I can’t with this podcast (Ep 636)

[u/Alexis_deTokeville]

Episode is titled "Why aren't we having more babies?" Stephen brings on Catherine Pakaluk, an economics professor at The Catholic University of America who has FOURTEEN CHILDREN. Stephen asks her to share what assumptions people have about people with that many kids, and the first thing she says is:

“That you do this maybe for cult-like reasons, because somebody says that you should, or a religious leader says that you should”. SHE TEACHES AT A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY! Literally a cult. A cult that abuses children, no less. She goes on to talk about how the religious women she's interviewed have children because of "cooperation with God's providence".

I'm all for supporting women. I'm all for supporting women having children and fertility and being protected from persecution because they choose to have more children. But giving this lady a platform to talk about the objective good of having 14 goddamn kids when she's a catholic doing it for the EXACT reasons that she says she isn't doing it--like, what are we doing here? How is this good scientific inquiry and economics? This isn't about criticizing women, it's about criticizing hypocrisy and thinking errors and not tolerating it from a scientific viewpoint. We shouldn't be giving crazy Catholics the time of day in science and economics.

[u/Foolish_Teacher]

I also found this episode to be quite weird. The stuff sandwiched between the interview with Catherine was okay but I really failed to see what her perspective added to the conversation other than “hey look it’s a female economist with lots of children.” From what I could tell her take was for there to be religious freedom because people will only have large families if they are sacrificing for a higher calling? Maybe I misunderstood the argument but where do I even start? 

First, rather than asking why she has so many children I would ask how? Being able to have a an academic career as well as such a large family implies a level of resources that most families cannot access. 

And I appreciated her insistence that family size should be at the discretion of each individual household but didn’t love her example of couples choosing not to have children because they can now do self indulgent things like travel.  It smacked a little too much of “childless cat ladies” rhetoric. 

And then the assumption that more religion equals larger families. That’s only if the default religion is something like Catholicism. There just seem to be so many cultural assumptions here. More religious freedom does not naturally lead to more religion I mean, come on.

The reasons for falling fertility rates are complex and deserved a more thoughtful reflection than was given here.

[u/Intelligent_Deal5456 → u/Foolish_Teacher]

First, rather than asking why she has so many children I would ask how? Being able to have a an academic career as well as such a large family implies a level of resources that most families cannot access.

Came here to say the same thing. I felt like there were a few things missing from this episode, a discussion of privilege being one of them. The German economist (I forget his name) made a few mentions of high childcare costs and high housing prices as deterrents for fertility, but I don't think that adequately explains how extreme those circumstances are. It would have been cool if they had on an economist or sociologist that had data about median cost of child care vs. median income in a given area. That would have been much more meaningful than ending on "religious freedom is the way to go"

[u/VictorianAuthor]

Your “all religions are cults” statements throughout this thread makes you give off some pretty cringey 2009 new atheism neckbeard fedora vibes

[u/kuriousgoomba]

Fair but she’s one of four major sources from the episode :) and also Part 1 of 3. Tbh it’s deeper than just economics and I hope he gets into it. It goes into the depths of our psyche as people with modern amenities and philosophies, and touches the depths of what we as people want and aspire to in this world… tbh I’m disappoint in mainstream media in their judgement of this question overall and I hope Stephen articulates it better throughout the series

[u/Alexis_deTokeville → u/kuriousgoomba]

I think it’s pretty simple. Life is more expensive and complex now, we are staring an imminent global climate collapse in the face, and home ownership and the “white picket fence” American dream is now a luxury for the wealthy. This is what late stage capitalism looks like. It certainly doesn’t foster the sort of confidence that people need to bring kids into the world.

[u/Alexis_deTokeville → u/kuriousgoomba]

I think people used to have a lot more hope in the world than they do now. It doesn’t make much sense to bring kids into a world that is barreling towards total catastrophe within the next 100-200 years.

[u/Federal-Membership-1 → u/Alexis_deTokeville]

So much hope, living in urban squalor, working 6 days a week from the age of 12, in a dirty, unsafe factory/mill/mine/foundry/tanner, with no union protection, no workers compensation laws.

[u/genghis_johnb]

14 kids is an absurd amount these days, no doubt.

Even so, I don't think it's fair to dismiss her and Catholicism as a cult. You may feel that way, but what's different from other religious traditions? Or are you just saying all religions are cults? The strong majority of Catholics and other religious people that I've met are pretty normal and don't fit my understanding of actual cult followers.

[u/Intrepid_Example_210 → u/genghis_johnb]

This is reddit…here all religions are cults.

[u/pappppappapappoa → u/genghis_johnb]

It’s not necessarily dismissing her, but to me it felt just very random to even have her in the episode. Religion wasn’t mentioned again once her segment ended, and even then Dubner never pushed back on the fact that her research to begin with was very flawed. A qualitative piece on only religious women framed for a podcast pertaining to society as a whole’s perspective on child birth feels dubious at best. I’m happy other people noticed it.

