by BlisteredWhippet » Wed 08 Mar 2006, 15:36:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')Maybe women don't have more babies sooner, maybe they have less than 1.9 babies per couple in the USA... Whatever. Somehow the world's population reached 6.5 billion last week and I think women had something to do with it.
It takes two to tango.
Wheres the feminist movement for reproductive rights in the first world? Where is the extension of support for population controls to the third world? Why is it that many countries' populations are unsustainable?
The responsibility for the act of having children is squarely on the shoulders of the woman if the choice exists to have the child or not. You can say retrospectively that it was a good or bad, uninformed or rational choice but in the end the male gender is not equipped to bear children and has no say in it. Even the best condom manufacturer admits a 1% failure rate. Not even vasectomy in some cases is %100.
To pretend that childbirth is not fully the woman's responsibility is to invite speculation. What is it if not human nature or economics to wish to reap the benefits of having total control of choice while choosing to externalize some of the burden and cost to someone else?
To me, its as if the victory of the women's rights movements wants to reap all the benefits of power while abdictating certain parts- namely, reproductive responsibility. It seems whenever this debate crops up, females tend to want to frame males as being responsible for childbirth, ipso facto.
I think its just because when the shit hits the fan, women want to call 1-800-Blame-A-Penis.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Illegitimacy among American whites has continued to grow, reaching 23 percent of all babies born to non-Hispanic white women in 2002 (compared to 68 percent among African-Americans and 43 percent among Hispanics). That's worse than the 22 percent figure for blacks that so alarmed Johnson Administration adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan that he wrote a famously controversial 1965 report called "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action."
I think something went terribly wrong on the feminist road to the 21st century... I see it everyday. Heres the arc: woman grows from immature child to immature adult; sees having a baby as an inalienable part of a 'quality life'; finds first sperm-producing immature male in desperate search; has child, couple seperates, child victimized, wash, rinse, repeat.
Somewhere along the line the idea of women being wholly responsible for making the best choices possible for their own reproductive health went by the wayside. Now we have a generation of women who feel that their own self-fulfillment is the highest virtue they can hope for, that a father is optional, and that social programs and role models validate- if not outright promote as a lifestyle choice to be persued- their decision to be "strong, independent women" and work all day while the kid grows up latch-key without a male role model or caretaker.
This is the 1st world story; the 3rd world story is just dumping the kid off in the ditch where they live in abandoned buildings and sniff glue all day.
Yeah, it takes two to tango. But is it a reasonable expectation to expect every time a man has sex, hes going to become a father? Reproductive
choice places the responsibility squarely on the woman's shoulder, unless shes got a tattoo on her forehead which reads: "if I should get pregnant by accident, I will have a kid".
The fact is, having a kid outside of a competent, stable pair-bond is the height of irresponsibility and unethical in the highest sense of the word. Apologists can bark that illegitimacy is the the fault of the penis, but they are just barking up the wrong "tree".
I have lived with and among college-age women throughout my 20s, and let me tell you something- they believe, by some combination of misinformation and intellectual dishonesty- that abortion is horrible, bad, regrettable, unfortunate, possibly life-threatening, and frankly, a subject that only someone with a uterus should have a valid opinion on. Likewise, they see a man as ancillary to child-rearing, that men are in general defective and untrustworthy, and that their own self-fulfillment in child-bearing is more important than the quality of the child's life.
I don't know why the feminist movement backfired so hard- I don't know why there aren't high-level discussions of the crisis in family, in population growth, in illegitamacy. Hell, I don't know why some women want to correspond with prisoners serving life terms and have their babies.
But what I do know, have seen, and know from talking to many, many women across the age spectrum, that having a baby is the singular life experience they all yearn for at some point in their lives, and if it means seizing the opportunity outside marraige, from a one-night stand, or with some guy they've fooled themselves into viewing through rose-colored glasses- they'll do it.
As a man, all I can do is watch this peculiar brain-damage masquerading as human drama play out and throughout the lives of women around me. My penis and others' penises have nothing to do with it. The fact is that women decide when to have babies, with whom, and rarely does the counsel of men matter in the slightest.
Hearing first-hand accounts of the inner emotional and intellectual lives of women, I can't help but think that this is how nature has engineered our species. That women, by virtue of their biology, for the most part, will be compelled into reproduction. Like an addict reaching for a bottle of vodka, any reason becomes sufficient, as the female brain's operating biology takes control over their higher thought processes in a systematic colonization by primitive instincts and drives.
The chemical warfare commences at puberty and does not let up until menopause. The female brain is bombarded by hormonal neurochemicals which at any rate drive her to attract mates. The foreground reality is nothing any of us would consider abnormal- but in the background, the brain chemistry drives thought and behavior, compelling women to act in ways that attract men, advertise their sexuality, and mate. These brain chemicals override rationality and reason in a wave of emotional response that short-circuits every other consideration.
Hence, women make choices about reproduction even when: the mate is in prison serving a life sentence; is an idiot or "no-goodnik"; in an environment where the child will probably starve to death; she cannot afford to give it a quality standard of living or decent upbringing.
