An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Women as Baby Factories
Go and read this post over at Deafening Silence about the role of women as baby factories. It’s a great, insightful, well researched post on this subject.
27 Responses to “Women as Baby Factories”
It’s a false dichotomy to propose that we would either have to accept the feminist model of society or the Islamist one. Women should be free to choose whether or not the want to bear children, and they should be honored for either choice (which is where the feminist movement has failed). Childbearing, unfortunately, is not given a high enough place of esteem in our culture today. Even with comments like the one that Boxer used to diss Condi Rice, the implication isn’t that Rice would be more esteemed if she was a mother; the comment was simply a variation of the chickenhawk argument that people who don’t have a child at stake in the war shouldn’t make the decisions about fighting the war.
Even with those who chose to have children, there’s an attitude that children are like possessions. The moral value of parenthood then becomes similar to the morality of having two cars and a comfortable home; something that some choose as a lifestyle, at best neutral in terms of morality, but definitely not a contribution to society.
The post is great, but I would add to it. Speaking from a country with one of the fastest aging population and lowest birthrates in the world, I think that we also need to look at why western women are having less children. I don’t think that simply the feminist model has so denigrated motherhood that it has become unattractive to many women. As much as I find certain sectors of feminism maddening in that sense, I really don’t think they have more power than the millions of years old evolutionary instinct to reproduce.
What’s changed? I think part of it is that the western world used to be more like the Muslim world is today; women had few opportunities to do anything BUT be mothers and homemakers. I don’t have a problem with being that, my own mother is, but I think it’s very positive that women now have the option to be other things. The problem is that the western world has adapted to the presence of women in the economy and increasingly, I think, forces women to choose. It gets harder and harder to be a good mother (eg. One that sees her kids more than 2 hours a day before bedtime) and be successful in the workplace at the same time. In my own case, I’m a scientist. It’s a profession that asks a lot of you, and involves long hours and a certain level of instability. I wouldn’t want to be a mother only to leave my child to a babysitter or daycare the minute maternal leave ended. If I’m to be a mother I want to be there to RAISE my children, but I don’t see how I could do that without sacrificing my career as a scientist, which I also value greatly. In Spain, two salaries are needed just to pay for a home, there really isn’t much of an option for a stay-at-home mom or dad (yes, it’s not biologically impossible for a father to do that). Prices are harsh even for a couple, let alone for one with children. Motherhood isn’t seen as bad, but is discouraged economically.
Yes, good points, Lynx. I didn’t mean to oversimplify by saying that the feminist movement is completely at fault. I guess what I’m trying to say in that regard is that with all of the factors that you mentioned, there’s a need for greater support for women who do make the difficult choice of staying home to raise children. At least if that choice was celebrated instead of denigrated, then there might be more women who would make sacrifices to do so; instead, that choice is not only sacrificial, but also denigrated to a certain extent. It may be that future generations will find a better way to balance; my generation was taught to strive for a career whereas I think many women of my generation are now teaching our female children that they should consider career and family goals and think about ways to make them compatible (or at least if not compatible, realize that one or the other will have to be sacrificed.) And, employers may increasingly have sensitivity and respect for the choice of staying home to parent so that men and women who choose a mommy or daddy track will still be able to return to their career without demotion. And of course, society has to come to terms with the degree to which childrearing is associated with women instead of both parents. It’s not really fair that women are the ones who do face these choices so much more than men, but to some degree I think biology does dictate that. It certainly can work out for some Dads to stay home with the kids, but since women will always be the childbearers, at least that part will always have to factor into career paths with at least some time taken for the birth and neonatal period. Rather than this being a curse for women though, I think if the rewards of it were more celebrated then it wouldn’t seem so unfair to women (I can envision a society where this would actually seem unfair to men, because they are the ones who don’t have as much choice in the matter and are mainly delegated to the career tract- but the values of our society don’t look at it in that way.)
I’m surprised to find myself largely in agreement with C Stanley.
