Ask Lemmy

They only value (mostly white) men. Everyone else should either not exist or be functionally invisible. Women are baby factories and sperm receptacles. Children are a hindrance and shouldn't be seen or heard until they're adults, although exceptions can be made for child laborers. They essentially view others only in terms of what value they can offer. Children require resources, their net value is negative until they can work, their own children included.

You may have noticed Don Jr and Eric don't seem to around the current administration. You don't have to be a psychologist to realize their relationship with their father isn't a good one, even as adults. They were not as useful as expected, deemed low-value, and have been relegated to echoing their father's bullshit on social media.

Reactionary ideology is all about hierarchy and assigning everyone to their proper place within it.

They want women to be baby factories instead of in the workforce where men belong.

They want those children obedient and knowing their place in the patriarchal structure; being a woman who wants an education or a trans woman or a man who believes in feminism is a slap in the face to the reactionaries, who think a person's highest purpose is to stay in their place within society.

In other words, reactionary parents take it personally when you don't want to be stuck in their assigned boxes.

Not an old person, but my parents see me as retirement fund...

Children are potential workers, soldiers and slaves. Some cannot love them, especially not those of others, because to love them is to love a worker, a soldier, a slave, a thing that is necessary, a disposable thing, a means to an end, not a thing to cherish.

For people for whom means to ends are all they can conceive of, that is all other people are. And children are easily moulded into whatever the means require in both form and thinking. Adults less so. Thus they want, they need more children. Children for the machine. Means to all ends.

Now, this is a gross generalisation because there are plenty of people of all walks of life and political leaning who can and do love their own children, and these children receive, appreciate and reciprocate that love.

But the differences start showing up when you start to bring other people's children into the mix. Especially those of strangers. Those from groups outside of their own.

Those on the right will see this as a fault in people on the left and vice versa. But it seems to me to be people who take on right-wing leanings who have fewer qualms about treating people as commodities.

When people with leftward leanings find themselves doing it, they tend to try to even out the pain across everyone that might be affected rather than concentrating it on one specific group of people. Some of this therefore lands on rightward leaning people who think that they're being singled out. They're not, but they are the only ones not used to it.

I kind of wandered off the point there, but yeah. Kids. Kids are malleable, and you can build armies with them. That's why.

A lot of the social expectations of the time pressured young people to marry and have children as soon as they were out of school. You didn't even have to like your partner– as long as you adhere to what is expected of you, otherwise you'll bring shame onto your family. Being "othered" by your community could lead to losing jobs/promotions, social ostracization, bullying, etc.

So you do what is expected of you, even if it's not what you want. You have regrets about the life you could have had. You get bitter. You get angry. You lash out at your wife and children, blaming them for why you couldn't do something else, be somewhere else, or live the life you truly wanted without all of these "expectations": work a job where you are miserable to make money to buy a home and support your new family, give up your hobbies, your friends, your time, even your identity.. for what? To live a life you really didn't even want?

Now you expect your children to do the same. Go through the same thing. Because it's "tradition". It's just what you do! An artist?? You can't support a family on that!! Why don't you get a better job?? Why are you wasting your life by not making enough money?? You expect to raise a family on this salary?? You don't want a family?? What are you, gay???? What will the neighbors think??????

WHY ARE YOU NOT SACRIFICING YOUR FUTURE TO UPHOLD "THE NORM" LIKE I DID??? DO YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME??? I WORKED MY ASS OFF TO KEEP A GOOD NAME AND LOOK NORMAL AND YOU WANT TO RUIN IT ALL?????? MAKE LIKE ALL MY HARD WORK AND SACRIFICE WAS FOR NOTHING????????

....

Some of them just can't be happy unless you do what was expected of them, as well. Doesn't matter how much things have changed. You need to sacrifice yourself in order to achieve. If you don't.. you're "lazy", "selfish", and all that.

They're angry because you get to make choices, while they were pressured into their life– a life they never wanted/weren't prepared for.

You’re mistaking children for people.

They are commodities to be produced, like oil, lumber, and aircraft.

old. no children. no idea. At first we did not want to have kids because it did not look like we could provide them with a good enough life but then it became clear we (humanity) had not been and will not do enough for the environment and it was like who would want to bring kids into humanity's foreseeable future. I have nieces and nephews though. I hope they do alright.

Same as it ever was.

• Until AI can do it, they need warm bodies to do their bidding.
• Until AI can do it, they need warm bodies to fight their wars.
• The dumber and more obedient, the better.

They want to rule, not participate. Same as it ever was.

