Rather than arguing with this pathetic exercise in leftcult stupidity (redundant, I know) …
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.
… I say to author “freethinkr” and some of her sisters in the comments —
*I definitely agree that both nuclear families and reproduction have got to go. As long as parenting is seen as a private endeavor, there will always be child abuse and neglect that go unnoticed. As long as there is inheritance, equality is just a hollow word.*you’re right: the idea that having children is naturally the right thing to do, or even a cultural responsibility, is so destructive to society and to feminism. I can’t tell you how many people–many of them feminists–have told me that a woman’s greatest power lies in her ability to have children. I think that’s completely untrue and goes against everything that feminism stands for.
… please, do not get married, do not have children. By all means, do not pass on your genes nor inflict yourself on any rational human being out there.
(h/t Cassy at Wizbang)
Comment by Lt. York on 1/12 @ 1:29 am #
“a woman’s greatest power lies in her ability to have children. I think that’s completely untrue and goes against everything that feminism stands for.”
As a single man, wow…just…wow.
Having babies is against feminism? What the He!!!?
No wonder I’m not married…I can’t imagine a woman ever saying the above.
Comment by panther girl on 1/12 @ 1:33 am #
My IQ decreased 10 points just from reading that silly article. Thanks a lot Darleen!
Comment by panther girl on 1/12 @ 1:35 am #
So really - no concept of “family” at all. Was she raised by wolves?
Comment by panther girl on 1/12 @ 1:45 am #
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
Yea, I could be working hard to give all my money to freethinkr if I didn’t have these rotten kids to feed.
Comment by panther girl on 1/12 @ 1:52 am #
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.
Yea, folks have children because of the social stigma.
And poor children have no future? That’s the spirit! If we keep at it, we can knock any sense of self and pride and responsibility out of them at an early age so that when they’re old enough they can assume their proper place at the McDonald’s fry machine. That way the liberals can swoop in and save these poor unfortunates from their destiny with government handouts and minimum wage increases.
Comment by panther girl on 1/12 @ 1:55 am #
Apparently I’m on one tonight - sorry. Thanks for the bedtime story Darleen. I’m going to pretend it was satire otherwise I’ll never fall asleep. G’night all.
Comment by Synova on 1/12 @ 2:16 am #
It’s not just stupid on the female level, it’s moronic on the economic level.
There’s almost nothing to say about it all except, I win, you lose.
Because biologically and every other way that matters: I win, you lose.
Comment by Puck on 1/12 @ 4:18 am #
Well, let’s hope they mean what they say and decline to reproduce. We’re all better off with their genes sunning themselves on the patio, rather than in the pool with our own, don’t you think?
Comment by Pablo on 1/12 @ 5:43 am #
Well, that would be very, very changey.
Comment by Salt Lick on 1/12 @ 5:46 am #
Well, let’s hope they mean what they say and decline to reproduce.
Not so sure about that one. Children often see their parents’ ideologies naked, and rebel in disgust.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 1/12 @ 5:53 am #
Think of it as evolution in action.
Comment by Steve B on 1/12 @ 6:03 am #
I think these gals are right on target. No militant feminist should ever have children. Mouth breathers like this should embrace the joys of abortion, contraception, and lesbian love. Anything to prevent them from reproducting and inflicting their offspring on the world.
That would make them essentially self-limited in one generation. I like it.
Comment by Dan Collins on 1/12 @ 6:15 am #
Wait . . . am I to understand that your uterus is a phallus?
Comment by William Teach on 1/12 @ 6:27 am #
I read the “article” over at femenisting and was wondering if it was satire or a joke. Sadly, it isn’t. These are very weird people who, 30 years ago, would have been advised by their friends and relatives to seek psychological help. Now they are treated as serious people.
Comment by Carin on 1/12 @ 6:48 am #
It appeared to me that the author was male. It was mentioned that to have children, someone else’s body would have to undergo the consequences. Oh, the horror!
What a pussy.
Comment by Pablo on 1/12 @ 7:03 am #
Mohammed el-Baradei should be looking into Concerned Marsupial in the comments, because she’s manufacturing weapons grade stupid.
You shouldn’t have kids because they’ll eventually die. What kind of monster are you? Sadly, her mother didn’t see it that way and now she’s inflicting herself on people who have enough problems already, what with death looming over them and all.
Comment by JHoward on 1/12 @ 7:05 am #
Ah, the veritable religion of hyperprogressireductionism for it’s own selfish sake. Is there nothing it can’t do?
Next up: Matter as patriarchial oppression and energy as it’s racial element.
Comment by Kirk on 1/12 @ 7:19 am #
I understand completely. I’ve been a slave to my testicles for years now.
Comment by MarkJ on 1/12 @ 7:22 am #
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. undoubtedly had ‘freethinkr’ in mind when he famously opined, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Comment by JHoward on 1/12 @ 7:30 am #
Not really. Family-wrecking government (hi Joe “VAWA*-boy” Biden!) consolidates power with the powerful from the weak; in other words, to mothers** from fathers and to government from the horrid traditional family:
*Or is it VAVA?
*You know, child-bearers.
