We've all heard the eco-warriors talk about the extinction of mankind as a benefit to the planet. Who cares about humans, Gaia must reign supreme! The latest reason to stop with the babymakin', though, is because it is SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!
While of course we're used to the feminist argument that marriage is just legal slavery or rape, I have to admit this was a new one for me -- albeit, unsurprising, given how enthusiastic feminists are for meaningless sex and unfettered access to abortions.
Along with the emancipation of women, sexual liberation has become very much a part of politics around the world. To the conservatives, both these issues challenge 'family values'.
But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?
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.
... Thus as I realized how the cultural imperative on starting a family was unfair to women and the poor, I felt an instinctive aversion to it. That is the emotionally conditioned response that could override our responses to needs and instincts that make us want to reproduce. And if we rule out the biological 'instinct', which is strictly only to have sex and not to reproduce, my case for saying no to reproduction becomes much stronger.
That's right -- good old-fashioned family values are standing in the way of total sexual liberation, and reproduction is just another way of keeping womyn down. So, let's just abolish all reproduction!
Lest you think that this is some kind of anomaly among the feminists, check out the responses in the comment section, where almost none of the commenters disagreed. One even said:
This has got to be the best post I've ever seen on this website. 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.
See, feminists like to use the word "choice" a lot, because it conjures all kinds of nice, warm, gooey feelings. They're not trying to tell everyone what to do, see, they just want to be able to "choose" their own path.
This is categorically untrue.
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. There's no such thing as real choice in modern feminism -- what was once something noble has been perverted and distorted into something grotesque and Stalin-esque. There's only one correct way of living, and that's whatever way feminists say it is. This post, about ending all reproduction, is just another example. Even though most women feel called to motherhood and look at it as a positive thing and a blessing, feminists don't care. They know better than us uneducated yokels anyway.