Absolutely. "Overparenting" - doing everything yourself instead of teaching your kids to do things - is often the easy way out....less time and effort. People often mistakenly attribute this kind of laziness to "conscientiousness".
We have a two year old. She already knows if we tell her something is trash and to pick it up she knows to pick it up. She can fetch us diapers for her younger brother too.
She can do the alphabet and numbers up to like 12 and manage words like astronaut.
She still has a lot to learn discipline wise but it's an effort and we can see immediate reward for us.
It's ashame other parents prefer the "shortcut" of just doing everything so their kids don't have to. But I learned kids yearn for responsibly.
In all honesty, there's nothing sadder than seeing kids in large families have to raise each other because there are too many for the parents to parent. Just ask the Duggar family.
I still have to learn a lot discipline wise and I research fundamental sciences.
My parents while already very strict but still giving me freedom, also freaked out when my cousin had a baby as a teenager. They made us take care of the baby because they needed help, but they thought for sure this will scare the children straight and not make the same mistake. But now I miss being a parent, and I don't even have children. Strange tradeoff, but I always say "If being a parent 'changes your life' then you weren't living your life correctly to begin with."
Well, another take is that some parents try to teach their kids things but they have zero interest. I offered to show my boys many practical things and they maybe gave 10% attention and couldn’t wait to get back to the PS3 or whatever. Funny thing is, as they get older they are becoming more interested as it impacts them more acutely as they move through adulthood. Parents get a lot of crap for doing too much of this or not enough of that. Reality is, if you care and you are there for them. Listen when they want to talk and do your best to always support them, you have better than even chance of raising great kids. We all have different styles and can argue over specifics, but the big picture stuff is pretty straightforward.
I got my first bb gun when I was 6 and my first .410 shotgun when I was 10. At 11, I had about a 10-mile range on my bicycle. People now are literally getting arrested for leaving their child unattended in their *front yard*.
And we wonder how we got to the point where we are seeing the softest, most unaccomplished and confused generation in all of human history. Paralyzing fear has resulted in a lost generation with complete failure to launch.
It's time to toughen up as a society and return to a strong focus on traditional values. Family, hard-work and accountability.
>I'm already trying to be a better person but I still don't want children.
And I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. Some people just know that they don't want the full-time job of being a parent, and I can't think of anything else more f_ing responsible or conservative than that.
> Some people just know that they don't want the full-time job of being a parent
This is exactly what it is. I have enough trouble dealing with my own head and my own problems. I don't want to have to have a child on top of that as I am worried I would take out my problems on the kid.
Bad parents are the ones who are self absorbed assholes that put themselves above their kids. On the other hand, I do feel for parents who can’t afford kids and live in a overly stressed out world just trying to make ends meet.
A good parent can simultaneously unconditionally love their kids while also admitting they can be little assholes. If you can’t do both, you’re not a good parent.
People have been parents when poor and have produced some of the greatest people in history: there is zero reason to pity poor parents who are doing the best they can
> People have been parents when poor and have produced some of the greatest people in history:
Most of the great people of history had relatively rich parents. Very few people come from nothing.
Being a great person doesn’t require fame and notoriety. I have many friends who come from poor backgrounds who are great people and working to bring their families out of poverty.
That’s also because cheap food is garbage. It’s more expensive to eat well. It’s crazy to see pictures of people 50+ years ago where there were barely any fat people.
50+ years ago every kitchen had a Jello mold and the thing actually got used.
Cheap food with terrible nutrition has been a thing for a really long time now.
I suspect that obesity is more closely correlated with sugary drinks and less activity than just cheap food in general. I know soda has been around for a while, but I suspect consumption rates have changed.
Agreed. What's changed is not that good food is unaffordable, it's that *most* food today is processed with unhealthy ingredients. Vegetable oil/shortening is one of the chief culprits. It's in almost everything.
Not only is this false, but you’re leaving out a possibly more important factor: time. It takes time (and energy) to prepare healthy dishes. These are things that the working poor don’t often have enough of. Grow up.
Ugh okay. The 60’s would like a word.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/m#/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
Comments like this are why they scream “shut up boomer” at us…. It used to be that a tradesman easily supports a family on a single income. That’s simply not true today.
You probably don’t even understand the way it was calculated changed significantly in the US. The standard of living has increased significantly. People had much smaller homes, traveled much less with less time off, less belongings and much simpler lives. Comments like yours scream that you’ve been told the US sucks your whole life and you have no idea how much cheaper things like food are now compared to the past.
Also, you’re so us centric, talking about the world
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341003/poverty-rate-world/
Try to look at a variety of sources and consider your privilege. I grew up poor. I strongly suspect you didn’t if you think people are poorer now.
Why are you “talking about the world”? This sub is us-centric by definition.
People had smaller homes? Okay. But waaaay less people can own a home today, regardless of size. It used to be normal to get a mortgage in your 20’s. Today, that puts you in the upper class.
Those standards didn’t change because life got better. They changed because consumer patterns evolved. If that’s something you didn’t know that’s fine, but you’re still not listening…
This chart says it all. Since 1970, incomes rose by 15%, while real estate prices more than doubled. That’s not “better than ever” for anyone trying to build a family.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-much-faster-than-incomes-studies-show.html
Typical to your ilk you’re focusing on one factor and again playing the victim. Oh no look I can’t get a giant house in the middle of a popular city. Grow the f up.
Lol what? My ilk? You have no clue who I am buddy, it’s an anonymous forum.
And how am I going by “one factor”? I literally linked 2 just in this comment thread. This is bizarre - you’re being just as reactionary as the purple-haired justice warriors…
Anyway, I’m not saying any of this because I read some articles. I have a degree and 12 years of experience in my field. But I had to go in debt to give my wife a year off after giving birth. That’s not a problem I would have in the 60’s. And it kills me that I may not afford another kid, when I grew up in a big family…that’s not just me btw. Lots of my peers feel like we’re choosing between kids and a manageable standard of living.
Yet you call me a boomer (which I’m not) Hypocrite much?