Comment by MAJ (P) John on 1/12 @ 7:35 am #
“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.”
Not a big fan of the Kennedy family, eh?
These people remind me of the Cathars - perhaps they could all undertake the endura right now.
Comment by ThomasD on 1/12 @ 7:39 am #
Procreation is destructive to society?
Kinda like respiration results in cancer, or heart disease, or gingivitis…
That would make them essentially self-limited in one generation.
Just don’t call them the new Shakers, cause that’d be sexist.
Comment by Benjamin on 1/12 @ 7:40 am #
These people remind me of the Cathars…
Well, there is nothing new under the sun.
Comment by Carin on 1/12 @ 7:47 am #
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.â€Â
Noam Chomsky even has a trust fund. You know, to make sure his money goes to his kids and not taxes.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 1/12 @ 8:07 am #
Their ’shame caves’ have overwhelmed them with the, uh, shame of it all.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 8:15 am #
That’s her version of “A modest proposal”, right? That’s a joke-post, right?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 8:23 am #
On the top of freethinkr’s blog:
Someone has a high opinion of himself, no?
Precious.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 8:24 am #
Possibly herself, but the distinction of gender is probably overly burdensome.
Comment by Patrick Carroll on 1/12 @ 8:26 am #
I’m betting she gets up every morning, looks in the mirror, and says “Damn! I’m still female! Damn!”
Comment by urthshu on 1/12 @ 8:38 am #
Well, I’m probably a horrid human being for saying it *in public* and *out loud* but I’m in a relationship with a girl who won’t have kids and I’m this close to just saying ‘pack up and get your voluntarily infertile ass outta here’.
And, yes, thats a big part of the reason*. I think the urge [or its opposite] to multiply must be hardwired, honestly.
*I’ve a list
Comment by Alec Leamas on 1/12 @ 8:40 am #
What is terrific, though, is that at some point in the future when you point out that Lefties are anti-family (at least, the family as 96.5% of Americans know and love it) they will deny this fact.
I also enjoyed the epic stupid that families prevent the flow of money to people who write painfully ridiculous blog posts, and instead the money flows to family. I suppose he/she/it hadn’t considered whether or not person A would build substantial wealth if he wasn’t able to leave it to his progeny.
Comment by Sdferr on 1/12 @ 8:50 am #
Really, this article is thoroughly moronic. It dooms itself with no help from anyone else needed. Why on earth waste time on it?
Comment by Darleen on 1/12 @ 8:51 am #
Comment by urthshu on 1/12 @ 8:38 am
No, not horrid at all. But it is an unsurmontable obstacle to any long-term, successful relationship. There is no compromising on “I want children” “I don’t want children” … either you’ll resent her if you never have any or she’ll resent you (and the kids) if she feels talked into having any.
It’s kind of a make it/break it deal there (I’ve had friends go through something similar).
May I gently suggest your untangling yourself and finding someone with the same goals and values as you.
Comment by Darleen on 1/12 @ 9:01 am #
Why on earth waste time on it?
I don’t think it a waste of time, because to a greater or lesser degree you’ll find this “thinking” prominent on any large, American, public university.
On ‘freethinkr’s’ blog, she meanders around the Bombay bombings and ties them to “patriarchy, capitalism and militarism’ … and that’s what these “thinkers” all do - every ill of the world is reduced to those three evils (about the only thing they ever label “evil”).
Just wait, V-day is just a month a day - the level of rad-feminist stupidity perpetuated on college campus’ is mind-spinning.
Comment by urthshu on 1/12 @ 9:05 am #
Yeah…. I haven’t figured out any way to go about it yet, though. I’m not about to list compounding factors, but they are huge. Mostly whats stopping me is the degree of compassion on my part, which I admit to wearing kinda thin. Breaking up would put her in an untenable position, far away from home.
Anyway, last for that.
Comment by Carin on 1/12 @ 9:33 am #
Urthshu - I’m with Darleen. Wanting kids and not having them for reasons such as yours (GF doesn’t want ‘em) is a travesty. You need to just tell her it’s a deal breaker. Sorry.
Comment by Techie on 1/12 @ 9:36 am #
The Patriarchy (All Glory to the Penor) has a double-secret plan to ensure that the poster’s wishes come true…..
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 9:42 am #
An example of felonious stupidity attempting to couch itself in pseudo-intellectual rationalizations…
As panthergirl stated, I feel like my IQ decreased simply by reading it…
But, I suppose that we should all be glad that this person has no desire to reproduce…
Let’s just hope that it isn’t a teacher nor ever becomes a foster parent; it would be a tragedy if this moron had significant influence on any young and impressionable minds…
Comment by Sdferr on 1/12 @ 9:49 am #
No worries about that Bob, as any five year old could outthink this imbecile.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 9:51 am #
Urthshu,
Darleen and Carin are 100% correct in their advice. I spent 10 years of my life waiting for someone in my past to “make her mind up” as to whether she wanted children or not…
The fact is she never did, and was simply paying lip service to it in order to keep our relationship copacetic…
While you can always make more money, time spent can never be recovered…
Although the experience was not a total flame-out, and I’m sure yours is satisfactory in some ways also, it’s better not to waste time that would be better spent building your family and shaping your life in positive ways…
Just some advice from one with many yers under the belt!
