Another shellshocked parunt: it isn't natural to not have eight people raising the brats

Where do these regretful parunts get the idea that they have it so rough as parunts? Why do they have such ridiculous notions in their heads as parunting is doing the job of at least eight people:

Quote
Shellshocked parunt whining
Biologically we are designed in every single way you can imagine to function in a tight-knit group. That means raising children in a large group of people who all feel responsible for your children. That means being able to get sick and then recover with no guilt, that means you're not the person your child turns to every time they have a need..... You are doing the job of at least eight people.....
The western idea of parenthood is cruel.

Actually, the western idea of parunthood is considerably better than it has been in well over 200 years and is pure luxury in comparison to the "cruelty" of the last 20 years! And idiots used to be Darwinned off naturally, but with all the safety nets/brat bubble wrapping this is no longer the case. Idiots make it to adulthood and create more idiots. Sure, there are always exceptions but for the most parts idiots beget more idiots.

In the 1800's most famblees were self-sufficient and parents were working, very busy exerting tons of effort to wash clothing and make clothing, put food on the table, etc. If there were multiple adults in a house they were legitimately busy doing everything they could to survive, such as chopping wood all summer so they stayed warm in the winter. They had very hard lives and brats died often and were neglected out of necessity. Lots of people died of exposure because they lived in shacks that didn't provide adequate protection from the elements. During that time the women may have ran a household and also had an outside job. There was no brat education, no time to brat worship. There weren't any idle or feeble adults to watch the brats, being idle or feeble would mean starving. If anything, brats were contributing to the household.

In the Victorian era poor famblees sent their brats out to work at a young age. Much of the time poor Victorian famblees all lived in one room. There certainly weren't eight plus adults desperate to babysit the brats at any time. There were orphan trains before the government had any brat welfare programs, parunts would abandon their brats to the streets and there were over 200K brats on the orphan trains. Brats weren't educated until the 1920's. There weren't any child labor laws until 1938. Brats weren't held in high regard, they were immature people and typically liabilities to their families.

In the 1940's many households were run by women because men were off to war. Toys were rare and there was no time for brats in the famblee. Housework was labor intensive and time consuming. It was an adult world and brats just happened to exist in it. The 1950's was a time period where lots of men worked and many women stayed at home with the brats but this image seems to be seriously overblown. This may have been somewhat common but it wasn't true for my family on either side. All my grandparents worked.

Regardless, this isn't a phenomenon that occurred in the last decade or the last two hundred years. The only people who have eight or more people helping to raise their brats either are forcing their older brats to help or are wealthy enough to have six or more nannies.

Quote
Shellshocked with more whining
The only thing you can do in such a disgusting and cruel social setting, is to think about what being a parent means to you spiritually and philosophically, and aim towards it.

I wouldn't call this disgusting and cruel. It isn't the same as being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Or developing a painful illness. Or living a hard ass life like a poor person during the Victorian era who sends all their brats out to beg/work on the streets so they don't starve to death. Having brats is voluntary.

Quote
and yet more whining
Yes, you're a parent now, and that might be just devastating for you.

This sounds like a very valid reason to call and schedule a tubal or vasectomy, so that you aren't willingly courting more devastation. And where is it better at today? Some believe socialism is collapsing in Europe: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/germany/the-german-pension-crisis-to-become-a-political-issue-as-in-italy/
Germany and Italy are both suffering a pension crisis where the average age of the worker is increasing and it is going to affect their national retirement and they aren't the only country with this issue. Economies that mostly or solely rely on an increasing supply of brats are declining economically, time to change the reliance to something else.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/comments/yq3dh7/its_not_you_this_isnt_natural_all_you_can_do_is/

It's like they never realize any of these things before pooping out a sprog! Do they stupidly think The Village will coalesce all around them once the baybee arrives?

Quote

And ridiculous social standards can shut up. Look for a way that you can tolerate, not what the neighbours will approve of before they casually dismiss your existence.

Oooh bitter much? Yeah the neighbors don't care about your brats either!

I guarantee a lot of these miserable parunts had kids because it's just what you do, and then they are absolutely shocked that no one actually cares that they bred

Who did she pitch in for, on the regular, before she reproduced? Or, did she go out and have fun?