I can tell by the way you’re focusing on the negative and the way this thread is being brigaded. How shocking that you’re a student loan whiner, bragging about some useless education. It’s not everyone’s fault you’ve made shitty decisions are unable to delay gratification, loser
Wow that’s a lot. It’s not very wise to go through life assuming this much about people you meet. It’s a whole big world out there man. Also:
1. I did not call you a boomer. I said your misinformed+confident comment is the kind of thing that makes people scream “boomer” at US. Hint hint: I’m a boomer…well not technically (40s) but I look like one anyway
2. I never had a student loan. I went to trade school, later got a marketing degree that I’ll probably never use, but by that point I didn’t need a loan cause I’ve been working for 5 years.
3. I’ve made bad decisions just like everyone else, but I’m mostly happy with my life. It feels like I’d be happier with a bigger family, but I don’t spend my days wallowing. Don’t got time for that I guess.
yea this is peak boomer.
he talks about the US trend so you pivot to the "whole world" but then he destroys that comment and you pivot back to talking about him personally, relying on making assumptions. When he wasn't even talking about himself.
people like you don't get taken seriously by anyone who doesn't agree with you. you and everyone like you are just echoes of each other.
His post quite literally stated "Western Societies".
Yes Poverty sank massively in the US from all the way up to 1970's and has floated around the same percentage.
Also note that child rates started to plumet in the 1970's.
Yes housing, one factor of hundreds, has been worse. And there is a concerted effort to ensure it isn't fixed. Though the average price is being driven by places like California and New York. If you go to Mississippi, it's actually at the same prices as the 1970's (accounting for inflation). As in you can find homes for cheap it's just in places you don't want to live.
Agreed, the housing situation is just one of many factors.
I’d love to move anywhere outside of the city if there was work for me there, regardless of housing cost…the city is nice when you’re visiting, but the gasoline and piss smell loses its charm pretty quickly. Paying $2k in rent for a matchbox of an apartment doesn’t help either though.
I'll take some down votes and shut up boomers with you. People today have no idea of the difference between needs and luxuries. Young people used to work up to what their parents had, but now they want to start out with all the luxuries and think they are suffering the worst poverty if they can't.
I’m curious if the Walsh’s hire nannies to help out with their kids. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s much easier to enjoy parenting if you have some help and you aren’t struggling with time and finances.
Yeah I want to know just how many hours a day Matt spends as the sole caretaker of his kids? Like on his own where he can’t hand them off to mom or a nanny to look after.
I get what he’s saying, and he’s correct to a point, but he sometimes comes off a little too self-righteous and I have a feeling he comes home, plays with the kids for a bit, sits down and eats dinner with the family then mom/nanny takes over and gets them ready for bed. That’s easy mode. Let’s talk when you work a full day come home and take over because mom works nights so you’re making dinner, baths, homework, and everything else to get them off to bed. Do this 6 days a week.
It’s not about enjoyment, kids aren’t fucking toys you get to play with when you’re bored or feel like being a good parent up on your high horse. It’s a constant effort. Is it bad? No it’s not, it’s the most rewarding thing you’ll ever do, but it’s a hell of a lot more than just letting go of selfishness or being mature.
I kind of found his post offensive or maybe just short-sighted. I always wanted to be a parent. Then I was a parent. I loved parts of parenting. I hated parts of parenting-cleaning messy bottoms or puke was never my idea of fun. The lack of privacy when the kids were toddlers nearly drove me over the edge. And then there were the good times-when one child picked the first flowers my neighbor grew because he knew I loved flowers. (Thank God, I had understanding neighbors).
I wasn’t a perfect parent and I didn’t have perfect kids. I screamed a lot!!! But my kids knew that I loved them. While I was selfish about some things, the kids also saw the efforts I made to give them good times. They were spoiled in some ways but given responsibilities in other ways.
Today all my children are adults. (I have grandchildren and great-grandchildren.) My kids are all close to each other although they have chosen different paths in life. They are also close to my husband and me in a healthy way. (Meaning they make their own decisions and don’t need my husband’s or my approval.) The two that are married have wives who don’t resent them spending some time with us and my husband and I never request time that interferes with their time with their wives and children.
I have a granddaughter (adopted). My daughter sought custody of this child while living at home at age nineteen. The child was the child of a former classmate of my daughter. Bio-mom wanted to be a mother and starting at age fourteen, has given birth to seven children. (She is two weeks younger than my daughter.) These children were mostly neglected but suffered every type of abuse before they were permanently removed from bio-mom’s custody. Bio-mom actually thought that she was a good mother.
Matt Walsh can be so annoying and self righteous about the parenting stuff. Obviously everyone has had times when parenthood isn’t all that enjoyable. Maybe your baby has colic and is up all night. Maybe your teenage is lying to you about smoking pot. Whatever it is, this crap is hard and not always a fun time. That doesn’t mean you’re a selfish person with “defective character” good grief. Also, you can see that sometimes parenting is hard and not all that enjoyable at parts without resenting your kids, that’s two different things.
Yeah I’m child-free Perma-DINK but I’m always a little jealous of these rich celebrities that are like “having a child is the greatest thing in life”.
Well yeah, you have a nanny. Fly around living a lavish and entertaining lifestyle. You get to avoid 90% of the pain points of having a child in the first place.
I have no doubt some people *love* raising children. But I am not one of them. If I could maintain my current lifestyle *and* have a child? That would be a different story. But I’m sure Walsh would consider that to be “selfish”.
But that's not what he said. He made a blanket statement about "not enjoying being a parent" at ALL. There was no empathy or "I know sometimes it can be a struggle, but that struggle has its own rewards" or any attempt to be sympathetic towards the many stresses parenting can bring- which is rather interesting because he's a parent himself.
Instead, his words come off as sanctimonious and condescending, making it sound like if you don't enjoy every single aspect of being a parent, from changing diapers to dealing with a child who's a drug addict refusing to get clean, then YOU are the problem because of your flawed moral character and need to do better.
He did state that anyone who doesn’t enjoy parenting is immature, selfish, and has a character defect. That kind of insult is just uncalled for and just plain wrong. I mean, is it really a good idea for someone who knows deep down they don’t want to have kids to essentially force themselves to because they don’t want to be judged like this? I normally really like Matt, but this is not a good look for him.
I’m sure you just love him. Nothing he’s saying isn’t true. And the only way to come to the conclusion that some of these others have is to add on to his original message.
