I read a couple, laughed a little, then came upon this post, titled "to breed or not to breed." Mostly, she discussed how she'd like another child but would not like to deal with the inconveniences of pregnancy and infancy. Of course, this was a "eureka!" moment for me, because I feel the exact same way! A friend left a comment referring to this McLean's article, titled "the case against having kids" which mentions the strangely radical notion (strange that it's radical, and not more common) that children should be something people have because they really want them.
Of course, that got me thinking, society NEEDS children (which is clearly why that strangely radical notion is actually radical after all) to be the workers of the future. Thus, would people who were willing to go through all the trouble and work of raising children be honoured and supported by society as an incentive?
The entire next paragraph is taken from the McLean's article:
Speaking up on the subject can elicit a smackdown. Last February, the 37-year-old British journalist Polly Vernon wrote a defiant column in the Guardian enumerating the reasons she didn’t want children: “I’m appalled by the idea,” she wrote. “Both instinctually (‘Euuuw! You think I should do what to my body?’) and intellectually (‘And also to my career, my finances, my lifestyle and my independence?’).” The response was terrifying, she reports: “Emails and letters arrived, condemning me, expressing disgust. I was denounced as bitter, selfish, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil. I’m now routinely referred to as ‘baby-hating journalist Polly Vernon.’ ”
To me, it sounds like she's making the right choice for herself, because no one should have to be raised by parents who resent him or her. Yet she is vilified. Bad woman. This is frightening, of course, to my little feminist heart. And equally concerning to my child protection worker mind, although not frightening, because parents resenting their children is old hat for most cultures, especially all the various European, Christian ones from which I am descended.
The following is also from the article:
Why this is happening is the subject of much theorizing: educated women delay childbearing until it’s no longer an option; they refuse to pay what economists call the “motherhood premium” in which the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth and then drop, while fathers’ incomes are unaffected; they recognize that raising children is a sacrifice of time, money and freedom they’re not willing to make; or they simply don’t want to have children and are able to say no.
(The matter is complicated, Foot observes, because income level is also linked to procreation. What is known is that paying women to have children doesn’t work: the only variable proven to increase the chances of women having children is to offer a supportive social network, as evident by the rising fertility rates attributed to government initiatives in Scandinavian countries and France, where generous tax breaks, incentives, and maternity- and parental-leave provisions have resulted in the birth rate rising to 2.7 per woman, the highest level in Europe.)
Once again, I wonder, would people who were willing to go through all the trouble and work of raising children be honoured and supported by society?
My more cynical self suggests this will only be so when corporations see it as economically necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment