I've always been uncomfortable with the bare pronatalist argument for men to have children as well. The constantly pitch children as a man's "legacy", while all the other activities and contributions of men that can affect the world are ignored or downplayed. While pronatalist arguments from religious conservatives frame it as a woman's duty or purpose, it is framed for men through appeals to their ego and desire to do great things. The irony is many of these pronatalists are Catholics who have no problem with childless clergy, or a childless Jesus.
Yet, what is the "legacy" of a man's children in turn? If we follow that same logic, it would be to just have children of their own. A self-licking ice cream cone. So people in general, men and women, are under this schema mere breeding machines to maintain GDP and culture (even though culture sometimes comes from childless people). Sure, enough people have to have children, and most want to do so, but to reduce civilization to just giving birth for its own sake sort of misses the broader point of civilization to begin with.
Those men who use surrogates enmasse remind me of the fertility doctors who secretly use their own semen. They don't care about the resulting children, it's more about their own twisted legacy.
One of the more famous cases, Donald Cline, was a socially conseevative church elder who was recorded justifying what he did (secretly impregnate about 100 women with his own seed) with reference to Jeremiah 1:5, "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
Not only is this essay great in its own right, but it perfectly dovetails with one I'm writing about whether feminism has been bad for the family, so thank you for giving me something to cite!
As a "yes, and" - the progressivism of 19th / early 20th emphasised the social condition of women and their children (and the consequences of men's vices such prostitution, drunkenness, gambling on them); and in the UK the early divorce reforms reflected a concern over denying women access to their own children (specially in the context of the upper classes).
Helen Lewis's book very good on this Nas wide-ranging, if you haven't previously encountered.
This is super important. Thanks for setting the record straight as to whose work is undeniably *feminist thought widely recognised as such*, vs, *hot take from feminist woman on internet*. I do cautiously hope we're going in the direction of feminism as a movement reconnecting more and more with the rights of children as a cause.
Thank you for calling out foundational feminist texts and how they're adamant on women and children's well-being being bound together! The fact that feminism has helped liberate women from being exclusively valued as wives and domestic caretakers— and has thus called for more societal support in these tasks and their recognition as labor—has led to so many takes blaming the movement for promoting "baby hate" when it's just not there.
Speaking of hating children it could be said that in one way or another such has always been the norm is Western culture, and perhaps all over the world too.
Really strong piece. I’ve always struggled with the mental gymnastics of being loudly pro “having more children” while opposing the policies and cultural changes that actually make children’s lives safer, fairer, and more humane. Wanting children to exist is not the same thing as valuing them as people, and this essay draws that line clearly.
I've always been uncomfortable with the bare pronatalist argument for men to have children as well. The constantly pitch children as a man's "legacy", while all the other activities and contributions of men that can affect the world are ignored or downplayed. While pronatalist arguments from religious conservatives frame it as a woman's duty or purpose, it is framed for men through appeals to their ego and desire to do great things. The irony is many of these pronatalists are Catholics who have no problem with childless clergy, or a childless Jesus.
Yet, what is the "legacy" of a man's children in turn? If we follow that same logic, it would be to just have children of their own. A self-licking ice cream cone. So people in general, men and women, are under this schema mere breeding machines to maintain GDP and culture (even though culture sometimes comes from childless people). Sure, enough people have to have children, and most want to do so, but to reduce civilization to just giving birth for its own sake sort of misses the broader point of civilization to begin with.
Those men who use surrogates enmasse remind me of the fertility doctors who secretly use their own semen. They don't care about the resulting children, it's more about their own twisted legacy.
One of the more famous cases, Donald Cline, was a socially conseevative church elder who was recorded justifying what he did (secretly impregnate about 100 women with his own seed) with reference to Jeremiah 1:5, "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
Not only is this essay great in its own right, but it perfectly dovetails with one I'm writing about whether feminism has been bad for the family, so thank you for giving me something to cite!
As a "yes, and" - the progressivism of 19th / early 20th emphasised the social condition of women and their children (and the consequences of men's vices such prostitution, drunkenness, gambling on them); and in the UK the early divorce reforms reflected a concern over denying women access to their own children (specially in the context of the upper classes).
Helen Lewis's book very good on this Nas wide-ranging, if you haven't previously encountered.
I love Lewis’s journalistic work but I’ve never gotten around to her books! Many thanks for the reminder, I’ll work on changing that soon.
Audiobook of "Difficult Women" read by her which is also nice.
This is super important. Thanks for setting the record straight as to whose work is undeniably *feminist thought widely recognised as such*, vs, *hot take from feminist woman on internet*. I do cautiously hope we're going in the direction of feminism as a movement reconnecting more and more with the rights of children as a cause.
Thank you for calling out foundational feminist texts and how they're adamant on women and children's well-being being bound together! The fact that feminism has helped liberate women from being exclusively valued as wives and domestic caretakers— and has thus called for more societal support in these tasks and their recognition as labor—has led to so many takes blaming the movement for promoting "baby hate" when it's just not there.
Very interesting! I’d love to read more about child hatred and its origins and whether daughter hatred is its own thing or just early misogyny
I definitely think daughter-hatred has its own unique elements! But it would have to be another post… or ten. Maybe I should write on it, though.
Speaking of hating children it could be said that in one way or another such has always been the norm is Western culture, and perhaps all over the world too.
http://violence.de/index.html
Our child-rearing methods have always been based on what the author featured below called a monstrous mis-understanding
http://ttfuture.org
Please find a set of references on Narcissus who is equally at home amongst religious believers and on-believers
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-.htm The Criticism That Cures the Heart
http://beezone.com/adida/narcissus.html
http://beezone.com/adida/killing-the-tiger.html Killing the Tiger
http://beezone.com/current/stresschemistry.html Stress Chemistry
On a Lighter note
http://beezone.com/baptism-of-immortal-happiness The Baptism of Immortal Happiness
http://beezone.com/current/ewb_pp436-459.html The Enlightenment of the Whole Body
http://beezone.com/current/whenbodyfulllight.html When the Body Is Full of Light
http://beezone.com/current/tableofcontents-5.html Scientific Proof of the Existence of God!
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds18.html Reality As Indivisible Conscious Light
Really strong piece. I’ve always struggled with the mental gymnastics of being loudly pro “having more children” while opposing the policies and cultural changes that actually make children’s lives safer, fairer, and more humane. Wanting children to exist is not the same thing as valuing them as people, and this essay draws that line clearly.