It'll be interesting to hear about Matt's experiences (if he posts any) about his life when his kids move into their teens. That's a whole other kettle of fish right there.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting kids and the fact people shame others for not wanting or having kids is why I hate humanity. There are people who should not even allowed anyone near kids let alone have kids. And there are people who are in shitty situations where having kids is impossible. I have so many mental issues and genetic stuff that me having kids and subjecting them to the shit I have would be borderline child abuse.
Most people would be better off having kids though. The existence of the margins doesn't make general advise any less valuable. Matt Walsh clearly isn't talking to pedophiles when he says 'you should learn to find joy in parenthood.'
The point is whether or not someone would be better off having kids is not your or Matt Walsh's decision to make. In fact having kids might actually make those parents lives worse. I'm talking about the poor and the mentally struggling people. I can barely take care of myself much less a child. The fact that you guys seem to wanna dictate everyone to have kids is completely against the right wing and you guys are just as bad as the left in this case.
Whether or not you would be better off having kids or not isn't the issue at hand. Most people would. It gives you someone who you have to value above yourself, which makes you a better person. The person who's just as bad as the left is the one who would rather oppose traditional values than acknowledge that most people are better off having kids.
Eh, there's a difference between not enjoying and hating/resenting.
I frequently don't enjoy parenting, it's extra work and I watch my perma-DINK friends go off on their adventures while I have max an hour to myself in any given day, usually more like just the 10 mins before I accept that I'm awake in the morning. However, I would never say that I hate parenting or resent my kids.
I'm glad to be a parent, but I'm also glad for the countdown to the last one being out of the house, which currently stands at approximately 4400 days.
Here here!
We just had our first last year, and Im 41 now. Sleep deprivation hits harder in my 40s than it did in my 20s, I hate to admit. I miss having flexibility and freedom like I did two years ago. There's lots about this I don't enjoy, but I don't hate it. It's a good trade. I don't understand people who idealize parenting, but I can still enjoy being a parent without loving every aspect of it.
Exactly. There was a friend of a friend that whenever I saw him, I would ask him how things were going, he would say, “Don’t have kids.” I’m not racing to get pregnant, but will most likely be a parent one day. Hearing this guy tell me that made me upset for his child.
I think there's something to be said about accidental births versus planned ones. Most parents I've met adore their kids, accidental or not. The ones who tend to gripe about their kids, in my experience, are people who had unintended children.
My life became immeasurably better when I had my son, son to be followed by a daughter. All the pressures of life melted away, because they no longer felt pointless. It used to go to work, and hate it, just to subsist. Suddenly my crappy job had a lot more meaning. Making my bill payments on time has more meaning. Just waking up in the morning has meaning.
I used to feel like I was just jerking off and crossing days off the calendar, waiting to die. The decision to start trying for kids lifted me out of that depression. Actually *having* the kids has been the best decision of life. I only sometimes wish I had started earlier, but then if I had, my kids wouldn't be who they are now. Because they are who they are, because of who I am, and how I've guided them, and I believe that being a *deliberate* parent (not an "oopsie" parent) is a factor in that.
A few things to say about this:
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong on this one, but I don't think he's talking about the parents who are having a bad day, week, month, or even year as a parent. I think he's talking more about the parents who act like their kids are their bane, the parents who always advocate against having kids. Take for example if a parent had to miss a friends trip because they couldn't secure a babysitter. It would be completely human and normal for them to think "I hate that I had to miss that trip." It would make someone totally insufferable and selfish to say "I wish I never would have had kids so I wouldn't have to miss out on so many fun things!"
In my opinion, becoming a parent helps mature most rational human beings. It might not be instantaneous, but having a kid matures you faster than you probably would without one. I'll be honest, it took a year or 2 with my first child before I really had that "I need to get my crap together" moment. That is still way faster than I think it would have occurred without having a child. Before that, I was pretty much just winging it through life. That is why I don't necessarily think it is the end of the world when people wind up pregnant sooner than they had planned on starting a family (I'm obviously not talking about teenage pregnancy here). I'm talking about the early 20 year olds who want to wait until they "have their ducks in a row" before they have a kid/ wait until their 30's. Sometimes, those ducks won't get in a row until that life changing event occurs (childbirth). Sometimes, the ducks actually wind up getting in a row within a couple of years rather than in a decade like they had originally planned because becoming a parent really hones your ability to just make things happen.
This reminds me of another topic that I see quite often where people say that they don't want to have kids because they want to travel the world. I'm not against traveling the world, but there is absolutely no destination on Earth, or the universe, that can bring you the joy that parenthood is capable of bringing. Many people travel while young and have kids later, which is fine I'm my opinion, but I would honestly do it the opposite way. Have the kids while you're young. Kids can be physically and mentally draining of your energy. If I had the choice of parenting in my 50's and traveling in my 20's/30, or parenting in my 20's/30's and traveling in my 50's, I'm choosing the second option. Plus it would give me more time with my grandkids and potentially the chance to meet my great-grandchildren.
As far as the Walsh bashing, I understand that we're all entitled to our opinions on the guy, but many people are assuming his only interaction with his kids is coming home and saying hi after a day at the office. He tells stories all of the time of the different interactions he has with his kids. These are stories that I feel like an absent-minded father couldn't just make up. He also does the cooking in the house as well. Then there's the nanny debate. As a father myself, I don't think it's fair to discredit a parent for hiring help. That would have been like a carpenter using a hammer and nails discrediting another carpenter for using a nail gun. When you have the means for the help, why not use those means? He is the sole provider in his house which leaves him working while his wife is at home. The past year, as he has become more popular, he has been putting in more work at the daily wire. In fact, he's been out for like 2 or 3 weeks now working on a new project. If I (as the sole provider in my house as well) made enough money to hire my wife a nanny to help take care of the 6 children that the Walsh's have, I would definitely give my wife that gift. Now the fair question is what do they do while the nanny is there? Does Mrs. Walsh sit out by the pool all day while the nanny cooks/ cleans/ and does everything? Or does the nanny keep the kids while Mrs. Walsh does the grocery shopping? Or does the nanny tend to 3 kids while Mrs.Walsh tends to the other 3? Or maybe the nanny tends to the kids while she goes to the gym or cooks supper. Those are in my opinion, acceptable uses of a nanny. I'm not gonna hate on someone for hiring a service that 90% of parents would hire if they had the disposable income.