Even among animals that live in packs, I don't think there is any practice like this in nature where pack members are a "village" and are supposed to be responsible for the offspring of other pack members. When did breeders get this idea in their heads that brat care is anybody's problem but their own?

Besdies that, it would likely lead to all kinds of conflicts because everyone would have a different parenting style. What if one person in charge of a brat was a dedicated vegan and wanted the child to eat a diet free of animal products and another wanted the same child to eat meat? What if one person spanked kids as punishment and someone else was against it? What if one person is extremely religious and wanted the brat raised in their faith, while others had conflicting faiths or are atheists and do not want the child to have a certain religious upbringing? What about when the child is in school and they can't agree on extra-curricular activities? What if one child minder is anti-vax and someone else wants the kid vaccinated? Behavior one pseudo-parent would punish, another parent would allow to happen. This sounds like a recipe for an inconsistently parented and therefore messed up child. The kid also likely wouldn't know who to call "mommy" if seven other people were responsible for raising it, and you know when it calls another woman "mommy," the actual mother would get all pissy.

And how long would it be before these people tasked with caring for someone else's brat just shrug and go, "not my kid, not my problem?" I'm also sure it wouldn't take long for Moos to abuse group child care like this as well, like flouncing off somewhere for weeks or months at a time because there's a bunch of other sad sorry saps to pick up the slack for her.

Plus, this isn't just eight or ten or more people doting on a single child. EVERYONE in the village would want everyone else in the village minding their kids so they don't have to. When would people get a break? What about people who were smart enough to not breed? Would they be held responsible for someone else's offspring? What if someone in the village is a pedo? Would they be required to put in mandatory hours of brat care too?

Would the other villagers get a say in the Moo's health while pregnant? Could they demand that she have a home birth with no painkillers because it's more "natural?" After all, they are about to become part-time parents to said child, so should they get a say in how the child comes into the world? Would there be fights over C-section versus vaginal delivery, or fights over baby names? Moos don't think about these kinds of complications when they bleat about how "the village" should be helping them raise their kids. All they see is free babysitting.

Nobody needs a whole group of people to raise their kids for them. If they do, then they shouldn't be reproducing. Breed with a competent partner (NOT one of the man-babies Moos seem to gravitate to) and if grandparents agree to be available to brat-sit, that's great, but don't abuse the privilege. And for fuck's sake, consider whether or not you can afford to breed before doing it. Here's a hint: most people can't, but they do it anyway because "duhhhhhh if you wait until you're ready to have kids, you'll never have them!" Yes, this is a thing breeders say/believe.

Quote
freya
They had very hard lives and brats died often and were neglected out of necessity.

Not sure how true this is, but I have read that it wasn't all that uncommon during the Depression or other times of extreme poverty in the earlier part of the 1900s for parents to straight-up commit infanticide to dispose of loaves they couldn't afford to feed. It was something I'd read in r/nursing, I think? One of the members was talking to residents in a nursing home who said very candidly that they would murder newborns they couldn't afford. Like one woman gave birth to twins and the family could only afford one, so the father took the spare child off somewhere and killed it. Another said her husband took the freshly-shat loaf and bashed its head off the sink to kill it because they couldn't afford to feed another kid.

I know it's gruesome, but I can see why they did it. If they already had thirteen brats and couldn't afford to feed them all much of anything already, another kid would just make it worse for everyone. I don't know how easy it was to surrender a child for adoption (if that was even an option), and I'm sure this is where the baby left on a stranger's doorstep thing in old cartoons comes from.

Quote
cfuter
Who did she pitch in for, on the regular, before she reproduced? Or, did she go out and have fun?

Ha, ha. What do you want to bet she didn't help out with any brats before reproducing. Likely thought it would be Hallmark after Hallmark moment punctuated by Precious Moments figurines, Walt Disney vacations and her brats first words being "I appreciate everything you do for me mahhmm. Thanks for all the grunt work and mind-numbing repetition that you do 24/7. When I grow up I'll buy you a mansion and a Ferrari out of gratitude". The ones shielded from the reality of bratcare always seem to fall the hardest if they sluice. Bet she thought everyone she knows would rally around her and take her brat(s) in shifts, so many of the naive seem to have such unrealistic ideas about parunting.