Best Wishes
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 9:52 am #
Sdferr,
I’m a fan of science fiction, but I have no idea what brave new world this person is envisioning!
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 9:56 am #
Urthshu, compassion on your poor girlfriend. That she doesn’t want kids, or want them now, or want them when you want them (whatever the situation is) that doesn’t make her wrong or bad, though it may make her wrong for you. It’s disappointing to have a relationship with someone who wants very different things. But I detect a bitterness of heart and judgment about her “mistake.” That bitterness is what makes me agree with Darleen. You can’t reconcile yourself to her wishes about having children.
Comment by Techie on 1/12 @ 9:58 am #
The cognitive dissonance generated by this person’s interpersonal interactions might be able to solve the energy crisis.
[Families are oppressive. Say no to reproduction. However, if one of you mouthbreathers DO end up respawning, give me the child to teach, and I'll totally not be acting in a controlling, oppressive, gender-determined mannner. Nope, Nomamee.]
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 9:59 am #
It sounds as though you still have hopes of persuading her, with ultimatums, rational arguments, moral arguments; that she has an obligation not to betray you this way and to live life as you think life should be lived.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 10:02 am #
Techie, not an original thought in her head. She can control her fertility, her relationships as she pleases but she can keep her food-loving mitts off of everyone else’s. Why does she think people make food? Even bees in hives do it to make new bees.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 10:30 am #
Noam Chomsky even has a trust fund.
He also owns two luxury homes and a bitchin’ boat.
Comment by Curmudgeon on 1/12 @ 10:33 am #
He also owns two luxury homes and a bitchin’ boat.
Damn, would I like to firebomb the former and sink the latter.
Comment by mojo on 1/12 @ 10:37 am #
And feel free to slit your wrists at any time.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 10:39 am #
Somehow I don’t think that this moron at feministing would be critical of Chomsky in any way…
Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure it isn’t much of a Freethinkr either!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 10:48 am #
Chomsky has three kids, so he must have raped his wife’s shame cave with his Male Weapon of Oppression at least three times.
Something tells me those kids aren’t living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, either.
Nor is the stupid bint at feministing.
Hunter-gatherers don’t have computers, sweetie.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 10:52 am #
Careful SBP…
You’re dangerously close to the assertion that Chomsky may be part of the eeeeeeevil rich opressive minority, and hence, part of the problem!
Remember, if you have the right outlook, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, then wealth is good!; just like anything else…
Heck, I’m sure that Madoff was good, until the ponzi story broke; after all, he was donating to the correct factions…
Comment by Topsecretk9 on 1/12 @ 10:59 am #
These are very weird people
Pretty much. I like Pablo’s comment - we shouldn’t have children because we’re thrusting death onto them and they have no choice in the matter.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 11:00 am #
More unsolicited advice: if you know you want children, and your GF knows she doesn’t, and you’re not just screwing around with this relationship in the first place: end it. It’s not going to go where you want it to, unless she changes her mind. If you’re building your relationship on the HOPE that she will, consider the wisdom of going into a marriage with the hope that your sex life will pick up after the stress of planning the wedding is gone.
That was me, two decades ago.
For me, the realization that I really did want and need a family was sudden and blindsiding. I had divorced my first wife and was in a relationship with a woman who knew she didn’t want children, and all of a sudden I knew. Fortunately, she knew I knew before I knew I knew, and had the grace to begin putting the kibosh on the relationship. A year later I was married to someone I hadn’t even met yet. That was sixteen years ago, as of a couple of weeks from now.
FWIW, anyway.
Comment by gregorbo on 1/12 @ 11:02 am #
The author of the article Darleen cites obviously has never heard of “daughtering out” or “genetic drift.” It’s a very common occurance through generations whereby the concentration of wealth within a single patrialineal line spreads “horizontally” (usually through marriage, but not always) as a result of the birth of daughters rather than sons. No family can hold onto its wealth perpetually. Death, birth, and marriage–and, yes, inheritence, guarantees that the wealth will be spread . . .If you look at the wealthiest families in the U.S. in the 19th century, for instance (the Rockefellers come to mind), you’ll note that all of their families “daughtered out” to a great degree after about three generations (I think). So the very idea that the nuclear family perpetuates an insurmountable concentration of wealth within a few hands forever is ridiculous.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 11:02 am #
I wonder if they know that Chomsky is a Jooooooooooooo!!!!?
Comment by Topsecretk9 on 1/12 @ 11:02 am #
Bob Reed
If presented with the challenge of Chomsky and his trust fund babies bet freethinkr would admit that only the “right” people should be allowed to procreate. That’s really what the tard is getting at.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 11:05 am #
gregorbo, I get the feeling that arithmetic isn’t this bint’s long suit.
It should be clear that having more children, not fewer, reduces wealth concentration.
Let’s say Joe Rich Guy dies childless. Who gets his money? His brother, Jack Moderately Well-off Guy.