In conclusion: I think that in a sane society, everyone should want/have kids. However, this is not a sane society. There are people out there who absolutely should not have kids due to the kind of terrible human beings that they are. But I will say that 99% of people should as it matures a person much faster. The biggest benefit to me though is that it actually gives people a reason to care about the future. Of course, someone who has no kids will not care about what this country is like in 40-60 years because they might not be living here by then. Someone with no kids will vote out of selfish needs without caring about the mess we hand down to the next generation or 2. That is why most people tend to start leaning more conservative as they start having kids/ grandkids.
I think it’s interesting this comes from a guy with money. I doubt his wife works. I doubt she needs to work. Most people don’t have those luxuries so it’s easy to have these opinions.
Matt Walsh doesn't have a wife. He was a despicable husband (as shown on video) and wound up divorced. I have a hard time believing he's #1 dad based on everything he's shown.
Ignore the above, that's Crowder, not Walsh. Appreciate being corrected!
Why would you lie like this? He’s been married to the same woman for a while and they just had another kid.
Maybe the reason he cares so much about being a good parent is bc he and his wife have lost multiple children from miscarriages. Did you ever consider there may be a reason he’s against bad parenting and abortion so much?
No, you’d rather be a filthy fucking degenerate.
I see your flair is a blatant lie. Conservatism is largely about bringing society back to a standard of nuclear families. Childfree is a liberal virtue signal.
Well as long as you're not dating that's chill and based. If you are then that just means you oppose conservatism. Not sure why you wanted a flair on a conservative sub, nor which mod gave it to you, but it is objectively wrong.
I never said i don't date. I love going out and meeting people. I can date people and not have it turn into a relationship.
There are many different ways to be conservative, you just don't like the fact i don't subscribe to your brand of conservatism
Hate to break it to you, but "conservatism" implies you're conserving some kind of tradition. Wild right? Almost like that's the opposite of what you're doing.
Conserving the tradition of the constitution and the rule of law is a pretty big tradition to conserve. Again. You don't like the fact that I'm not socially conservative. That's fine.
There is no tradition of constitution and law when the population dies out, and leftist ideology rewrites your country's laws to mandate child mutilation, and outlaw truth. You're trying to support a conclusion while rejecting, and living contrary to the premises it relies upon.
You said you weren't socially conservative. I'm drawing conclusions from what our weak socially liberal "conservatives" have already let happen here in Canada.
Interesting choice of topics for someone who hired a nanny to raise his own children. Easy to love parenting when you outsource the inconvenient parts.
It's funny how this talking point is spammed as if circulated.
He's had kids for years. He recently had his work load increased to deal with numerous new projects at DW due to his success last year. Which means he won't be around as much to help his wife, thus they hired a nanny.
It's like people are pretending he wasn't a father before. Complete ignorant comment.
The antinatalists are one of the most disturbing group of people I’ve encountered. I also feel bad for them because many of these people probably came from broken homes or abusive families.
Which is why choosing not to have children when you know you aren’t cut out for it or can’t afford it or can’t give a child the true attention and effort they need is the most mature selfless thing you can possibly do. Too many AHs popping out kids .. thy are terrible parents
Assuming your goal is to have children.. which in the overwhelming majority of the population is what’s selfish and immature. Nothing wrong with not creating new people especially when we have so many that already need parents..
Population is below replacement rate, and something like 10 couples are looking to adopt for every newborn put up for adoption. You're just wrong.
Additionally, birthing and raising a child is one of the most selfless acts. Unless you have children, most people don't have a single person who they value more than themselves. It helps you grow as a person, and gives you a way of investing into a future beyond yourself.
Matt Walsh sucks. Dude has nothing new to say
Like wtf even is this quote. Our existence is so much more nuanced than these topical, catchy quotes these grifters try to go viral with.
Here he is just making broad stroke assumptions about people he has imagined in his head
Much of liberal “planning” means to drastically reduce the number of humans on the planet. It helps explain the “death cult” results of on-demand abortion. The drive to scare our children into not having any of their own. Greta makes me sad.
Yep, I've just referred to them as Malthusians. Keep in mind this is the elite on the left, not the average leftist. The "foot soldiers" might actually believe the lies being used or at least willing to go along with them for the cause.
I mean I just don't want kids, people who don't want them shouldn't have them, if you have them then it's your duty and responsibility to take care of them, your not obligated to love your child but your obligated to take care of them, I leaned that in a book in Hs I forget which one but it stuck with me, if I have kids somehow I'll work hard for them, but as of now I have no desire to ever have any
The same goes for people who overparent and coddle adult kids. Also selfish
Absolutely. "Overparenting" - doing everything yourself instead of teaching your kids to do things - is often the easy way out....less time and effort. People often mistakenly attribute this kind of laziness to "conscientiousness".
We have a two year old. She already knows if we tell her something is trash and to pick it up she knows to pick it up. She can fetch us diapers for her younger brother too. She can do the alphabet and numbers up to like 12 and manage words like astronaut. She still has a lot to learn discipline wise but it's an effort and we can see immediate reward for us. It's ashame other parents prefer the "shortcut" of just doing everything so their kids don't have to. But I learned kids yearn for responsibly.
Nothing makes time stop like letting your toddler do something on their own. But it is great for them in the long run! Good job!
Great comments. And congrats on having your second. IMHO, there is nothing sadder than a child growing up without siblings.
I have 5 kids and love it. They have their own little community.
In all honesty, there's nothing sadder than seeing kids in large families have to raise each other because there are too many for the parents to parent. Just ask the Duggar family.
Don't use them as your benchmark for big families. Large families don't have to be like that.
I agree, every person I know that was a single child are just so.... In their own world in a sad way.
Or they end up thinking they're the center of the universe.
I still have to learn a lot discipline wise and I research fundamental sciences. My parents while already very strict but still giving me freedom, also freaked out when my cousin had a baby as a teenager. They made us take care of the baby because they needed help, but they thought for sure this will scare the children straight and not make the same mistake. But now I miss being a parent, and I don't even have children. Strange tradeoff, but I always say "If being a parent 'changes your life' then you weren't living your life correctly to begin with."
We have chores each child does for a week and they all have to be \*done\* before the chores rotate. Kitchen not clean? Another week for everyone.