It is true that in the past, families tended to stay in one location, and multi-demographic households were more common. But as someone mentioned up the thread, the people of the past did indeed have their problems. Most notable was the fact there were few if any ways to prevent brats from arriving.

Of course, the Republicans are seeking to make birth control and family planning illegal and return women to those dark days of livestock life.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
Cambion
Besdies that, it would likely lead to all kinds of conflicts because everyone would have a different parenting style. What if one person in charge of a brat was a dedicated vegan and wanted the child to eat a diet free of animal products and another wanted the same child to eat meat? What if one person spanked kids as punishment and someone else was against it? What if one person is extremely religious and wanted the brat raised in their faith, while others had conflicting faiths or are atheists and do not want the child to have a certain religious upbringing? What about when the child is in school and they can't agree on extra-curricular activities? What if one child minder is anti-vax and someone else wants the kid vaccinated? Behavior one pseudo-parent would punish, another parent would allow to happen. This sounds like a recipe for an inconsistently parented and therefore messed up child. The kid also likely wouldn't know who to call "mommy" if seven other people were responsible for raising it, and you know when it calls another woman "mommy," the actual mother would get all pissy.

The pre-agrarian societies that they look to for inspiration had many things that modern societies do not. First, relatively strict gender roles. Tradwives may enjoy playing 1950s house, but most women - including I expect most mothers - have little interest in being restricted from a variety of activities and spending most of their waking hours taking care of children, cooking, and similar chores. Second, collectivism. There wouldn't be differences in opinion on things like religion and diet because there would be only one way to do it: the community's way. Any deviation from the norm would not be tolerated. While some would like to see us living under a strict theocracy, I again expect that most modern mothers are not that eager to live such a proscribed existence, especially if the values they need to adhere to aren't the ones they hold. Third, a more socialist distribution of resources. While some of us may want a more equal distribution of wealth, I rarely see middle class breeders taking any steps at all to reign in the consumerist impulses of their children.

They want all the benefits of all of society collectively invested in caring for their children but without any of the drawbacks that would be necessary to create the social cohesion to create that kind of society. But I have to say - what is stopping them from creating this kind of community with like-minded fellow breeders? Found family is a thing. But most breeders are all about me me me, with the family as the start and end of what they care about. They aren't good friends, so they don't have a support network. When someone in my friend group has had a serious illness or injury, everyone has chipped in to make sure they are taken care of. If people are complaining about a complete lack of support, I suggest they try looking at how much support they offered in the past. They will probably find that their interest in a village developed about the same time that they wanted to draw on the social credit they didn't develop.

And, as Freya noted, this particular type of society hasn't existed in western countries in the last few hundred years. I would actually say thousands of years; this way of life was already replaced with a more hierarchical model before the middle ages. If you were wealthy, you could have a small army handling your childcare tasks, but if you were poor, you got to leave your baby to starve so you could be a wet nurse for the queen. It did exist more recently in other cultures, but I'm going to make the assumption that the person making this complaint is white and middle class, because this article screams "first world problems".

Quote
Cambion
Even among animals that live in packs, I don't think there is any practice like this in nature where pack members are a "village" and are supposed to be responsible for the offspring of other pack members. When did breeders get this idea in their heads that brat care is anybody's problem but their own?

I would disagree here. You do have animals like prairie dogs and bees, where only the dominant members of the group reproduce, and the entire group is responsible for the welfare of the young. In the case of bees, the drones are not capable of reproduction, but in the case of prairie dogs they are but will be ostracized from the group if they do. So again, it is more like feudal society. I wonder if they'd like to adopt this model, where if they aren't top of the pack they are required to care for children, but aren't allowed to reproduce. That's the only way you're going to get an 8:1 ratio of adults:children - otherwise they are going to have to invest significant time caring for other people's children, potentially having even less time available for their own than they do now. I'm guessing they wouldn't go for this model, unless they are deluded enough to think that they'd be queen bee.

Quote
freya
In the 1800's most famblees were self-sufficient and parents were working, very busy exerting tons of effort to wash clothing and make clothing, put food on the table, etc. If there were multiple adults in a house they were legitimately busy doing everything they could to survive, such as chopping wood all summer so they stayed warm in the winter. They had very hard lives and brats died often and were neglected out of necessity.