When Jack dies, his kids get Joe’s money as well as that of their own dad.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 11:07 am #
You’re probably right Topsecretk9…
I’m sure that it would insist that it was their duty, just as much as the rest of us need to stop…
You know, for the good of gaia!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 11:10 am #
Let’s say Joe Rich Guy dies childless. Who gets his money? His brother, Jack Moderately Well-off Guy.
To carry this to a ridiculous extreme, let’s suppose that out of a group of 1,000 related people, only one has a child.
Guess what, ‘freethinkr’? That one child now inherits the wealth of one thousand people.
Yep, that’ll certainly reduce the concentration of wealth.
Comment by Topsecretk9 on 1/12 @ 11:14 am #
this is left with no comment:
[A]dvertising is inherently set up to subordinate people-who-are-looked-at to the needs of people-who-look.
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 1/12 @ 11:14 am #
Sooo … she’d prefer what? Vat born kids in a creche so she isn’t forced to raise them? Or do we have another Voluntary Human Extinction Movement devotee?
Comment by Topsecretk9 on 1/12 @ 11:15 am #
Or do we have another Voluntary Human Extinction Movement devotee?
Bingo.
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 1/12 @ 11:21 am #
Er hem. Ladies first.
Comment by gregorbo on 1/12 @ 11:44 am #
SBP–precisely so. In addition to which, more children means a greater generation of wealth for a greater number of people down the line. Fewer children does not “spread the wealth.” To the contrary, it means less of it. Look at the demographic trends in Europe right now. Germany, France, Italy–literally on the brink within a few generations of disappearing for all intents and purposes for lack of children. Oh, the population void is being filled–but just not by Germans, French, or Italians . . .
Full disclosure–I have five children (!). When feminists look at me in disgust I think, “Well, they’ll be financing your retirment. You can thank me later.” And, “Better me than you.”
Comment by Techie on 1/12 @ 11:47 am #
#61
From what I read at David Thompson’s post on the subject, apparently yes.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 11:48 am #
OH no, freethinkr would change all that. No other man is more your brother than any other. Your money goes into the pot. But of course you will have lost all incentive to accumulate assets for your family more than others. So you won’t make things or invent things or try to get a leg up to get mates or provide for offspring. Bingo, no economy or consumer goods or war or competition for resources.
Imagine no possessions. Just a bunch of frog fish to crawl out of the sea and start all over again.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 11:51 am #
Vat born kids or their near equivalent, kids tossed into the baby garden to be properly raised without all that motherly love.
As if loving one’s own children over others is moral. It might be natural, but the world can’t change ’til we change our nature top down.
And these changes will stick because Lamarck and Marx say so.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 11:52 am #
All it will take is a bloody revolution to kill the folks who want to keep their babies.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 1/12 @ 11:52 am #
Entailment of property ended a long, long time ago in the U.K. and in most of the US states.
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » ENSURING SOCIAL PROGRESS by refusing to reproduce. Insert your own sarcastic comment here. (Via Da… on 1/12 @ 1:15 pm #
[...] SOCIAL PROGRESS by refusing to reproduce. Insert your own sarcastic comment here. (Via David Thompson). More from Cassy [...]
Comment by Tood on 1/12 @ 1:30 pm #
There was a time when I thought the spread of Islam in the West was a bad things. Reading this makes me actually want to cheer on the rapid spread of Islam in the West.
Comment by James on 1/12 @ 1:32 pm #
This superb and hilarious picture shows why feminists think the way they do. The answer is really much simpler than you think.
Comment by comatus on 1/12 @ 1:34 pm #
You know, there’s just one point in the Manifesto I’d like to go over one more time. It’s the one called “Community of Women.” When we had it in freshman orientation, we thought it was a dorm or village or something. Now this other guy says no, that’s not what it means. Can anyone help?
/Sarkoff
Comment by One Man Gang on 1/12 @ 1:40 pm #
My bride once said that one of her main goals in life was to be called “Mommy.”
She’s more of a woman than any of these bitter harridans.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 1:45 pm #
Instalanche!
Comment by A.W. on 1/12 @ 1:45 pm #
Mmm, in a couple years this will be as popular as shakerism is today.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 1:50 pm #
Less so, I’d say.
No one wants feminist furniture.
Comment by Pablo on 1/12 @ 1:52 pm #
How exactly does “home-maker” fit in with revolutionary radical feminism? Shouldn’t an empowered womyn be taking care of herself?
Comment by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 1/12 @ 1:54 pm #
I agree, we should leave all human reproduction to Loretta…
Comment by Jeffersonian on 1/12 @ 1:56 pm #
I think the Darwin Awards need a Lifetime Achievement-type thing for this sort of slow-motion suicide via idiocy.
Comment by James on 1/12 @ 2:03 pm #
Wait, freethinkr is a Muslim from Pakistan?
http://notesofafreethinker.blogspot.com/
Something doesn’t add up here. I call BS on this.
Comment by jum1801 on 1/12 @ 2:03 pm #
Oh, Goddess damn it! I feel the oppressive male hegemony crumbling! Our cunning plan, destroyed by the courage of a non-breeder speaking crystalline feminist truth ( yes, I realize it’s redundant) to that nasty old male power. Curses! If only we didn’t carry the terrible Y-chromosome virus, perhaps we too could have been fully actualized hu-persons…..