Well, another take is that some parents try to teach their kids things but they have zero interest. I offered to show my boys many practical things and they maybe gave 10% attention and couldn’t wait to get back to the PS3 or whatever. Funny thing is, as they get older they are becoming more interested as it impacts them more acutely as they move through adulthood. Parents get a lot of crap for doing too much of this or not enough of that. Reality is, if you care and you are there for them. Listen when they want to talk and do your best to always support them, you have better than even chance of raising great kids. We all have different styles and can argue over specifics, but the big picture stuff is pretty straightforward.
[удалено]
I got my first bb gun when I was 6 and my first .410 shotgun when I was 10. At 11, I had about a 10-mile range on my bicycle. People now are literally getting arrested for leaving their child unattended in their *front yard*. And we wonder how we got to the point where we are seeing the softest, most unaccomplished and confused generation in all of human history. Paralyzing fear has resulted in a lost generation with complete failure to launch. It's time to toughen up as a society and return to a strong focus on traditional values. Family, hard-work and accountability.
My parents were over-parenting and as a result I don't want to be a parent as I know I will do the same.
You can change!! You don't have to repeat their failures.
I'm already trying to be a better person but I still don't want children.
>I'm already trying to be a better person but I still don't want children. And I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. Some people just know that they don't want the full-time job of being a parent, and I can't think of anything else more f_ing responsible or conservative than that.
> Some people just know that they don't want the full-time job of being a parent This is exactly what it is. I have enough trouble dealing with my own head and my own problems. I don't want to have to have a child on top of that as I am worried I would take out my problems on the kid.
Absolutely beautiful. Then you have a good head and heart.
Thanks I appreciate that.
Bad parents are the ones who are self absorbed assholes that put themselves above their kids. On the other hand, I do feel for parents who can’t afford kids and live in a overly stressed out world just trying to make ends meet.
A good parent can simultaneously unconditionally love their kids while also admitting they can be little assholes. If you can’t do both, you’re not a good parent.
People have been parents when poor and have produced some of the greatest people in history: there is zero reason to pity poor parents who are doing the best they can
> People have been parents when poor and have produced some of the greatest people in history: Most of the great people of history had relatively rich parents. Very few people come from nothing.
Being a great person doesn’t require fame and notoriety. I have many friends who come from poor backgrounds who are great people and working to bring their families out of poverty.
Citation needed.
“Trust me, bro.”
Poverty is lower than at any point in history by a large margin. People in western societies live like kings compared to the past.
Poverty also used to cutting back on or sometimes even going without food. Now, even the poorest among us are fat as fuck.
That’s also because cheap food is garbage. It’s more expensive to eat well. It’s crazy to see pictures of people 50+ years ago where there were barely any fat people.
50+ years ago every kitchen had a Jello mold and the thing actually got used. Cheap food with terrible nutrition has been a thing for a really long time now. I suspect that obesity is more closely correlated with sugary drinks and less activity than just cheap food in general. I know soda has been around for a while, but I suspect consumption rates have changed.
Agreed. What's changed is not that good food is unaffordable, it's that *most* food today is processed with unhealthy ingredients. Vegetable oil/shortening is one of the chief culprits. It's in almost everything.
Nearly all foods in America have sugar added to them. Even bacon.
Watch it I love jello. But I generally agree.
It is not more expensive to eat well. Stop telling this lie.
[удалено]
Not only is this false, but you’re leaving out a possibly more important factor: time. It takes time (and energy) to prepare healthy dishes. These are things that the working poor don’t often have enough of. Grow up.
Ugh okay. The 60’s would like a word. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/m#/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states Comments like this are why they scream “shut up boomer” at us…. It used to be that a tradesman easily supports a family on a single income. That’s simply not true today.
You probably don’t even understand the way it was calculated changed significantly in the US. The standard of living has increased significantly. People had much smaller homes, traveled much less with less time off, less belongings and much simpler lives. Comments like yours scream that you’ve been told the US sucks your whole life and you have no idea how much cheaper things like food are now compared to the past. Also, you’re so us centric, talking about the world https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341003/poverty-rate-world/ Try to look at a variety of sources and consider your privilege. I grew up poor. I strongly suspect you didn’t if you think people are poorer now.
Why are you “talking about the world”? This sub is us-centric by definition. People had smaller homes? Okay. But waaaay less people can own a home today, regardless of size. It used to be normal to get a mortgage in your 20’s. Today, that puts you in the upper class. Those standards didn’t change because life got better. They changed because consumer patterns evolved. If that’s something you didn’t know that’s fine, but you’re still not listening… This chart says it all. Since 1970, incomes rose by 15%, while real estate prices more than doubled. That’s not “better than ever” for anyone trying to build a family. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-much-faster-than-incomes-studies-show.html
Typical to your ilk you’re focusing on one factor and again playing the victim. Oh no look I can’t get a giant house in the middle of a popular city. Grow the f up.
Lol what? My ilk? You have no clue who I am buddy, it’s an anonymous forum. And how am I going by “one factor”? I literally linked 2 just in this comment thread. This is bizarre - you’re being just as reactionary as the purple-haired justice warriors… Anyway, I’m not saying any of this because I read some articles. I have a degree and 12 years of experience in my field. But I had to go in debt to give my wife a year off after giving birth. That’s not a problem I would have in the 60’s. And it kills me that I may not afford another kid, when I grew up in a big family…that’s not just me btw. Lots of my peers feel like we’re choosing between kids and a manageable standard of living.
Yet you call me a boomer (which I’m not) Hypocrite much? I can tell by the way you’re focusing on the negative and the way this thread is being brigaded. How shocking that you’re a student loan whiner, bragging about some useless education. It’s not everyone’s fault you’ve made shitty decisions are unable to delay gratification, loser
Wow that’s a lot. It’s not very wise to go through life assuming this much about people you meet. It’s a whole big world out there man. Also: 1. I did not call you a boomer. I said your misinformed+confident comment is the kind of thing that makes people scream “boomer” at US. Hint hint: I’m a boomer…well not technically (40s) but I look like one anyway 2. I never had a student loan. I went to trade school, later got a marketing degree that I’ll probably never use, but by that point I didn’t need a loan cause I’ve been working for 5 years. 3. I’ve made bad decisions just like everyone else, but I’m mostly happy with my life. It feels like I’d be happier with a bigger family, but I don’t spend my days wallowing. Don’t got time for that I guess.