Yes, I know that one of my ancestors had a child die in an accident while she was busy doing the housecleaning. You simply couldn't watch a child all the time, because if you neglected your work starvation for the entire family was the outcome. I'm pretty sure people didn't get to take the time to gently recover from illness, either, in the days before labor laws and social safety nets.

Quote
yurble
I would disagree here. You do have animals like prairie dogs and bees, where only the dominant members of the group reproduce, and the entire group is responsible for the welfare of the young. In the case of bees, the drones are not capable of reproduction, but in the case of prairie dogs they are but will be ostracized from the group if they do. So again, it is more like feudal society. I wonder if they'd like to adopt this model, where if they aren't top of the pack they are required to care for children, but aren't allowed to reproduce. That's the only way you're going to get an 8:1 ratio of adults:children - otherwise they are going to have to invest significant time caring for other people's children, potentially having even less time available for their own than they do now. I'm guessing they wouldn't go for this model, unless they are deluded enough to think that they'd be queen bee.

Thanks for sharing! I honestly didn't know that. I thought bees only existed for two purposes: protect the queen and make delicious vomit for humans. I know absolutely nothing about prairie dogs except they can be kept as pets. See this is the stuff we should learn in high school biology, not filleting frogs and starfish... in my case, right before lunch.

Well if the movie Antz is in any way biologically/scientifically accurate, that would mean that the community is responsible for all the offspring the queen produces as well. But that's also just one ant doing all the reproducing, so wouldn't that also mean that all the ants are at least half-siblings? Would they have to keep all the kids apart as they got older to prevent dating and inbreeding? If humans followed this logic, who would decide to be the "queen" that devotes her time to basically being Ma Duggar and crapping out babies every year? Would all the other females tasked with caring for the young be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing and taking attention away from the queen's babies like ants (they're born sterile for that reason, I think)?

Quote
yurble
They want all the benefits of all of society collectively invested in caring for their children but without any of the drawbacks that would be necessary to create the social cohesion to create that kind of society. But I have to say - what is stopping them from creating this kind of community with like-minded fellow breeders? Found family is a thing. But most breeders are all about me me me, with the family as the start and end of what they care about. They aren't good friends, so they don't have a support network. When someone in my friend group has had a serious illness or injury, everyone has chipped in to make sure they are taken care of. If people are complaining about a complete lack of support, I suggest they try looking at how much support they offered in the past. They will probably find that their interest in a village developed about the same time that they wanted to draw on the social credit they didn't develop.

This is the main problem. I've known numerous people who have families where they never pay for daycare because they have family members who help out. This requires living close to family, staying on good terms with family and being aware of how accountable and interested family is in helping out. It also means developing social credit with friends so that they are willing to help out. There are plenty of women who would never want their kids in daycare. Of course, these types are much more likely to expect older children to babysit and help out because what better way to get their brats developing social credit at a young age and to show the dotters what they can expect if they sluice.

Quote
yurble
And, as Freya noted, this particular type of society hasn't existed in western countries in the last few hundred years. I would actually say thousands of years; this way of life was already replaced with a more hierarchical model before the middle ages. If you were wealthy, you could have a small army handling your childcare tasks, but if you were poor, you got to leave your baby to starve so you could be a wet nurse for the queen. It did exist more recently in other cultures, but I'm going to make the assumption that the person making this complaint is white and middle class, because this article screams "first world problems".

Thanks for your input on this, I was wondering if this type of society had existed in thousands of years (or frankly, ever).

Quote
Cambion
Even among animals that live in packs, I don't think there is any practice like this in nature where pack members are a "village" and are supposed to be responsible for the offspring of other pack members. When did breeders get this idea in their heads that brat care is anybody's problem but their own?

Quote
yurble
I would disagree here. You do have animals like prairie dogs and bees, where only the dominant members of the group reproduce, and the entire group is responsible for the welfare of the young. In the case of bees, the drones are not capable of reproduction, but in the case of prairie dogs they are but will be ostracized from the group if they do. So again, it is more like feudal society. I wonder if they'd like to adopt this model, where if they aren't top of the pack they are required to care for children, but aren't allowed to reproduce. That's the only way you're going to get an 8:1 ratio of adults:children - otherwise they are going to have to invest significant time caring for other people's children, potentially having even less time available for their own than they do now. I'm guessing they wouldn't go for this model, unless they are deluded enough to think that they'd be queen bee.