Comment by frank martin on 1/12 @ 2:07 pm #
Gosh, if only her parents felt the same way as she did. I’d like demonstrate my support her position that “reproduction has to go” by wishing to see her parents sued for their misguided and clearly demonstrably destructive efforts.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 2:08 pm #
hu-persons
huperoffspring, please.
“Sons” is sexist.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 2:13 pm #
Fucking futurist. I guess he’s smartened up a bit from when he was posting as “Twok” and the like.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 1/12 @ 2:13 pm #
Chomsky has three kids, so he must have raped his wife’s shame cave with his Male Weapon of Oppression at least three times.
Something tells me those kids aren’t living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, either.
It might be dawning on Chomsky that Oscar Wilde’s dictum about being too modern applies to him, too.
Comment by Trouble on 1/12 @ 2:15 pm #
Masturbatory solipsism, thy name is ‘freethinkr’.
Comment by The Den Mother on 1/12 @ 2:15 pm #
Does this mean that Freud was right, and anatomy really is destiny? How depressing.
So if people stop reproducing, from whom are these malcontents going to mooch? A good chunk of them will need the as-yet-unborn to pay for their social security benefits.
What a bunch of idiots.
Comment by Peg C. on 1/12 @ 2:15 pm #
It’s not so shocking. This is what you get when you carry lefty dogma to its full conclusion. Those of us who used to be lefties know this. But yes, these folks seriously need to destroy their gene pools.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 2:17 pm #
Jeffersonian: Definitely. Think about how dated the “ultramodern” styles of the 1960s look now.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 1/12 @ 2:25 pm #
Jeffersonian: Definitely. Think about how dated the “ultramodern†styles of the 1960s look now.
Like PJ O’Rourke said, reminicing about his Maoist days in the ’60s, that believed a lot of stuff back then, like how he’d bring about world revolution and social justice by taking a lot of drugs and dressing like a circus clown.
Comment by phantommut on 1/12 @ 2:37 pm #
Let’s hope she practices what she preaches. I like to think of her proposal as a “win-win” proposition.
And hey, it worked for the Shakers. All their issues have in fact been resolved.
Comment by UglyButLovable on 1/12 @ 2:38 pm #
James, ya mean I gotta be pretty to be right-wing? (Can I get a partial pass for producing a cute kid?)
Comment by Stephanie on 1/12 @ 2:40 pm #
Though she is attempting a historectomy (like much of the left) and needs a hysteriectomy (again like much of the left)… she has yet to acknowledge a need for a hypocritectomy (again like much of the left) since she has not taken it to the next step and scheduled a hysterectomy…
Do they have issues or what? No wonder they are for universal health coverage!
Comment by Fred the Fourth on 1/12 @ 2:44 pm #
Read at Mark Steyn’s (and possibly his, originally):
“The future belongs to those who show up.”
Go ahead - don’t have kids. Watch your “enemies” run the future. Brilliant strategy.
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 2:51 pm #
James @ 2:03 pm
Key phrase in blog : “I like being a gender deviant”. I presume a male.
Comment by Achillea on 1/12 @ 2:54 pm #
“But you don’t seem as concerned with the fact that your child didn’t choose to suffer and die, you and your husband are the ones who thrust that inevitable fate upon him/her.”
Life is a sexually transmitted disease that is invariably fatal.
Comment by Twok on 1/12 @ 2:54 pm #
SlartibartfaRt,
Sheesh. Do you have issues or what? You are as bad as ‘freethinkr’.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 2:56 pm #
Yes, my issue is that I detest linkwhores.
Which makes me just as bad as freethinkr, I guess.
Comment by Twok on 1/12 @ 3:03 pm #
SlartibartfaRt,
“Which makes me just as bad as freethinkr, I guess.”
To the extent that you side against a critic of freethinkr, holding a grudge for a couple of years or more, yes.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 1/12 @ 3:24 pm #
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all? No, you’re just a dipshit, out tirelessly linkwhoring your dipshittery. That last was a picture that’s been floating around the internet for many, many months now.
Give it a rest. In the event you start saying anything intelligent or even clever, people will notice and start linking you voluntarily.
Comment by lonetown on 1/12 @ 3:26 pm #
Poor girl is just rationalizing her pathetic life.
Comment by Lockestep on 1/12 @ 3:27 pm #
Having made the error of browsing some of freethinkr’s other posts, I have learned some categories(such as man, woman, intelligent, and rational) are not real. These are merely “imagined concepts…symptoms of a world in conflict.” I kind of suspect he/she is right, in that intelligent and rational seem pretty far removed from anything freethinkr has written.
Comment by segesta on 1/12 @ 3:52 pm #
And to think that Europeans are exactly the same way, except without all the psychobanter… just a desire to live with mom and eat well.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 1/12 @ 3:55 pm #
It’s sure sign that society itself has become wealthy and decadent when spoiled children like “freethinkr” has the spare time to indulge in pointless mental masturbation like that.
O brave new world, that has such people in’t!
Comment by Sdferr on 1/12 @ 3:58 pm #
Freethinkr is no Caliban.