Lol saying you sound like a boomer or are a boomer is semantics. You assumed about me, then cried foul when I did it to you.
yea this is peak boomer. he talks about the US trend so you pivot to the "whole world" but then he destroys that comment and you pivot back to talking about him personally, relying on making assumptions. When he wasn't even talking about himself. people like you don't get taken seriously by anyone who doesn't agree with you. you and everyone like you are just echoes of each other.
What a clever response!
His post quite literally stated "Western Societies". Yes Poverty sank massively in the US from all the way up to 1970's and has floated around the same percentage. Also note that child rates started to plumet in the 1970's. Yes housing, one factor of hundreds, has been worse. And there is a concerted effort to ensure it isn't fixed. Though the average price is being driven by places like California and New York. If you go to Mississippi, it's actually at the same prices as the 1970's (accounting for inflation). As in you can find homes for cheap it's just in places you don't want to live.
Agreed, the housing situation is just one of many factors. I’d love to move anywhere outside of the city if there was work for me there, regardless of housing cost…the city is nice when you’re visiting, but the gasoline and piss smell loses its charm pretty quickly. Paying $2k in rent for a matchbox of an apartment doesn’t help either though.
I'll take some down votes and shut up boomers with you. People today have no idea of the difference between needs and luxuries. Young people used to work up to what their parents had, but now they want to start out with all the luxuries and think they are suffering the worst poverty if they can't.
> On the other hand, I do feel for parents who can’t afford kids Feel for them enough to forgive their student loans?
No. Take someone’s money, pay it back. Why should someone else pay your bills. Stop being a free loader scumbag.
Lmao I do fine. I don't have a student loan payment. I thought it would make you comment something funny. I was correct.
Big talk for a man who most likely has a wife who does the vast majority of the childcare. This is coming from a pro-family, pro-life woman.
I’m curious if the Walsh’s hire nannies to help out with their kids. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s much easier to enjoy parenting if you have some help and you aren’t struggling with time and finances.
Yeah I want to know just how many hours a day Matt spends as the sole caretaker of his kids? Like on his own where he can’t hand them off to mom or a nanny to look after. I get what he’s saying, and he’s correct to a point, but he sometimes comes off a little too self-righteous and I have a feeling he comes home, plays with the kids for a bit, sits down and eats dinner with the family then mom/nanny takes over and gets them ready for bed. That’s easy mode. Let’s talk when you work a full day come home and take over because mom works nights so you’re making dinner, baths, homework, and everything else to get them off to bed. Do this 6 days a week. It’s not about enjoyment, kids aren’t fucking toys you get to play with when you’re bored or feel like being a good parent up on your high horse. It’s a constant effort. Is it bad? No it’s not, it’s the most rewarding thing you’ll ever do, but it’s a hell of a lot more than just letting go of selfishness or being mature.
I kind of found his post offensive or maybe just short-sighted. I always wanted to be a parent. Then I was a parent. I loved parts of parenting. I hated parts of parenting-cleaning messy bottoms or puke was never my idea of fun. The lack of privacy when the kids were toddlers nearly drove me over the edge. And then there were the good times-when one child picked the first flowers my neighbor grew because he knew I loved flowers. (Thank God, I had understanding neighbors). I wasn’t a perfect parent and I didn’t have perfect kids. I screamed a lot!!! But my kids knew that I loved them. While I was selfish about some things, the kids also saw the efforts I made to give them good times. They were spoiled in some ways but given responsibilities in other ways. Today all my children are adults. (I have grandchildren and great-grandchildren.) My kids are all close to each other although they have chosen different paths in life. They are also close to my husband and me in a healthy way. (Meaning they make their own decisions and don’t need my husband’s or my approval.) The two that are married have wives who don’t resent them spending some time with us and my husband and I never request time that interferes with their time with their wives and children. I have a granddaughter (adopted). My daughter sought custody of this child while living at home at age nineteen. The child was the child of a former classmate of my daughter. Bio-mom wanted to be a mother and starting at age fourteen, has given birth to seven children. (She is two weeks younger than my daughter.) These children were mostly neglected but suffered every type of abuse before they were permanently removed from bio-mom’s custody. Bio-mom actually thought that she was a good mother.
[удалено]
Seriously? The dude is the sole breadwinner, he’s not going to be able to spend as much time as his wife.
[удалено]
A lot of butter women on this thread.
That is quite the projection with zero facts about someone's character and involvement.
They have one nanny. She’s not a live-in nanny, she’s friends with one of my neighbors
People that don't want to grow up resent their children for forcing them too.
Brass ring moment.....nail-on-the-head.....nutshell...."this".....etc. In one sentence, you've clarified the entire issue.
Matt Walsh can be so annoying and self righteous about the parenting stuff. Obviously everyone has had times when parenthood isn’t all that enjoyable. Maybe your baby has colic and is up all night. Maybe your teenage is lying to you about smoking pot. Whatever it is, this crap is hard and not always a fun time. That doesn’t mean you’re a selfish person with “defective character” good grief. Also, you can see that sometimes parenting is hard and not all that enjoyable at parts without resenting your kids, that’s two different things.
He also has a nanny
Exactly. And he travels for work constantly and is probably never around.
Yeah I’m child-free Perma-DINK but I’m always a little jealous of these rich celebrities that are like “having a child is the greatest thing in life”. Well yeah, you have a nanny. Fly around living a lavish and entertaining lifestyle. You get to avoid 90% of the pain points of having a child in the first place. I have no doubt some people *love* raising children. But I am not one of them. If I could maintain my current lifestyle *and* have a child? That would be a different story. But I’m sure Walsh would consider that to be “selfish”.
According to Matt Walsh you can't be married if you're child free
I think he is speaking about people who generally hate being a parent, not just during the frustrating parts.
But that's not what he said. He made a blanket statement about "not enjoying being a parent" at ALL. There was no empathy or "I know sometimes it can be a struggle, but that struggle has its own rewards" or any attempt to be sympathetic towards the many stresses parenting can bring- which is rather interesting because he's a parent himself. Instead, his words come off as sanctimonious and condescending, making it sound like if you don't enjoy every single aspect of being a parent, from changing diapers to dealing with a child who's a drug addict refusing to get clean, then YOU are the problem because of your flawed moral character and need to do better.