I'm not an Old, just .. old (40's.)

It is largely under the belief that the government is only a hindernace, and that only scammers and thieves actually get the help that is promised, so do away with all of it. i have two full time care siblings and my own vision is... fumbly (highly technical term.) We have had to fight tooth and nail for disability while i've been spoonfed over the past twenty years facebook accounts of people who get rediculous amounts but obviously don't need as way of reenforing racist and bigoted views.

They've been fed the whole rugged indavidualist line since they were young and 'never accept handouts because we're not the ones who need.'

Plus a good old fashioned dose of 'walk it off you aren't hurt you're being a pussy' reinforced by how shitty our healthcare system is (that their party broke, yet obama gets the blame.)

Here's a lie that gets repeated all the time. The reason that families today need two incomes is that 1970's "Women's Lib" lowered salaries when millions of wives entered the workforce. It's a giant lie the Right tells to hide what really happened.

Basically, there were two things that happened about the same time. The Women's Movement wanted equal pay for women who were already in the workforce. In the 1970s, one income was enough to support an entire family. Then came the Arab Oil boycott. Suddenly the prices of everything skyrocketed, because the price of energy was triple what it had been. All those great loft apartments you see in Manhattan? Those used to be small factories making clothes, toys, and other light industry. They emptied out because the owners couldn't afford to pay to keep the lights on and young artists moved in to take advantage of the spaces.

So, you had millions of families that couldn't afford to keep the house going with just Dad's salary. Mom had to look for a job, too. Most owmen would have happily stayed home, but they just couldn't afford to.

So, fifty years later, the right is blaming the Women's Movement for inflation caused by the Right's polices.

Now to the original point.

When there was one salary supporting the family, Dad was in charge. He controlled the pocketbook and in many places Mom couldn't even have a bank account unless he agreed. "A man's home is his castle." Meaning the wife and kids are his serfs.

These days, the wife and kids all have jobs, so Dad is just another cog in the machine, not the great master.

Because children are a status symbol to them. In domination cultures, such as colonial capitalist white supremacist patriarchy, males constantly feel vulnerable because they are always jockeying for position in the hierarchy.

Having lots of kids, such as Elon musk, it's a sign of his animal virulence. Actually loving the children and raising them, well that is 'women's work'.

And the women in those relationships have been conditioned to depend on a benevolent patriarch to protect them from more predatory ones. And even single mothers who have adopted that patriarchal mindset, will attempt to instill it in there children, because it's what they believe is the nature of the world and how they best believe that they can help their children to survive.

Assuming, that there's not sadism. Which can certainly come from both the male or the female parent in a patriarchal society.

And I learned most of that from bell hooks. The will to change goes into all of this extensively.

My theory is that we are experiencing a worldwide socio-psychological disorder that is a communicable disease, which was spread through information exchange on the internet.

Socio-psychological disorder is a sort of mass hysteria, evident in witch hunts, demon possession, persecution of various groups of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_panic_cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contagion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt

It appears to be about quantity, not quality (of life for the innocent)

I'm not an Olds. I'm a Chrysler.

They don't hate just the children, they hate everyone who isn't the 0.1%. As for why their voters are falling for it? Propaganda works.

Not an old, but it’s because progeny function as a commodity to be exploited for personal or capitalistic gain and aren’t actually considered sentient human beings capable of feeling pain. Hope that helps 😊

Because they hate themselves.

A few reasons, but most probably because the party doesn’t really care about children at all. In this context, ideas like ‘family values’ or ‘protecting children’ are used as tools to appeal to the emotions of the uninformed potential voter, and as bad faith arguments to undermine more serious political views and policies. In the context of passing legislation, these ideas are often used as ‘set dressing’ to make it harder to oppose bad policy. For example, calling an online censorship bill a ‘child safety bill’. The bill has nothing at all to do with child safety. The name is simply designed to affect uninformed casual perception, and to tar opponents in a similar manner. These people don’t care about children. They care about money, maintaining power to get more money, and having a lot of people struggling financially so they can be easily exploited to get more money. They are mentally unwell. Unfortunately there appears as yet to be no consensus on why people like this should not be in charge. I’ll let you know if I think of anything, please do likewise.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

That pretty much sums it up

What kind of parties are you going to?

?

I'm surprised none of these answers mention The Jesus.

The Jesus says to have children (not really, but that's how it goes in The Jesus Place) and then he kinda peaces out - like, there's no instructions after that. So these people do what they think The Jesus wants them to do then they get stuck with kids and they're angry about it.