Comment by Twok on 1/12 @ 4:00 pm #
“Give it a rest. In the event you start saying anything intelligent or even clever, people will notice and start linking you voluntarily.”
They have been, for a long time.
You are just jealous, and the only person here who is so insecure. Where is your blog, bartfaRt?
Comment by James on 1/12 @ 4:01 pm #
“James, ya mean I gotta be pretty to be right-wing? (Can I get a partial pass for producing a cute kid?)”
I am sure you are quite pretty already. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 1/12 @ 4:02 pm #
Rob Reed,
*sigh* I wish someone had told me that in 1994…
Comment by malclave on 1/12 @ 4:13 pm #
I won’t criticize someone who, for whatever reason, elects not to have children.
However, to someone who writes “So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go,” I can only say: it’s a shame your parents hadn’t realized this “fact” before you were born.
Comment by DougW on 1/12 @ 4:16 pm #
Like so many other Socialist/Leftist screeds, this latest one came too many years too late. It should have been expressed by Bill Ayers parents and by young Hawaiian Leftists many years ago, then we wouldn’t have our current mess, would we?
Gee, these Socialist fools (Stop it now, that’s being so judgmental, isn’t it?) never do anything in a timely fashion!
Comment by k1023 on 1/12 @ 4:18 pm #
Having worked in HR I can tell you people work harder when they have kids to feed, or they aren’t the kind you want to employ anyway. How un PC of me:). I would have never gone through my masters nor encouraged my husband were it not for thoughts about how to better provide for our kids. Otherwise, I’d happy travel the country side not contributing to society in any manner or earning tht income that through taxes pays for schools, roads, hospitals, and so on. By the way, keep raising my taxes to pay for idiots and you’ll have an entire generation shrug and walk away. We look around at the section eight people living the same basic life, sending thier kids to the same schools and wonder if it was all worth it. Sad to see us work so hard to pay for these idiots who in some cases live better than us. Careful people, you might get what you wish for and Atlas Might Shrug.
Comment by JHoward on 1/12 @ 4:30 pm #
I know you didn’t ask me, kindly, wise, and prolific Twok, but mine’s here. Cool, huh? Unique even.
Comment by hitnrun on 1/12 @ 4:32 pm #
Talk about having it bass ackwards. As far as social constructions, she might be right, but genetically, in humans, she has it completely the wong wray. Marriage and family are what facilitate reproduction. Without them, you get, to put it succinctly, Detroit.
As for reproduction itself, it’s not optional, at least not in the way feministing means it. Sure, you can make an argument for life experiences mattering more than biological parents in forming a person if you’re so inclined, but it doesn’t change the fact that, when discussing tools for propagating cultures, societies, and the species, the medical advances of the next 100 years *and* the last 100 years are dwarfed by the power of good old fashioned unprotected sex with someone willing to help you raise a baby.
Comment by k1023 on 1/12 @ 4:38 pm #
By the way, as long as the Middle East keeps out breeding us at six to eight kids per woman, when we barely replace ourselves, you can forget about Feminism anyway. Want a real lesson in female oppression? Spend ten years in Saudi Arabia as my mom did. Oppression isn’t even the right word. They are a mass of illiterate people with no concept of western ideas, only hearing what their religious leaders teach them (except for the few rich western educated), so in time, with no one to pass our ideas onto, we lose the culture enlightment war anyway, and along with it, this wrong headed thinking that calls itself feminism so horribly incorrectly. If getting the vote and property rights was going to lead to women being made to feel stupid and of no value for taking care of their families, our grandmther’s generation might have rethought things.
Comment by kelly on 1/12 @ 4:45 pm #
Mark Steyn, call your office.
Comment by Joe on 1/12 @ 4:46 pm #
The less folks like this reproduce the better for us all. Self imposed eugenics.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 1/12 @ 5:02 pm #
What is interesting to me is that these are the same people who reject a creator God and claim that humans evolved from lower primates. If so, gender differences and raising families have an evolutionary reason, they are natural. By decrying human reproduction they are decrying nature.
Gaia is now very confused.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 1/12 @ 5:08 pm #
I suppose a slight follow-up is in order. Having children hinders a woman from having all of these experiences, which are the result of living in a civilization - no one else but a rich (from civilization) person climbs up a mountain or rafts down a river just for the ‘experience’ of it all.
So nature is decied to allow the person to quite unnaturally have most unnatural experiences, and civilization is decried for its unnatural order, without which there would not be any decrying of either nature or civilization.
Comment by Steve on 1/12 @ 5:19 pm #
When you are ugly you have to make excuses for why no one will touch you for ‘reproductive purposes’. No one want to reproduce ‘ugly’.
Comment by Steve White on 1/12 @ 5:24 pm #
I propose that Darleen and the feminuts at Femilisting are incapable of arguing this issue to completion. I propose that it be settled by their children and grandchildren.
Comment by D on 1/12 @ 5:30 pm #
“Gaia is now very confused.”
I guess they never followed the part where if there are no families, and no need of reproduction, then they will be in direct competion with males for food, at which point they will lose, because of the strength/aggression ratios between male and female.