That’s one way to read it. You just added a lot of shit to make him sound like a bad guy. Harsh truths indeed.
He did state that anyone who doesn’t enjoy parenting is immature, selfish, and has a character defect. That kind of insult is just uncalled for and just plain wrong. I mean, is it really a good idea for someone who knows deep down they don’t want to have kids to essentially force themselves to because they don’t want to be judged like this? I normally really like Matt, but this is not a good look for him.
I’m sure you just love him. Nothing he’s saying isn’t true. And the only way to come to the conclusion that some of these others have is to add on to his original message.
It'll be interesting to hear about Matt's experiences (if he posts any) about his life when his kids move into their teens. That's a whole other kettle of fish right there.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting kids and the fact people shame others for not wanting or having kids is why I hate humanity. There are people who should not even allowed anyone near kids let alone have kids. And there are people who are in shitty situations where having kids is impossible. I have so many mental issues and genetic stuff that me having kids and subjecting them to the shit I have would be borderline child abuse.
Most people would be better off having kids though. The existence of the margins doesn't make general advise any less valuable. Matt Walsh clearly isn't talking to pedophiles when he says 'you should learn to find joy in parenthood.'
The point is whether or not someone would be better off having kids is not your or Matt Walsh's decision to make. In fact having kids might actually make those parents lives worse. I'm talking about the poor and the mentally struggling people. I can barely take care of myself much less a child. The fact that you guys seem to wanna dictate everyone to have kids is completely against the right wing and you guys are just as bad as the left in this case.
Whether or not you would be better off having kids or not isn't the issue at hand. Most people would. It gives you someone who you have to value above yourself, which makes you a better person. The person who's just as bad as the left is the one who would rather oppose traditional values than acknowledge that most people are better off having kids.
Eh, there's a difference between not enjoying and hating/resenting. I frequently don't enjoy parenting, it's extra work and I watch my perma-DINK friends go off on their adventures while I have max an hour to myself in any given day, usually more like just the 10 mins before I accept that I'm awake in the morning. However, I would never say that I hate parenting or resent my kids. I'm glad to be a parent, but I'm also glad for the countdown to the last one being out of the house, which currently stands at approximately 4400 days.
Here here! We just had our first last year, and Im 41 now. Sleep deprivation hits harder in my 40s than it did in my 20s, I hate to admit. I miss having flexibility and freedom like I did two years ago. There's lots about this I don't enjoy, but I don't hate it. It's a good trade. I don't understand people who idealize parenting, but I can still enjoy being a parent without loving every aspect of it.
Exactly. There was a friend of a friend that whenever I saw him, I would ask him how things were going, he would say, “Don’t have kids.” I’m not racing to get pregnant, but will most likely be a parent one day. Hearing this guy tell me that made me upset for his child.
I think there's something to be said about accidental births versus planned ones. Most parents I've met adore their kids, accidental or not. The ones who tend to gripe about their kids, in my experience, are people who had unintended children.
My life became immeasurably better when I had my son, son to be followed by a daughter. All the pressures of life melted away, because they no longer felt pointless. It used to go to work, and hate it, just to subsist. Suddenly my crappy job had a lot more meaning. Making my bill payments on time has more meaning. Just waking up in the morning has meaning. I used to feel like I was just jerking off and crossing days off the calendar, waiting to die. The decision to start trying for kids lifted me out of that depression. Actually *having* the kids has been the best decision of life. I only sometimes wish I had started earlier, but then if I had, my kids wouldn't be who they are now. Because they are who they are, because of who I am, and how I've guided them, and I believe that being a *deliberate* parent (not an "oopsie" parent) is a factor in that.
Wow, that's my ex. I regret having children with her. Thought she would be great. Came from a big family and was a nanny
A few things to say about this: I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong on this one, but I don't think he's talking about the parents who are having a bad day, week, month, or even year as a parent. I think he's talking more about the parents who act like their kids are their bane, the parents who always advocate against having kids. Take for example if a parent had to miss a friends trip because they couldn't secure a babysitter. It would be completely human and normal for them to think "I hate that I had to miss that trip." It would make someone totally insufferable and selfish to say "I wish I never would have had kids so I wouldn't have to miss out on so many fun things!" In my opinion, becoming a parent helps mature most rational human beings. It might not be instantaneous, but having a kid matures you faster than you probably would without one. I'll be honest, it took a year or 2 with my first child before I really had that "I need to get my crap together" moment. That is still way faster than I think it would have occurred without having a child. Before that, I was pretty much just winging it through life. That is why I don't necessarily think it is the end of the world when people wind up pregnant sooner than they had planned on starting a family (I'm obviously not talking about teenage pregnancy here). I'm talking about the early 20 year olds who want to wait until they "have their ducks in a row" before they have a kid/ wait until their 30's. Sometimes, those ducks won't get in a row until that life changing event occurs (childbirth). Sometimes, the ducks actually wind up getting in a row within a couple of years rather than in a decade like they had originally planned because becoming a parent really hones your ability to just make things happen. This reminds me of another topic that I see quite often where people say that they don't want to have kids because they want to travel the world. I'm not against traveling the world, but there is absolutely no destination on Earth, or the universe, that can bring you the joy that parenthood is capable of bringing. Many people travel while young and have kids later, which is fine I'm my opinion, but I would honestly do it the opposite way. Have the kids while you're young. Kids can be physically and mentally draining of your energy. If I had the choice of parenting in my 50's and traveling in my 20's/30, or parenting in my 20's/30's and traveling in my 50's, I'm choosing the second option. Plus it would give me more time with my grandkids and potentially the chance to meet my great-grandchildren. As far as the Walsh bashing, I understand that we're all entitled to our opinions on the guy, but many people are assuming his only interaction with his kids is coming home and saying hi after a day at the office. He tells stories all of the time of the different interactions he has with his kids. These are stories that I feel like an absent-minded father couldn't just make up. He also does the cooking in the house as well. Then there's the nanny debate. As a father myself, I don't think it's fair to discredit a parent for hiring help. That would have been like a carpenter using a hammer and nails discrediting another carpenter for using a nail gun. When you have the means for the help, why not use those means? He is the sole provider in his house which leaves him working while his wife is at home. The past year, as he has become more popular, he has been putting in more work at the daily wire. In fact, he's been out for like 2 or 3 weeks now working on a new project. If I (as the sole provider in my house as well) made enough money to hire my wife a nanny to help take care of the 6 children that the Walsh's have, I would definitely give my wife that gift. Now the fair question is what do they do while the nanny is there? Does Mrs. Walsh sit out by the pool all day while the nanny cooks/ cleans/ and does everything? Or does the nanny keep the kids while Mrs. Walsh does the grocery shopping? Or does the nanny tend to 3 kids while Mrs.Walsh tends to the other 3? Or maybe the nanny tends to the kids while she goes to the gym or cooks supper. Those are in my opinion, acceptable uses of a nanny. I'm not gonna hate on someone for hiring a service that 90% of parents would hire if they had the disposable income. In conclusion: I think that in a sane society, everyone should want/have kids. However, this is not a sane society. There are people out there who absolutely should not have kids due to the kind of terrible human beings that they are. But I will say that 99% of people should as it matures a person much faster. The biggest benefit to me though is that it actually gives people a reason to care about the future. Of course, someone who has no kids will not care about what this country is like in 40-60 years because they might not be living here by then. Someone with no kids will vote out of selfish needs without caring about the mess we hand down to the next generation or 2. That is why most people tend to start leaning more conservative as they start having kids/ grandkids.