There is a polygamous sect (Mormons) that have multiple wives taking care of all the brats but it seems to be more of a 3:1 ratio. My perspective on this is very limited, so it could be higher. Realistically it seems that a duh would be limited by what he can afford. Those Jeffs guys (Warren and Rulon) that were Mormon both had numerous wives, as in dozens each. Of course, both were also pedophiles and married underage girls. They were basically functioning the same as bees but they were the king bees. Those men determined every marriage in their sect. They owned virtually everything, and also repeatedly kicked out eligible young men from their sect and threatened to oust families that didn't support and defer to them. They also controlled education in their sect and the education kept children from becoming independent. Those men are/were completely repugnant human beings and I doubt there are very many women who'd be willing to live their lifestyle to have additional hands to help out. It would be much easier to simply earn enough money to pay for help.

I guess the whiner could become Mormon and try to find a sect where she could be one of eight wives if she really cares that much about having help. But we know she wants the help without any obligation in turn. I fully suspect she isn't envisioning taking constant turns in helping with the brats from seven other women (24 plus brats, anyone?) and likely raising brats until she is too old to help out, she is probably out for herself only. That isn't going to fly in that community. At least in her current circumstances she can stop raising brats as soon as hers hit adulthood, so she won't be raising them until she is way past childbearing age.

After reading this I suspect an 8:1 ratio doesn't exist unless paid for by a wealthy person, it doesn't seem to be something realistic to humans at any time in history. And throughout history, wealthy people have always had the means to outsource parenting. And boy, this makes the lower earning classes so jealous!

and cambion, don't forget wolves... the adults will leave a member of the pack to watch the cubs... or watch as the adult wolf usually just is exhausted and sleeps... still leaving the cubs alone. but it is still on hand if something untowards happens

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Quote
yurble
They want all the benefits of all of society collectively invested in caring for their children but without any of the drawbacks that would be necessary to create the social cohesion to create that kind of society.

They're not prepared for the trade-off of having a collective raising their children, namely the part where they don't get to have 100% say in how their child is raised, educated, disciplined, etc. The elders of the collective will be the ones who decide that. To defy the collective is to find yourself ousted socially and lose out on resources. They only like the part where they have free childcare on tap and people giving them money to raise the child but nobody is supposed to have an opinion on how the child is raised. Especially those that don't have children.

They also don't like the part where being in a collective means giving as much as they receive. They want the resources coming to them but use their children as an excuse to not help out the village.

Quote
yurble
If people are complaining about a complete lack of support, I suggest they try looking at how much support they offered in the past. They will probably find that their interest in a village developed about the same time that they wanted to draw on the social credit they didn't develop.

Bingo. I wrote a Twitter thread saying this exact thing. They only care about a village only after they had their own child. It never occurs to them to create and cultivate a village long before they breed. Also, a lot of them put their friends on the back burner once they get a man only to come out to plan and pay for bachelorette parties, bridal and baby showers, and then to be free babysitters (or basically surrogate parents because the father is a bum).

Their idea of a village only ever involves children, too. Are they coming around with meal prep for their friend in the middle of writing her Ph.D. thesis? Are they cleaning the house of their sick mother? Are they giving money to their sister who has hit hard times? Did they ever do any of the things they expect from other people?

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan

Quote
Cambion
Well if the movie Antz is in any way biologically/scientifically accurate, that would mean that the community is responsible for all the offspring the queen produces as well. But that's also just one ant doing all the reproducing, so wouldn't that also mean that all the ants are at least half-siblings? Would they have to keep all the kids apart as they got older to prevent dating and inbreeding? If humans followed this logic, who would decide to be the "queen" that devotes her time to basically being Ma Duggar and crapping out babies every year? Would all the other females tasked with caring for the young be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing and taking attention away from the queen's babies like ants (they're born sterile for that reason, I think)?

