Monday, January 12, 2009

On the Decision to Remain "Child Free"

Van Zan, one of my commenters, made an interesting observation yesterday about my repertoire of posts:

I like your posts when they are in common sense non-ideological mode - where everything is not somehow a Left-wing post-modernist plot of equivalence without moral clarity. Refreshing.
So, let me throw this out to readers: Does the passage below on child-bearing and family values raise questions of common sense or postmodernism (or something else)?

My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. 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. 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.

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.
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.
Cassy Fiano has this (via Memeorandum):

Modern feminism is no longer about equality or letting women choose their own paths; rather, modern feminism is a hate group that looks at all men as potential rapists and abusers, sees a traditional nuclear family as dangerous, wants to make stay-at-home mothers a permanent thing of the past, and wants to force all women to make the lifestyle choices they dictate they should have.

8 comments:

Van Zan said...

Wow. That's bizzare.
Perhaps it's just an ideological way of saying she didn't want babies because they poo in their nappies and cry a lot.

Obob said...

feminism died when it remained silent on the bill/monica affair. They sacrificed her for their obvious political agenda.
vanzan has a point, it appears she is selfish. In that case, do not conceive. But the line about unpaid labour? Looks like someone still has their childish marxist beliefs from college.

Donald Douglas said...

Van Zan: I'm glad you commented, because actually the woman's post is not "bizarre." This feminist ideology is part and parcel to postmodern secularism, and this is what I attack with my moral clarity posts.

Or, there's a method to my madness. I connect a whole lot of areas that might not seem readily apparent, but I'd not be surprised to hear this woman's radical opinions on Iraq or civil rights, or what have you.

Donald Douglas said...

It's pretty childish, Obob. Thanks for commenting.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Wow, that was an interesting read. I didn't realize that child rearing was the modern day equivalent to slavery.

I think that the author is the one who is selfish, not the people who decide to have children.

I pity her.

Donald Douglas said...

Hi Vegas Guy: It's definitely pretty freaky. I like Cassy Fiano's description of femimists as "hate groups."

JBW said...

Don, I think pretty much any sane person that's commenting here can agree that this woman is a fool. I am a fairly liberal/libertarian guy and I know that neither myself nor any of the dozens of friends and family I have across the country would agree with what she's saying.

Now I'm admittedly not plugged into the heart of the modern feminist movement and I don't really want to be. It's not that I'm against equal rights for women, I just can't stand the pissed off, man hating attitude many of them have. Perhaps this explains why I've been half-heartedly accused of being sexist on a number of occasions (which I only half admit to doing).

But to make the argument that this kind of frankly stupid extremism by a stupid extremist about an issue that's not even a blip on the political radar of the vast majority of Americans be they Democratic, Republican or other "is part and parcel to postmodern secularism" is specious at best and a lie at worst.

Atheists and "postmodern secularists" (yes, I know so many people who identify themselves this way; the right is so good at assigning labels) know that the drive to reproduce can not be reasoned with because it's endemic to our evolutionary process and that even if we were to legislate reproduction as the Chinese do only a great fool would advocate the end of their species reproducing all together. When a member of a species decides not to reproduce for whatever reason their genes get removed from the pool; breeding is the only way to stay in the game.

In short, this woman is a loon and I'm sure very few people take her seriously when she says stupid shit like this. But now that you've identified her as "the left" and labeled her as a "radical" you can now attack her positions on Iraq or civil rights and by association dismiss the opinions of everyone else on the left who share her views on these topics.

Here, let me try it: I found a large group of racist, Aryan Nation douche bags who say the stupidest and nastiest things about minorities, but I'd wager that their radical opinions on affirmative action, hate crime laws and illegal immigration closely mirror your own and many readers of this site. Yes, this racist ideology is part and parcel to traditional theologism. Hey, that was easy!

Grace Explosion said...

Donald,

I'll try to come back and read more of what that hater wrote... that person who hates the most wonderful people on this earth: mothers!!!

I wanted to hit the roof. How dare that... person!!! I wanted to stay home with my children. My ex wanted my paycheck.

There's no job I'd rather do than be a mom. No paycheck could compare to the glory and the wonder of loving children and caring for them. It's the most noble of all professions.

It's not the pay - you hater of all that is good - it's the LOVE!!

A mother's love - something this author of that retching vomitous furball of hat that cat was barfing up to write that stuff - clearly has no concept of.

So, sorry they were raised by a person they never honored or appreciated.

The Bible says honor your mother and father for it is the first command with promise of a good and happy life.

The author of that article dishonors mothers and fathers and is clearly a miserable wretch. I could read only the first one or two sentences... I'll have to come back and read more.

Motherhood is the greatest job on the planet and NOTHING, but NOTHING compares. I had a professor tell me he wanted me to run for US Senate. I preferred to be a mother. I've had people tell me I could make a sum of money I won't say. I'd prefer to be a mother.

Some people don't know what really holds value in this life and forever: a mother's love. Tell me, what can compare??

Grace.