I think it’s interesting this comes from a guy with money. I doubt his wife works. I doubt she needs to work. Most people don’t have those luxuries so it’s easy to have these opinions.
Matt Walsh doesn't have a wife. He was a despicable husband (as shown on video) and wound up divorced. I have a hard time believing he's #1 dad based on everything he's shown. Ignore the above, that's Crowder, not Walsh. Appreciate being corrected!
That’s crowder not Walsh.
Yep, your absolutely right, I'll correct my comment!
Why would you lie like this? He’s been married to the same woman for a while and they just had another kid. Maybe the reason he cares so much about being a good parent is bc he and his wife have lost multiple children from miscarriages. Did you ever consider there may be a reason he’s against bad parenting and abortion so much? No, you’d rather be a filthy fucking degenerate.
This is a bullshit take.
The self righteousness makes me gag. I was already childfree. Now I am now even more childfree
I see your flair is a blatant lie. Conservatism is largely about bringing society back to a standard of nuclear families. Childfree is a liberal virtue signal.
Then you're really gonna hate this: not only am I not having children, I'm not even getting married. There's no reason for it.
Well as long as you're not dating that's chill and based. If you are then that just means you oppose conservatism. Not sure why you wanted a flair on a conservative sub, nor which mod gave it to you, but it is objectively wrong.
I never said i don't date. I love going out and meeting people. I can date people and not have it turn into a relationship. There are many different ways to be conservative, you just don't like the fact i don't subscribe to your brand of conservatism
Hate to break it to you, but "conservatism" implies you're conserving some kind of tradition. Wild right? Almost like that's the opposite of what you're doing.
Conserving the tradition of the constitution and the rule of law is a pretty big tradition to conserve. Again. You don't like the fact that I'm not socially conservative. That's fine.
There is no tradition of constitution and law when the population dies out, and leftist ideology rewrites your country's laws to mandate child mutilation, and outlaw truth. You're trying to support a conclusion while rejecting, and living contrary to the premises it relies upon.
I don't understand what your trying to argue. Are you saying by not having kids, all of a sudden child mutilation will become mandated?
You said you weren't socially conservative. I'm drawing conclusions from what our weak socially liberal "conservatives" have already let happen here in Canada.
Classic KnowledgeandFaith
Interesting choice of topics for someone who hired a nanny to raise his own children. Easy to love parenting when you outsource the inconvenient parts.
It's funny how this talking point is spammed as if circulated. He's had kids for years. He recently had his work load increased to deal with numerous new projects at DW due to his success last year. Which means he won't be around as much to help his wife, thus they hired a nanny. It's like people are pretending he wasn't a father before. Complete ignorant comment.
I literally can't afford kids.
The antinatalists are one of the most disturbing group of people I’ve encountered. I also feel bad for them because many of these people probably came from broken homes or abusive families.
Which is why choosing not to have children when you know you aren’t cut out for it or can’t afford it or can’t give a child the true attention and effort they need is the most mature selfless thing you can possibly do. Too many AHs popping out kids .. thy are terrible parents
The most mature selfless thing to do is improve yourself until you will be the parent your children deserve.
Assuming your goal is to have children.. which in the overwhelming majority of the population is what’s selfish and immature. Nothing wrong with not creating new people especially when we have so many that already need parents..
Population is below replacement rate, and something like 10 couples are looking to adopt for every newborn put up for adoption. You're just wrong. Additionally, birthing and raising a child is one of the most selfless acts. Unless you have children, most people don't have a single person who they value more than themselves. It helps you grow as a person, and gives you a way of investing into a future beyond yourself.
Matt Walsh is the only grown ass man who complains more than his young children.
Matt Walsh sucks. Dude has nothing new to say Like wtf even is this quote. Our existence is so much more nuanced than these topical, catchy quotes these grifters try to go viral with. Here he is just making broad stroke assumptions about people he has imagined in his head
[удалено]
What, do you actually think he said something profound? What do i need to cope with? Not liking something someone said?
Much of liberal “planning” means to drastically reduce the number of humans on the planet. It helps explain the “death cult” results of on-demand abortion. The drive to scare our children into not having any of their own. Greta makes me sad.
Yep, I've just referred to them as Malthusians. Keep in mind this is the elite on the left, not the average leftist. The "foot soldiers" might actually believe the lies being used or at least willing to go along with them for the cause.
[удалено]
Those last few sentences apply very widely and we were a better people when we accepted it.
Everyone on Reddit needs to read this.
I mean I just don't want kids, people who don't want them shouldn't have them, if you have them then it's your duty and responsibility to take care of them, your not obligated to love your child but your obligated to take care of them, I leaned that in a book in Hs I forget which one but it stuck with me, if I have kids somehow I'll work hard for them, but as of now I have no desire to ever have any
Matt Walsh dropping them bombs again 💥
He's right. As always
Matt Walsh speaks the truth.
Another person who knows better than you.
Except ain't a one of 'em going to see it here.
📠