They musta flunked the class in irony. To not realize that they wouldn’t be having the ability to think in this way if they were not products of a complicated society that allowed time to purely ‘think about stuff’ instead of working all day everyday from childhood to death, a life nasty, brutish and short.
Comment by George Wilson on 1/12 @ 5:40 pm #
Look up “Shakers” - sort of the same idea, Extinct. duh
Comment by assemblyofgoodchristians on 1/12 @ 6:02 pm #
The Cathar rite of endura was an extremely personal spiritual choice made by an individual facing death, chiefly due to a physical infirmity.
The term “Cathars” derives from the Greek word Katheroi and means “Pure Ones”. They were a gnostic Christian sect that arose in the 11th century, an offshoot of a small surviving European gnostic community that emigrated to the Albigensian region in the south of France.The medieval Cathar movement flourished in the 12th century A.D. throughout Europe until its virtual extermination at the hands of the Inquisition in 1245.
I hope this clarifies the misguided suggestion in some above comments.
Brad Hoffstetter
Communications Division
Assembly of good Christians
http://www.cathar.net
Comment by dicentra on 1/12 @ 6:03 pm #
I really like Ace’s take on the post:
Comment by dicentra on 1/12 @ 6:10 pm #
And if you haven’t been over yet, do read the comment thread at David Thompson’s place, which displays its usual pan-anglospheric wit.
I mean, this is all OVER the starboard side: Insty’s, The Corner, Ace’s, etc.
Comment by chsw on 1/12 @ 6:30 pm #
Not only should that feminazi never reproduce, but she should voluntarily return her personal carbon to the earth ASAP.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 6:42 pm #
Wow, there are still Cathars.
Any Lollards or Arians out there?
Comment by SarahW on 1/12 @ 6:43 pm #
I’m thinking that “she” could very well be a he.
Comment by Pellegri on 1/12 @ 6:47 pm #
Wait, where’d we mention the Cathars, anyway?
Not that there’s anything wrong with them; they were one of the cooler Gnostic cults, actually–and their persecution was sorely undeserved. I just can’t remember them actually coming up in this thread. 9_6
Comment by Pellegri on 1/12 @ 6:49 pm #
Oh, there it is.
Stray Cathar fellow, I don’t believe any slight was made to Catharism.
We just want these people to remove themselves from common discourse. Starving to death would be one way to go!
Comment by Mama73 on 1/12 @ 7:50 pm #
OMG
Comment by Mikey NTH on 1/12 @ 8:17 pm #
Well, Pellegri, trying to suck-start a .38 would be another way.
Comment by flan on 1/12 @ 8:32 pm #
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 1/12 @ 6:42 pm #
Wow, there are still Cathars.
Any Lollards or Arians out there?
There seem to be plenty of Pelagians, although they don’t call themselves that.
Comment by Stan in Sugar Land on 1/12 @ 8:51 pm #
Yeah, not having children is great, look at what Roe v Wade got us - 40 million immigrants to replace the 40+ million aborted American children!
Comment by Don Meaker on 1/12 @ 8:55 pm #
So with more people like her, there would be fewer people like her?
Comment by Roger Godby on 1/12 @ 9:15 pm #
When, as the Beatles sang, she’s 64 (or, given the US average, over 74) and possibly feeble and unable to take care of herself and has no children to look after her or fund the bankrupt social programs once meant to do so and is placed in the “compassionate” care of a government-run retirement facility, which will take everything she has left before taking her in, will she still feel the same way? Probably.
Jeez, just off yourself now, Darleen, so others can benefit from whatever (if anything) you produced or paid into the Social Security Ponzi scheme.
Comment by Grace on 1/12 @ 9:25 pm #
The very people who are reading these blogs are the very people who should be having more children to continue some intelligence in the genetic pool.Raising sons has been my greatest pleasure in my lifetime. I am sorry I could not afford more as they are very smart and productive.
Comment by dicentra on 1/12 @ 9:37 pm #
Well, Grace, I would be glad to help repopulate, but I have this THING about, you know, making sure I marry the prospective father first, before I start popping them out.
At 45 and being without prospects, I kinda don’t think that’s gonna happen. But I WOULD do it for the greater good if things worked out that way. At least my 3 sibs have spawned 11 among them, so there’s that.
Comment by Darleen on 1/12 @ 9:53 pm #
Jeez, just off yourself now, Darleen,
are you having some reading comp problems, Roger?
Comment by Darleen on 1/12 @ 9:55 pm #
Grace
I’ve four daughters, one stepson, so far two grandsons.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/12 @ 10:01 pm #
Keep the faith dicentra; you never know what the future will bring you…
After all, Sara and Abraham were quite old…
But, how’s a fine woman, and a smart cookie, like you not attached..? And I must ask, what have you been doin’ up ’til now..? Speaking as part of a childless couple myself..?
At least your siblings have covered the replacement value for all-o-yez; I can’t even lay claim to that!
No offense meant, and I hope I’m not being too personal; I guess I’m just co-miserating…
Best Wishes
Comment by mhb on 1/12 @ 10:18 pm #
Somebody - quick - tell Copernicus he was wrong: it appears the sun revolves not around the earth, but around “freethinkr”.
