Behind the baby gap lies a culture of contempt for parenthood (From the "Guardian", on top of it)

Guardian Unlimited ^ | 3/7/2006 | Madeline Bunting

[Rutles4Ever]

A seven-month pregnant woman - her belly vast - was at a supper with a friend. He, being of the family type, told her she was very lucky to be expecting a baby. He was the first person who had said such a thing, she told him. [snip]

How is it that in cultures all over the world pregnancies prompt congratulations rather than anxious questions about childcare? How is it that in a culture equipped, materially and medically, to ease child-rearing, we are so reluctant to enjoy new life? [snip]

The answer, I would argue, is that a bias against having babies has permeated our culture. This phenomenon needs a new word - anti-natalism - and it is this that prompts a good part of that pregnancy trepidation. The only consolation to my mind is the spectacular everyday acts of rebellion by which thousands of babies still manage to get born in this country. [snip]

The point is that parenthood is against the grain of all the aspirations of our culture. Go back to the point where I started - the pregnancy anxiety around care. That anxiety is provoked by more than just the logistics of childcare availability, despite what the nursery campaigners argue. It's there because pregnancy sabotages three characteristics highly valued by our culture.

[OldPossum]

I think that maybe you and I are somewhat in agreement. Whenever I hear some new parents being congratulated, I think to myself (being a rather discreet person, I never would voice this observation to the proud parents--they think that they've really accomplished something), "Yes, this baby is the product of the most unskilled labor on Earth."

I'm sure that this doesn't sit well with most posters on this thread, and I expect that I might hear from some but I really have to go to bed now.

[GSlob]

"the majority of Conservatives (something like 80%-90%) had Conservative parents, and the Liberals were no different."
You mean that the majority (80-90%) of liberals had conservative parents as well?

[Jaysun]

"the majority of Conservatives (something like 80%-90%) had Conservative parents, and the Liberals were no different."

You mean that the majority (80-90%) of liberals had conservative parents as well?

What is the meaning of this? Who sent you?

[timm22]

That's only if other parts of the world with a high population density respect your ownership of of all that open, "wasted" space and those lovely, unused natural resources.

Low density populations are at constant risk of encroachment by their neighbors.

I don't think it takes too much population density to maintain a sufficient Navy and nuclear force. So we should be alright. Then there's Cananda and Mexico. Canada is seeing pretty much the same trend we are, and Mexico's never been a military threat to us in all the history of our nation. They currently send over a lot of illegal immigrants, but that is not a military problem, it's a political one.

Besides, it seems a little silly and farfetched to suggest that contempt for the childless is okay because they make us an attractive target for invasion.

[GSlob]

The meaning of this is self-evident. Lefties nowadays do not breed, or almost so. Thus the new lefties [at least a significant number of them, excluding the underclass] have to come from the non-liberal family backgrounds. Hence the proper prophylactics of leftism has to take this sordid reality into account. To have conservative parents is not enough. Verstehen?

[timm22]

Hardly. There are more people today than there ever were before, and not much innovation. I suppose it's possible, as per the saying about the thousand monkeys banging on a thousand typewriters for a thousand years.

I beg to differ. I'm a fairly young man, but in the course of my life I have seen changes that still amaze me. How long did it take man to go from hunter-gatherer societies to full agriculture? From agriculture (and thus high-density cities) to industrial socieities (with incredible increases in the standard of living)? Notice a trend?

As for your analogy, I think a more fiting example would be to compare the possibility of finding a misprint in a book of 10 pages versus one of 10,000 pages.

But that's a lot of bananas and monkey crap while we're waiting for the next world-changing marvel.

Of course. The world always presents us with trade-offs, which was my original point to you. The population debate is never so simple as either side tends to make it.

[timm22]

But for all your experiences and travels, you will never know the joy of watching your kid trying to get up and walk the first time, the joy of their crazy birthday parties, or the joy of little arms around your neck, kissing mama or daddy goodnight. I've enjoyed quite a lot of experiences in my life so far, but nothing beats the knowledge that the memory of the civilization I was born in, and what I've learned will live on in my kids.

Duly noted. I accept the possibility that I may regret my decision not to have children. But, I've decided that I would be much, much unhappier as an old man knowing that I had brought someone into the world I didn't want, or that I ruined a life through my own poor parenting. That, in conjunction with other, lesser reasons, is why I do not want children. I will try to make a positive mark on the world in some other way.

