5
$\begingroup$

Suppose a society where men are almost always away from population centres, either working or fighting wars. Women live in town centres. Some women specifically express an interest in nurturing children while others are more interested in town administration, cooking(commercially), factory working, or other localised careers that are commonly held by females.

Men and woman like each other, and like sex and romance, but their cultural paradigm of love operates of the assumption that a relationship is only ever expected to last for a home season. Lifetime relationships are a strange concept, that nobody would specifically idealise.

Each time a town is visited by men, some arbitrary set of women become pregnant. Since desiring man-love and enjoying child-care are completely unrelated concepts, there is absolutely no assumption that a pregnant lady would want to keep her own child and so she is asked without judgement what she wishes. She is also permitted on an institutional level to change her mind for up to three months after child birth, and her baby will be returned to her.

There develops over time a preconception that someone who is not already working in childcare would not want to change career, simply because they became pregnant. There also develops a preconception that women who are homo-sexual, a-sexual or shy or gentle in nature should be encouraged at a young age to think about a child care career, because it is a great way for them to experience non-sexual companionship.

As a result, the gross majority of children are adopted into the care of one or two female parents, along with a dozen adopted siblings.

Do you see any problems or drama with this arrangement?

DO you think that this is better or worse than nuclear/biological parenting?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by Frostfyre, bowlturner, Green, March Ho, Aify Aug 7 '15 at 16:14

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ A few points to think about: This is a completely new situation, differing immensely from what has been established as a norm on Earth; why only one or two parent(s), you could easily have families of a dozen or so parents with way more children, half a dozen per age group for example, looking for each other as well; why make a distinction between childcare and parents/family, those concepts could become interchangeable in such a society.. (I really really like your question) $\endgroup$ – dot_Sp0T Aug 7 '15 at 8:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You have a good premise, but you've provided no objective means to judge answers. "Do you see..." and "Do you think..." questions are open-ended and opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Aug 7 '15 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ This sound close to the premise in Brave New World, where children are made in womb tanks instead of being born through sexual reproduction. $\endgroup$ – March Ho Aug 7 '15 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ This isn't even a worldbuilding question. There's nothing here about the nature of your world. It's just you asking whether all children being adopted would be better than the parenting system we have now. Are you sure this isn't an ethics question or parenting question? $\endgroup$ – The Great Duck Nov 2 '16 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ This is similar in some respects to how Hutterite communes operate. Children are communal after being born normally. It is possible for biological parents and children to live and work side by side and neither know nor care that they are related. $\endgroup$ – pojo-guy Oct 14 '18 at 0:21