Yes, workers are responsible for caring for the offspring. I don't know about ants, but with bees, there is a certain part of their lifespan where they are responsible for caring for the young. They are actually full siblings, as the queen only mates once and then continues to reproduce for the rest of her lifespan. It is interesting because the workers are actually more closely related to the offspring than the queen is, so there is some theory that the workers do more to perpetuate their own genes by being sterile than they would by reproducing directly.

I can't comment on how humans would organize it, because obviously they only ever see themselves receiving the resources, not contributing to them (collective rearing) or being childless for the sake of the group (to achieve the 8:1 ratio).

can't really take anything like 'Antz' to reflect complete reality. That aside I really enjoyed the movie. One of the few times where the music underlying a scene is as funny to listen to without the movie playing as watching the scene. I'm referring to the bar brawl. That was hysterical.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Oh I know it's likely not 100 percent accurate, but I figured at least some of it was based in reality. Like compared to A Bug's Life that came out around the same time, they gave their ants six limbs instead of four.

As an aside, I think that was Dreamworks' very first film and I want to know where they got the budget for an entire cast of big name celebrities for the voice acting! If I recall, Woody Allen voiced the main character Z, Sharon Stone voiced the princess, Gene Hackman voiced General Mandible, Christopher Walken voiced Colonel Cutter, Sylvester Stallone voiced the huge soldier ant Weaver, Jennifer Lopez voiced the other female love interest Azteca, Anne Bancroft was the voice of the queen, and Danny Glover and Dan Aykroyd both played minor roles. That had to be an expensive cast!

Quote
paragon schnitzophonic
Their idea of a village only ever involves children, too. Are they coming around with meal prep for their friend in the middle of writing her Ph.D. thesis? Are they cleaning the house of their sick mother? Are they giving money to their sister who has hit hard times? Did they ever do any of the things they expect from other people?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are not. Breeders are all take, take, take, but when it comes time to return a favor, they will absolutely not reciprocate. Odds are they'll blame their kids too. Ohh they can't do (thing) because Sprogleigh is sick, or Sprogleigh has soccer practice or a recital or Moo is far too bizzy and tiiiiired to help out, or she's too broke to lend money. With COVID-19 still flying around, they can blame the pandemic and how they're social distancing.

And let's say Moos had the support of "the village" and had on-call babysitters 24/7 so Moo would have to do as little parenting of her own spawn as possible. What does the village get out of this arrangement, exactly? Are they being compensated for their services? Do they get a say in the child's future? Are they included in the parents' wills? Do they think these kids will bring the whole thing around full circle and wipe all their wrinkles asses in 50-60 years? Moos think they all deserve a huge annual salary for being Moos, so that means that people who do the work for the Moos deserve some of that salary too. What incentive would the village have to raise someone else's kids? Nobody does anything for nothing, and contrary to what Moos may think, the privilege of minding their screeching crotchfruit is not a sufficient reward.

Quote
Cambion
Oh I know it's likely not 100 percent accurate, but I figured at least some of it was based in reality. Like compared to A Bug's Life that came out around the same time, they gave their ants six limbs instead of four.

I didn't see the movie, but I assume you mean four instead of six, since most insects have six?

Oh I know, I just didn't say what I meant very clearly. In Antz, the ant characters were designed with six limbs like normal insects. But in A Bug's Life, the ants only had four limbs. But the grasshoppers (the bad guys) all had six legs, I guess to make them look more scary or something? LOL I promise I know bugs have six legs. I just appreciated the little attention to detail in the Dreamworks film. Both are good movies, but between the two, I think Antz was based juuuuuuust slightly more on real ants. A Bug's Life was based on a fable, I think.

Quote
Cambion
Oh I know, I just didn't say what I meant very clearly. In Antz, the ant characters were designed with six limbs like normal insects. But in A Bug's Life, the ants only had four limbs. But the grasshoppers (the bad guys) all had six legs, I guess to make them look more scary or something? LOL I promise I know bugs have six legs. I just appreciated the little attention to detail in the Dreamworks film. Both are good movies, but between the two, I think Antz was based juuuuuuust slightly more on real ants. A Bug's Life was based on a fable, I think.

Ha, no, I assumed you did know how many legs they have but worded it badly which is why I was asking what you meant to say.