I'm not saying this to discourage others from having children. I think a lot of people make good, willing parents and derive a lot more joy from childrearing than I might. I wish them well and hope they don't mind picking up my slack :)

[truemiester]

God Bless all mothers. God help all fathers!

Family first.

When I was young we used to say that "The one who dies with the most toys wins!" Only the goverment wins there. Now, as a grandpa, I say " The one who dies with the most genetic offspring wins the game of life!"

I used to tell people I worked for my my Uncle Sam or, later, for a company. Now I tell them I work for my family.

My children have taught me more than I could teach them!

[Jaysun]

The meaning of this is self-evident. Lefties nowadays do not breed, or almost so. Thus the new lefties [at least a significant number of them, excluding the underclass] have to come from the non-liberal family backgrounds. Hence the proper prophylactics of leftism has to take this sordid reality into account. To have conservative parents is not enough. Verstehen?

Ich versteht. My questions weren't meant to be taken literally. I was just jackassing around. I've been without sleep for about 60 hours now and readily admit that I'm a bit off.

You have a fine point. But I would argue that a lot of them are only temporarily liberal. Many of them are college students that naturally want to be liked and accepted. Indeed, this is where the liberals focus their efforts. It's "cool" to be a liberal while on campus. I believe that once they mature a bit their liberalism will go the way of flaming farts and homemade pornography.

[GSlob]

Consider one more point - the immigrants from the communist countries [say, Cuban refugees] are about as right-wing as they come - because of their direct experience of what the leftism is and means [still, quite a few have not gotten the collectivist virus out of themselves - they simple become right wing collectivists]. Thus, per Hayek, the best antidote for leftism is the rigorously individualistic upbringing - ideally, they should feel no need to, and deep aversion against, "being cool". Just being oneself ["to thine own self be true"] ought to be cool enough.

[Maelstrom]

Those leftists are in the school systems creating new generations of idiots through indoctrination.

Watch your kids carefully

[Netheron]

Darn tooting. Higher population = more variety = more innovation. Of course, it also means a lot more idiocy as well, but innovation perseveres.

[Netheron]

No, but the evidence shows that it is strongly transmitted from parent to child. It may not be hereditary, but it is 'close'.

[Netheron]

Not much innovation????

Innovation is alive and well. How do you think Moore's Law keeps working? You are just so immersed in its presence, you don't even see it.

[bordergal]

Besides, it seems a little silly and farfetched to suggest that contempt for the childless is okay because they make us an attractive target for invasion.

No, I'm not advocating contempt for the childless, I'm just pointing out that certain types of societies are more vulnerable due to their lack of population.

So, you don't think that China's numbers gives them an advantage over us, now that their military hardware and training are improving?

[End Times Sentinel]

And your neighbors are aware that you have nothing but contempt for them? 

Actually, I have nothing but Christian love for them.  That's probably why the one Republican on the entire block was elected Block Captain.

Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

[timm22]

No, I'm not advocating contempt for the childless, I'm just pointing out that certain types of societies are more vulnerable due to their lack of population.

Ok, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. What is your opinion of the childless? And if what you claim is true, what if anything do you propose to address the problem?

So, you don't think that China's numbers gives them an advantage over us, now that their military hardware and training are improving?

Sure, if we wanted to invade China. I don't think they are anywhere near being able to successfully invade and hold U.S. territory.

[bordergal]

Given the commitment required to be a decent parent, it should be entirely voluntary. However, people also need to be honest about the larger societal impacts of not having children.

For example, the birthrate of immigrant Muslims versus the native European population does place European civilization at risk, IMO.

That requires European society to make choices (1) encourage childbearing by natives, (2) limit childbearing by immigrants, (3) limit immigration, (4) force integration, or (5) capitulate.

[the OlLine Rebel]

(Sorry this is so late)

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart022806.asp

See this recent Betsy Hart editorial. She hits it right on the head. Not only that different "types" of women shouldn't be sniping at each other, but that the new brand of perennial housewife/mom is giving the children too MUCH attention (actually alot like any1 living w/Spock rules has).

And as for preferences - shouldn't we be grateful, in a way, that many women (esp.) declare they don't want kids? If she doesn't want them, we won't have to deal w/the mess she'd make of them, right? ;-)
It's kind of like insisting some1 who doesn't really appreciate music must sing. Usually, you don't want to sing because you can't sing. It's natural law. Who would want some1 who cannot sing well at all to sing all the time?

[stands2reason]

I agree. The time to guess about that is... never.