I found an interesting blog post, via Ace of Spades about how the women at the Feministing blog have decided to say no to having children. Now there are many reasons for a woman not to want to have kids. However, the reasons the author gives are collectivist in nature. But I guess that’s to be expected, since feminism is really all about big government, leftism and collectivism.
…Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up.
I can tell right now that this woman never studied economics. Marriage is not a business. The purpose of a business is to make money. Therefore any employee hired by such a business will have to contribute at least three times the amount of his or her salary in terms of output. Otherwise, it makes no sense to keep said employee.
Also she very predictably brings up class. The fact is, not everyone’s abilities are the same, and not everyone is a brain surgeon. People just starting out their careers will naturally make less money than those who are already established. In America, we have equality of opportunity, which means a person can educate himself and freely look for work, where he can rise according to his abilities. Equality of outcome is a completely different story. Nowhere in our constitution is such a thing guaranteed, as much as the feminists and leftists would like it to be the case.
Not only that, families prevent money the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.
Hate to break it to you, but this is America, where we’re still allowed to do what we please with our hard earned money. So if families want to spend their money on their children, as opposed to say helping welfare crack whores with ten kids, or gambling it away, that’s their prerogative. Spending money on one’s kids is certainly not squandering.
So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go. Of course there is an ecological responsibility to reduce the human population, or even end it , and a lot was said about that on the blogosphere recently (here, and here), but an ecological consciousness is not how I came to my decision to remain child-free.
We’ve got a real Gaia worshipper here! I’d like to see her saying this directly to a woman on welfare with ten kids, or to an illegal alien about to have an anchor baby. Where should I send the flowers to after this author gets killed for bringing up such a thing to these groups of women?
Because reproduction is seen as a psychological need, even a biological impulse, that would supposedly override any rational concerns arising out of a sense of responsibility, ecological or otherwise, I would like to propose emotional conditioning to counter such a need or impulse to reproduce. Using my own life as a case study, I conclude that I came to a resolve not to reproduce through largely unconscious emotional reactions . I like children, but every time I fantasized of having one, I felt pangs of guilt over how for this ‘impulse’ of mine, someone else would have to put their body on the line.
This author would put the communist Chinese and their one child only policy to shame.
I used the word ‘felt’ to indicate how there wasn’t much rationalizing on my part. And this feeling went way back: I was raised in an extended family setting with a lot of women, and as they got married, I noticed their lives becoming either extremely stressed (if they chose to work) or extremely limited in their scopes, and sometimes even threatened in a pregnancy. This feeling was reinforced when people’s indifference to women’s condition frustrated me.
Who’s forcing her to have kids? If she feels so strongly about it, she can always, either go on the pill or get her tubes tied.
Another feeling came from growing up near the poor: married people become much less charitable when they had their children to ‘take care of’, which means expensive schools, football clubs, game consoles, etc., etc.
Uh hello, when you’re married and you have children, they ARE your priority. It does NOT take a village to raise a child! It takes a mother and father who are married to each other. And if these families want to send their children to private schools, so what? Should they be forced to keep their kids in crumbling public schools where they can get murdered or raped, so you can have your precious equality of outcome?
Now on another note, I think it would be safe to say that this Feministing blogger is an Obama supporter. I wonder if she thinks Obama is “selfish” for having two kids while his own brother lives in a hut in Kenya on $12 a month, and his illegal alien aunt Zeituni Onyango lives in housing project in Boston. I notice that one on the left has asked why Obama has not helped his relatives.
…Because of the social premium on marriage and family, the poor also have children, only their children have no future and can easily be exploited by the economic system.
No you have it backwards. Getting knocked up out of wedlock and dropping out of school are the easiest ways to become poor. And it’s not “exploitation” when a person doesn’t have enough marketable skills as a result of freely dropping out of school.
…If families are for raising and ‘taking care of’ children, what about the poor and their children? With high incidence of domestic violence, child abuse and ‘juvenile delinquency’, there are little ‘family values’ that the underprivileged can realistically talk of. Because of the social premium on marriage and family, the poor also have children, only their children have no future and can easily be exploited by the economic system. If families are for raising and ‘taking care of’ children, what about the poor and their children? With high incidence of domestic violence, child abuse and ‘juvenile delinquency’, there are little ‘family values’ that the underprivileged can realistically talk of.
As the saying goes, “If you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em.” Any single mother that shacks up with different men and gets knocked up by an assortment of “baby daddies” is just inviting trouble with her kids. As for ‘juvenile delinquency’ having a father around who’s married to the mother, and teaching the child morality by example should go a long way.
Also, there is such a thing as free will, which the author of this post conveniently ignores. No one goes around holding a gun to womens heads saying, “Sleep around, drop out of school, and pop out kids you can’t support, or else!”
Thus as I realized how the cultural imperative on starting a family was unfair to women and the poor, I felt an instinctive aversion to it. That is the emotionally conditioned response that could override our responses to needs and instincts that make us want to reproduce. And if we rule out the biological ‘instinct’, which is strictly only to have sex and not to reproduce, my case for saying no to reproduction becomes much stronger.
Let’s see how she plans to enforce this no reproduction rule.