Doubtless her decision not to procreate provides the best strategy for the gene pool; thus, her values and half-assed philosophies will die with her. That’s optimum. Why, however, do these creatures continue to believe they have the right to speak for the rest of the world? Why not just continue to suffer their hateful, bile-encrusted lives in solitude and leave the task of actually living and contributing to society to the rest of us?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Comment by mhb on 1/12 @ 10:19 pm #
Ptolemy, rather.
/mhb
Comment by Pellegri on 1/13 @ 2:00 am #
Dicentra, I would totally marry you if I were a guy and I’d completed my mission. We could have awesome babies.
@Mikey: Hehehehe, suck-start. First time I’ve heard that one; I shall save it.
Pingback by Voluntary Human Extinction « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective on 1/13 @ 5:13 am #
[...] This ties in with a particularly foolish blog entry by a woman who believes the path to social progress is to end human reproduction. [...]
Comment by Alec Leamas on 1/13 @ 8:26 am #
“the idea that having children is naturally the right thing to do, or even a cultural responsibility, is so destructive to . . . feminism.”
Wouldn’t you think there was something wrong with Feminism, then?
Pingback by BizzyBlog » Things I’d Like To Post About Today ….. (011409, Morning) on 1/14 @ 8:55 am #
[...] among the most odious contentions of some far leftists is the stereotype that “families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially [...]
Pingback by Longest. Linkaround. Evah. | The Anchoress on 1/14 @ 2:24 pm #
[...] And they’re all 14 years old. And they’re helping to create a nation of 14 year olds. Like these. Eureka, I have found them. The stupidest people on [...]
Comment by dicentra on 1/14 @ 4:04 pm #
But, how’s a fine woman, and a smart cookie, like you not attached..?
Trust me, it’s pretty easy when you’re looking for a fellow Mormon. We gots more wimmens than mens in the church, which is what that polygamy thing was about in the first place. But no, y’all had to make us stop. Thanks for nuthin’.
Speaking as part of a childless couple myself..?
My sister and her husband would have been childless if they hadn’t gone in vitro. Both of them had plumbing problems, and now they have four-year-old fraternal twin girls and another two-year-old girl, and my sister is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
And I must ask, what have you been doin’ up ’til now..?
I tend to attract closet cases and mama’s boys. They’re nice guys but strangely enough I don’t want a gay husband or one who has no spine. I don’t do invertebrates.
And then for the last seven years I’ve struggled with fatigue that has yet to be diagnosed and treated, so I don’t have the energy to do eHarmony or anything else like unto it.
And I’ve got more issues than you can shake a stick at, so… I’m not sure I’d want to inflict myself on someone I care about. It’s one thing to write spiffy stuff on the ‘tubes. It’s very much another to hold up your end of a relationship. Idiot-savant, that’s me…
Comment by Bridey on 1/14 @ 8:26 pm #
Is there anybody left — other than a feminist — who doesn’t yet understand how much feminists hate women?
Comment by Rich Rostrom on 1/14 @ 9:13 pm #
k1023: While fertility rates in the Middle East are still much higher than in Europe, they have dropped very substantially in the last 20 years: down 30%, 40%, 50%. Iran is down _70%_, to 1.72 (below replacement). Only four ME countries still are 4.0 or more. There is still huge demographic momentum in their favor, but the landscape _has_ changed tremendously.
Comment by Bob Reed on 1/14 @ 9:31 pm #
Don’t be so hard on yourself Dicentra; the good Lord put someone out there for all of us…
All in His good time, I assure you…
Good luck with the perpetual fatigue thing; maybe it’s lime disease or some malady like it…
Have confidence in your worth. Some fellow would be lucky to have you inflict yourself on him!
We all have issues, we all need each other…
Your best days are still ahead of you darlin’…
Comment by dicentra on 1/15 @ 1:47 am #
Thanks, Bob. That’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me since sliced bread.
Or something… As for lucky fellows, they have to exist first and not be playing video games 24/7 in their parents’ basement, IYKWIMAITYD.
The fatigue is a thyroid thing  I have normal blood levels (with medication), but there’s a theory out there that the blood levels don’t always measure tissue levels on account of a rogue hormone that gets formed for no good reason and binds to the normal thyroid receptors, the way CO binds to hemoglobin and suffocates you.
But it’s all experimental so far.
Comment by SporkLift Driver on 4/24 @ 10:42 am #
A little fisking.
That’s my understanding too.
WTF?
While true that their is usually no formal arrangement of a wage for most stay at home moms doesn’t most of the discretionary spending in a typical family get made by or for her?
Is it even possible for a person not to have gender or class?
Considerable money flows to the poor or those who claim to represent the interests of the poor. For the most part the poor remain poor long term because that’s what they do. When a poor person or family accumulates wealth they cease to be poor.
And what is wrong with that?
Selfishly pursue their own interests or fall prey to consumerism? It really is an either or thing, you can’t do both.
Plenty of things that ought to be changed in this world, so why muck with the source of so much that is good in the world?
Comment by SporkLift Driver on 4/24 @ 10:46 am #
While true that their…
Their = there.
Damned internet spelling, it’s contagious.