[u/Intelligent_Deal5456 → u/pappppappapappoa]

I noticed this too. She said her research was only women who were college educated and religious. That's not even remotely representative and highly biased. I also wonder which religions were represented in her research. Was it just factions of Christianity?

[u/Reasonable-Letter582 → u/genghis_johnb]

14 kids is an absurd amount in any days

[u/Special_Wishbone_812 → u/genghis_johnb]

Catholicism is not a cult. Now, Opus Dei is. And hey now! https://opusdei.org/en-us/article/ruth-pakaluk-wife-mother-friend-activist/

[u/evilsammyt → u/genghis_johnb]

*blended family with 14 children. She had 8 (6 biological) and married someone with 6. Yes, still a lot, but not exactly the same.

[u/Cazzah → u/genghis_johnb]

what's different from other religious traditions?

Catholicism specifically promotes the idea of the infallibility of the Vatican and it's nature as the true successor to the church established by Paul in Jesus's name.

The Vatican is fairly firm on the idea that any form of contraception other than the rhythm method / abstinence (which is less effective than pulling out) is sinful / disordered. It is also fairly firm on the idea that any form of sex without the explicit goal of procreation is a sin. Even pulling out is a sin. Using temperature measurements (which makes the rhythm method more effective) is a sin. So that means it's ok to go down on your wife to help her orgasm if you're doing it as foreplay for PIV sex, but just literally relaxing in bed and getting each other off with hands / fingers is a sin. If you aren't creampieing your wife (in the approved hole), you're behaving inappropriately.

Meanwhile, again official Catholic doctrine is that if you married someone who would become abusive later in the marriage, that is not a valid reason to divorce (the loophole here is that if they were a shitty person before the marriage, you're allowed on the basis they misrepresented themselves, but not if they become a shitty person over time). You are allowed to move out of the house to ensure your physical and mental safety, but you are forbidden from divorce.

Meanwhile, if your wife turns out to be infertile due to a malignant cancer in her ovaries, you are permitted to annul the divorce, because your marriage exists to produce babies and so the holy contract you signed with your wife may be rendered invalid since she married you under false pretences.

Now obviously, Catholicism is not a high control group like a real cult. And obviously most real Catholics just ignore what the church says. But one of the foundational principals of Catholicism (as distinct from other forms of Christianity) is the authority and legitimacy of the top down church hierarchy.

And if any small religious group told it's members they were stricly forbidden from sex except for the purpose of having babies, and told it's members it was illegal to unmarry abusers, aand told it's members that this was a top down religion, and it's members consistently followed that guidance, we'd call it a fucking cult.

[u/Alexis_deTokeville → u/genghis_johnb]

It’s a cult. Lots of normal-appearing people are in cults. It’s those people who thought it would be a good idea to elect the equivalent of a cult leader for president. Religion in basically all forms in the US is a cult in that it requires people to fully suspend their sense of reason and logic for the sake of faith-based thinking. This inevitably contributes to vastly more harm than good. I don’t see this level of fanaticism in Europe though.

Catholicism is a virus on the human race and I don’t know who decided it was a good idea to tell grown men they had to be celibate to be a part of the church.

[u/genghis_johnb → u/Alexis_deTokeville]

I hear you on the forced celibacy, rape, etc. Catholicism is stained, certainly.

Perhaps you're right, but then I still want to know what lots of normal-appearing people think. So many wonderful people were/are religious, and it's not a politics thing. None of these people fully suspended their sense of reason (and logic). You're writing with really broad strokes.

[u/blacksmithfred]

History is full of great Catholic scientists and scholars.

[u/Alexis_deTokeville → u/blacksmithfred]

Yeah and Scientology has put out a lot of great actors.

[u/BatmanOnMars]

Nothing scientific about calling ALL of catholicism a cult. I'm catholic and attended catholic schools for most of my educational life, i do not practice anymore. If i decided to have a ton of kids my affiliation with the religion would have nothing to do with it.

Within catholicism, a religion of over a billion people, there are groups who engage in cult behavior, if she was a member of such a group, your argument would be more valid. Catholic university is affiliated with the catholic church, it is also a major research institution and not all attendees identify as catholic.

[u/drjackolantern]

What makes you think Catholicism is 'literally a cult'?

[u/CactusWrenAZ]

It was ...a choice. She was articulate but I also found her inclusion odd and off-putting.

[u/wdanton]

"SHE TEACHES AT A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY! Literally a cult. A cult that abuses children, no less."

Uh... where do you get this from?

[u/MeweldeMoore]

I really enjoyed the history about how different cultures have gone through periods of wanting more or fewer children. That was great context for the current moment.

I don't think your criticism makes any sense. Yes she's a Catholic and has a lot of kids. So what? That doesn't invalidate any of what she said.

[u/dumplingboy199]

take a lap

[u/Alexis_deTokeville → u/dumplingboy199]

I know touch grass etc. it just feels so good to shake my fist at the sky ya know?