So yeah, it takes two to tango. Whats the man's role? I'll tell you first-hand what being a man is like. Its like after puberty, your brain changes to orient yourself toward lustful thoughts on the female form. Your penis acts like it has a mind of its own; it punishes you when you don't discharge sperm and it drives you to compete for female attention. You crave femaleness, its closeness and touch above all else. But you do
not have any control over reproduction.
You are taught by society to achieve- if only to secure a mate. Like a robin building a nest, your job is to trick a female into thinking that you're more worthy than the next guy by surrounding yourself with the trappings of success.
And yet, what does a baby need in a father who is never there, working like a slave to provide a house and nest whose primary reason was originally for the woman? Once the child is born, the mother becomes protective and covetous of the child the way the male was protective and covetous of the female in the stage of mate attraction. The male feels for the female what the female feels for the child- I think what many might call 'unconditional love'. The baby needs both parents, though. Men stay with women for love, women stay with men for utility.
The baby is supposed to grow into an adult, a genetic set expressed in a collection of traits and behavior of a higher quality than the personalities that lent themselves to its genetic heritage. Either that, or the concept of 'moving forward' as a species is a joke.
This is where we're at. We have cars, suburbs, computers, and airplanes, but men and women are still propelled by caveman drives. This is expressed in thinly disguised tribalism- as politics and 'culture'. Anthropology has always pointed out the difference between societies, foreign and domestic, ancient and modern- is just a difference of scenery and costume.
The question is: if overpopulation destabilizes and destroys everything we have ever worked for- if we recognize this as rational people, will we make any attempt to halt this effect? Is it even possible to act against biological imperatives?
The answer, to my mind, is that the latter half of the 20th century, with its wide-ranging powers propelled by wealth based on cheap energy, made the first attempt toward facing the dragon of biological imperative. It politicized for the first time, reproduction. The idea of repoductive rights and self-determination is radical. But something went horribly wrong. ERA is now ini danger of being rendered irrelevant. Roe vs. Wade is on the chopping block. Young women are not burning their bras anymore, but getting tit implants. And older women are getting collagen injections. More than half of all pair-bonds destroyed. Children and adults bearing the burden of broken homes. The consumer economy turbocharged by women who now comprise more than half of all executive positions in business, make over 80% of all household purchases. If you were to put a face on American consumerism, it would be female. The glass ceiling is no longer accurate. The engine of extractive capitalism is a jauggernaut and the foot on the gas pedal is a Prada pump.
The net effect seems to have been to empower women- not necessarily the offspring. Nature, as usual, is still enjoying better success than ever- the population inexorably continues to grow. Patriarchy has been 'de-balled'. Whereas the era of the strong man supported by lesser men is over, it has been replaced by the era of weak men supported by strong women.
Now, this is all first world. In the third world, life is much as it was. Take Mexico (not exactly 3rd but still) with every female popping out 3 babies. Mexico, a country where the maini religion is an ancient neo-pagan system of idolatry which includes as the carndinal figure a "virgin" who manages to get pregnant without being penetrated by a penis- surely the first anti-male feminist goddess ever (who perpetrated the perfect cuckoldry over her clueless husband)- abortion is also illegal. Take any example of the 3rd world an multiply those numbers by an average of 2. Its fair to say that overpopulation is a huge problem.
What has the 1st world done in terms of leadership on this issue? Do American women, forget the feminists, care about lifting women up out of the third world conditions that they struggle with. If 1st world women are mainly concerned with their own self-fulfillment, and can't even recognize the growing dangers that the anti-abortion movement poses toward their rights, what chance does the rest of the world have, let alone the effects of economic destabilization due to Peak Oil or global warming?
Since going back to college I am shocked to find a generation of women who are so cravenly anti-intellectual it makes me think I'm witnessing NOW backsliding within a generation. Two women I talked to recently don't plan on doing 'anything' with their college degrees; ostensibly because they plan on meeting (trapping) a man, having a baby, and spending the rest of their days leisurely doing needlepoint and nurturing the baby they've always lusted after. This is the future 'leadership' of the feminist movement.
The NYTimes recently ran an article that highlighted a survey where more than half of all female college graduates don't see themselves working in their field in 10 years time- thats right- their plan is to bring up baby. The article pokes around the question of whether it is valuable to society to bankroll an education that is merely going to be used to vault single women into an arena where the most eligible bachelors concentrate (ie. those which will be admitted to high-paying career jobs.)
Okay, I've gone off in several different directions, so I'll wrap up. Basically, somewhere along the line idealism collided with human nature and what we're seeing is the consequences of that. Human nature wins again.
Remember, mother nature doesn't care about the well-being of the mother, father, or the child, just that the appropriate players are pulled together with sufficient force.
I think somehow in all this is the fundamental failure of modern society, of higher ideals, to manifest a continiually improving better world. Its the same brutal, nasty world, only with more people and less resources.
Strangely enough I'm beginning to think that Eugenics was a really good idea with bad PR.