Jump to content

Talk:Natalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page consists of an inadequate dictionary-style definition which circularly refers back to an earlier version of this self-same page mirrored on answers.com.

The real meaning of natalism (from a practical point of view) is encouraging and supporting parents, whether in informal attitudes or official government policies. AnonMoos 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definition is definitely part of the picture. Yet if you use "natalism" in an academic search engine such a Jstor and read some articles, you will find natalism goes beyond the policy level to mean a philosophy of life. Quiverfull is one example. As well, recent press articles have referred to natalism in a philosophy of life sense: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050331a.aspx and http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1260162000&en=ebdde83f03fe6d2e&ei=5090
I would be interested in collaborating with others to expand this article.
CyberAnth 07:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katevinitafitch. Peer reviewers: BrittneyWright.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiverfull

[edit]

I dont see any reference to "Quiverfull" in the New York Times article, just "Natalism". Are these two distinct concepts, or one concept and the should be merged? -- 08:51, 7 January 2007 User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Quiverfull is a specifically religious concept in certain Protestant circles, while Natalism is a broader general term without necessary religious connotations (certainly Ceaucescu was not motivated by religion when he outlawed abortion in Rumania to increase the birth rate). AnonMoos 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem now -- this article says he talks about Quiverfull, but he doesn't actually mention it by name. OK, that has to be fixed... AnonMoos 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quiverfull did not really have its name at that time. No movement gets its name at the outset. The connection between Brooks's article and Quiverfull was made most notably in The Nation article on Quiverfull: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061127&s=joyce CyberAnth 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fecundism

[edit]

Any worthwhile content from the unreferenced article Fecundism should be merged into this article. Natalism has several times the number of google hits that fecundism does. Zodon (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, since the two are very similar. why not merge the two and/or make the other a redirect to here? :o| TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient support from reference

[edit]

The following entry made me curious - I think it's possible for natalistic policies to achieve their goals without anti-birth control. I reviewed the source, and it seemed to essentially say that there was natalistic policies in Romania that included anti-birth control, but it lacked support for the claim that all natalistic policies do so. I think the entry needs reformulation or another source before reinsertion.Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalistic policies range from mildly to severely anti-birth control, depending on how strictly they are structured and enforced<ref>Kligman, Gail. 1998. ''The Politics of Duplicity. Controlling Reproduction in Ceausescu's Romania.'' Berkeley: University of California Press.</ref>.''

Natalism, military strength in numbers, disposable population

[edit]

Recently an editor has suggested that Cannon fodder is not a relevant see also for this article. However natalist ideas have been propounded in the interest of military or other power and ideas of strength through overwhelming numbers. Many cultures have used large populations of slaves, forced laborers, etc. to achieve their aims. Natalist ideas have also been criticized on the basis of breeding cannon fodder, e.g. Sanger Speaks Out Against War. Not every link in see also has to be in sympathy with the topic of the article. However, there seem to be several articles about similar concepts in warfare, perhaps there is a more appropriate or balancing link that could be added? Zodon (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the matter of overcrowding/competition for resources as a driving force for conflict. (As noted in the above quotation.) If you have a high population density, especially of young men, that may be a driver of conflict. Zodon (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see this before. That would be all well and good, but the article does not talk about this at any point, so it's quite a jump to the average reader who stumbles through here. Additionally, I do think that the term cannon fodder is being used out of context; it may be related in a grander sense but it does not have a direct connection in the article. It should be removed post haste. Outback the koala (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, last revert was just to draw attention to discussion and not trying to force things one way or other. The link has been there for 4 years, occasioning little comment, so I don't see removal as urgent.
I don't see it as a particularly long jump for the reader. Not sure what you mean by the idea of cannon fodder being used out of context, perhaps you could explain further? As I understand it cannon fodder is the use of relatively cheap units in larger numbers, for instance peasants in medaeval warfare, or pawns on a chessboard. This is in contrast to more expensive, more highly trained/skilled/equipped units - like a knight, samurai, etc.
I would expect there to be more general coverage of the expense vs. power tradeoff on wikipedia, but haven't found much yet. (However military history is not my forte.)
Certainly the article needs expansion and should cover the relationship in more detail.
I found a couple of other references that might help in fleshing out Military pronatalism.
Zodon (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as urgent either, but I also do not see a need for a drawn out discussion. I see what you are saying, fair enough, but the article should reflect this then somehow or link away. In its current form it does not even mention pronatalism (except in the first sentence-although I do not beleive they are the same), if you were to add a section on pronatalism, you could move cannon fodder to that section. This would improve the article in multiple ways. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the article says that natalism and pronatalism are different words for the same thing. (Which is part of the basis for my suggestion (below) that the article be moved to pronatalism.)
What is your understanding of the meanings of the two terms (preferably with citation to source). How are they different? If they mean different things, then that definitely needs to be clarified in the article. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move to pronatalism

[edit]

I think this article should be moved to pronatalism, which would give parallel structure to its opposite member antinatalism. (An alternative would be to cover both pronatalism and antinatalism in one article under natalism.) Zodon (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's acceptable as it is, because external sources ([2] & [3]) define natalism as pro-birth, and hold it synonymous with pro-natalism. A google search finds natalism as more commonly used than pronatalism (even when excluding "natalism" usage in "pro-natalism"), so I think it can remain. It is still possible to merge antinatalism into it, but that's a separate issue. Mikael Häggström (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Catholic Church really natalist?

[edit]

Is the Catholic Church really natalist? Unlike the Mormons, who teach "that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force," Catholicism teaches that "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28) no longer binds today, because the world is sufficiently populated. In other words, Catholicism does not force all its adherents to marry and have children, which is obvious because the Catholic priesthood is celibate. --Geremia (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalism awards

[edit]

Failure of natalist policies

[edit]

I want to add a section in this article on the failures of natalist policies. Does anyone have sources on it? To my knowledge no country has managed to reverse a declining fertility rate Immanuelle (please tag me) 13:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romania may have done so for a while, using dictatorial methods (see Demographic history of Romania, Decree 770 etc), but at a huge price (large numbers of children in horrible orphanages etc). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Natalism

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section about antinatalism criticizing Natalism? To me it almost seems like there's a clear bias, wikipedia is fine with critiquing antinatalism but so long as it isn't people's main beliefs, that being life is precious, isn't being criticised, wikipedia doesn't care. 206.83.122.208 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

[edit]

I am surprised there is no talk about the low birth rate in South Korea? Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an intresting article tying the low birth rate to pro- (and anti-) natalism policies in SK: [4]. Викидим (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a great article that just came out on the subject Here. Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are paying people $10,500 a child currently.. Does someone want to add a section? I could potentially do it but it would take some more research. I would prefer someone w first hand knowledge of S. Korea.Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"reproductionism" redirects here, but...

[edit]

...the actual meaning seems to be unrelated to childbirth. Rather it's a sociopolitical idea stating that institutions like school and work tend to reproduce (pass on) existing social inequalities. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a correct statement, although most researchers appear to prefer the term social reproductionism. This is a Marxist concept; we have an article Social reproduction. Unless there will be objections, someone will need change/create the redirects above to point to Social reproduction. Викидим (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mikael Häggström:. Викидим (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous paragraph (arguably too loaded for first sentences...)

[edit]

The opposite of natalism is antinatalism; however most feminists and reproductive rights advocates challenge natalism in order to elevate procreative freedom, and do not align with antinatalism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a whole section at foot of article... or just addition to "see also"...? Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalism&oldid=1227757247"