jump to navigation

Fecondophobia: the growing fear of children and fertile women August 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, demographics, disaster, family, General Catholic, persecution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
trackback

This piece from The Federalist is from a couple years ago, but it’s just as relevant today.

We live in a profoundly strange, even perverse, time, when so many people, men and women alike, seem at war with their own biology and nature.  Women spend decades taking powerful carcinogens to keep from having a baby but still fornicating with abandon, while men are increasingly emasculated and feminized.  More and more people are not just childless, but positively anti-child.  Having any child at all is considered in many quarters selfish and  irresponsible, while having more than one or, at most, two children is considered outright insane.

I’m sure many readers can relate.  We’ve all gotten the stares, the incredibly insensitive and downright rude comments (“you know what causes that, right?”), and even removal from certain cliques and social milieus.  If you’ve observed this, you’re not alone. As Mollie Hemingway notes, this is a real and growing phenomenon:

In the Washington Post last year, Lisa Miller sneered that Republican candidates who had more than a couple children were showcasing their “smug fecundity” in their family photos. Miller said that those women who aren’t in a constant battle to keep their wombs empty are putting “their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.” [There is criticism galore of this statement in the next para, but for me, I observe all the amazingly false dichotomies. Brain surgeons and PhDs can be SAHMs, SAHMs can contribute significantly to family earnings while raising children, and the idea that a woman raising children loses her independence is asinine.  What is really being communicated here is a repudiation of women who don’t swallow the radical feminist mantra of childlessness, workplace career, and fornication/adultery/divorce as “empowerment.”]

There is much more than a whiff of the misogyny in denigrating mothers of multiple children as brainless, in stating that mothers who are homemakers are inferior to those who “earn” their living, or in attacking women for prioritizing fertility above independence. It’s not just that nobody on planet earth could be truly independent — which is to say completely self-reliant or free of any other human support. It’s not just that we each depended on others from the moment of our conception to birth, but all of society is comprised of individuals who work with each other and depend on each other throughout their lives. Or healthy societies are, at least. It may be impolitic to suggest that men and women are in any way different, science be damned, but many women have a particular specialty in cultivating relationships and family. To denigrate women who acknowledge and accept this as a good thing rather than fight against it is not exactly life-affirming. [It’s a lot more than that.  It’s a wicked calumny against good women for rejecting the feminist paradigm]

But that’s just one example of media promulgation of the fear of children and fertile women. Let’s just revisit a few of the other media highlights over the last couple of years that suggest a problem: [Lists Wendy Davis’ overnight stardom for filibustering a late-term abortion ban in Texas, Kermit Gosnell, Obamacare contraception mandate, the destruction of Komen for briefly de-funding Planned Barrenhood]

…….It’s almost as if there is a pattern in how the media treats stories about women and their wombs. “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament,” activist Florynce Kennedy famously said. But the fact is that, as far as the media are concerned, abortion is a sacrament. And keeping the womb empty at all costs during all, or nearly all, of one’s fertile years is the sine qua non of modern American womanhood. Woe to the woman who “chooses” otherwise.[That’s the point – those who go off the feminist plantation (witness Sarah Palin) – will be eviscerated. It’s like that with every element of the left, however.]

A comedian on Twitter recently mocked a family with a large number of kids. The replies to the tweet were even more disturbing, including references to “mindless bodies” and how the “Mom looks surprisingly good, for a puppy mill.”………

This is what fecundophobia looks like.

In August, I visited the Hawthorne Street Fair in Portland, Oregon, and had a blast. A parade of Occupy protesters marched down the street, calling on everyone to vacate their houses and live outside — and to turn their houses into houseplant sanctuaries. I hadn’t been at the street fair more than five minutes before I was asked to sign something in support of Planned Parenthood. Then I saw the NARAL Pro-Choice America booth, encouraging activism in support of abortion rights. A few blocks later I was thankful to see enthusiastic signage in support of adoption. It turned out to be about pet adoption. By the time I got to the tent with a sign that said “Thank you for not breeding,” I’d had enough.

This phenomenon of deliberate, angry childlessness and antipathy towards those who procreate is largely confined to the culturo-political left.  That’s not to say it’s entirely confined – far too many “conservatives” are of the “two kids at most” mentality.

There is another factor at play, of course.  That’s the correlation between fornication, number of lifetime partners, and childlessness.  The vast, vast majority of women who have more than two children only ever have one lifetime sexual partner.  These women are also the least likely to ever divorce.

Which, speaking of……young people, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Make sure you marry a good, moral, Catholic virgin.  Your lifetime chances of divorce will be infinitesimal if you do.  The data is clear, a woman with 5 or more lifetime partners WILL get divorced at least once in her life:

70+% ten year divorce risk translates to a greater than 95% divorce risk over a lifetime.  Even TWO partners outside marriage means a greater than 2/3 likelihood for divorce.  And yet today most young women graduating college have had DOZENS of partners.  Some fail to make it out of high school without that many notches on their belts.

The numbers for males are somewhat similar but generally about 1/4 – 1/3 less.  Even men with more then 20 partners have only a 45% lifetime chance of divorce.

Whereas those with only one lifetime partner basically never divorce.

I seem to have gone far afield!  Oh well.  Worth what it cost you, as always.

%d bloggers like this: