home-dads and of having kids, as in more than one. The miracle of birth and the sad decline of enthusiastic reproduction occupied two AT articles yesterday, and Jules makes some points of tangential interest.

As usual, Jules takes no prisoners. He is responding to blogger writing about being a stay-at-home dad raising one child, and there appears to be a history of dispute between the blogger in question and others. But Jules' points go to more general questions related to societal and personal welfare, and the importance of reproduction to us all.

If you've only produced one, and you're healthy and capable and married and sane and you belong to the educated, responsible, job-holding classes, then you're a drain on society. Who's supposed to pay for your social security and Medicaid?  Who's going to keep civilized society going?  Who's going to produce citizens who know how to read, write, tie their shoes, show up on time, chew with their mouths closed,  be respectful to their elders, say please and thank you, not litter and pay the frikkin taxes?  The government? Some mythical village?  Do you know what's happening in Europe and Japan?  They are unbreeding themselves into irrelevance.  Guess who's next.

Now, to start doing your duty ... as a man, as an American ... you'll need to swap jobs with your wife.  She's the one with the uterus and the breasts, after all, and if you're going to be pumping out kids, she's going to be using those.
I am not as skeptical about one child households and stay at home dads as Jules, perhaps (I have had three kids myself and have done both the primary provider role and the stay at home role), but I do wish that we honored those who have large families and conceded that men who are good providers and stick to traditional dad-roles can be outstanding human beings.
The estimable Jules Crittenden takes on the questions stay-at-home-dads and of having kids, as in more than one. The miracle of birth and the sad decline of enthusiastic reproduction occupied two AT articles yesterday, and Jules makes some points of tangential interest.

As usual, Jules takes no prisoners. He is responding to blogger writing about being a stay-at-home dad raising one child, and there appears to be a history of dispute between the blogger in question and others. But Jules' points go to more general questions related to societal and personal welfare, and the importance of reproduction to us all.

If you've only produced one, and you're healthy and capable and married and sane and you belong to the educated, responsible, job-holding classes, then you're a drain on society. Who's supposed to pay for your social security and Medicaid?  Who's going to keep civilized society going?  Who's going to produce citizens who know how to read, write, tie their shoes, show up on time, chew with their mouths closed,  be respectful to their elders, say please and thank you, not litter and pay the frikkin taxes?  The government? Some mythical village?  Do you know what's happening in Europe and Japan?  They are unbreeding themselves into irrelevance.  Guess who's next.

Now, to start doing your duty ... as a man, as an American ... you'll need to swap jobs with your wife.  She's the one with the uterus and the breasts, after all, and if you're going to be pumping out kids, she's going to be using those.
I am not as skeptical about one child households and stay at home dads as Jules, perhaps (I have had three kids myself and have done both the primary provider role and the stay at home role), but I do wish that we honored those who have large families and conceded that men who are good providers and stick to traditional dad-roles can be outstanding human beings.