Except for the part about society not supporting/approving of motherhood. I would say that our society (at least in the US) does claim to value motherhood, even if it falls short when it comes to providing resources for mothers.
The article itself was very good, but it could have delved a little deeper into the issue by noting:
1. Sociologist say that declining populations are less influenced by women who remain childess and more by women who have children fewer in number and later in life than previous generations.
2. Sociologists also describe a phenomena known as “cultural lag”, where a society’s image of itself doesn’t always keep up with the reality. If this cultural lag becomes too great or persists too long, it can make adapting to social changes much harder. There is concern that, at least in the US, there is a persistent cultural lag between the reality of modern families and Americans’ expectations, which is making it harder for institutions to adapt to the changing reality.
Alan G,
And in turn I’ll agree with you…great points.
Especially about the difference between what we claim to value as a society and what the reality is.
No one is addressing the Steyn article, “It’s the Demography, Stupid,”, andd the implied racism of this BS being discussed along religious passages is ironic. It follows the bigotry of “those people breed like animal”. It replaces Arabs with the black Americans. How long before a cheesy EU version of Mandigo shows up on Dutch movie screens?
Rudi,
Why is it inherently racist to state demographic data? If one culture is reproducing at a much higher rate than another, doesn’t that say something about the culture? Can we not acknowledge that people do engage in different behaviors based on their cultural upbringing without that being a racist argument?
I don’t remember all of the particulars of the Steyn article, so don’t assume that I’m in agreement with him; but I don’t get your opposition to this line of discussion in general.
CS – I am referring to ‘whitebread’ Steyn and his (IMO)fear and loathing of Arabs. Did you read the linked post, the author debunks the birthrate canard with the fact that infant mortality and life expectancy also are a factor. A combination of Nigerian high birthrate and high infant mortality doesn’t mean Aryaabs breeding like rabbits/junglebunn*** will take over EU. The Sharia law strawman in Canada is another example, except the author of the post didn’t do his/her homework, FrontpageMag isn’t a good source. I live across the river from Ontario, I don’t see OP cutom officers in Muslim garb.
Rudi,
I’m not trying to advance the same theory that Steyn does, although I could make this rebuttal to what you claim is the dismantling of his article: what about when fundamentalist Islamic cultures are transplanted to Europe? If birth rates remain high due to cultural factors, then the better access to health care would nullify the negative effects on population growth that exist in the third world countries.
And I guess I felt that the main thrust of the linked article was to say that high birth rates were inherently associated with misogynistic religious/cultural beliefs, and that is what I was arguing against.
I don’t see that feminism has much to do with this issue. Perhaps in the early days there was a devaluation of motherhood, but that time has long past. In spite of everything, fertility clinis don’t lack for clients- single clients, maiddle aged clients, you name it.
I think the answer lies more in economics and the stresses of modern life. What Lynx said probably resonates with women in the US. Women work to supplement family income. If they’re wise, they also work to gain an economic safety net in case of divorce or death of spouse.
While to some extent, the drive for more money may reflect materialistic motives, the skyrocketing cost of housing alone requires an ever increasing income level.
There is another factor. The child-rearing years are increasingly complicated by the need to care for aging parents. The most crucial years in careers coincide with the most stressful in terms of the needs of children, the needs of parents and the need to prepare for the parents’ own retiremtn.
Countries like France are responding with perks and bonuses for families with 3 or more children. In the US, it’s more a go-it-alone approach.
CS, women need more real support structures than songs of prais, in my opinion. Although, a pat on the back never hurts.
domajot, I disagree. Career goals have been glorified to the extent that motherhood is marginalized. Women who do choose to have children are still stuck with having to juggle both career and family, because to do otherwise is seen as beneath them. I agree that sometimes the financial need is a big factor, but the fact that it’s still a factor for women who can afford to stay home tells me that the scales have been tipped in favor of idealizing women who choose career paths over family.
And on the fertility clinic issue: as I mentioned, I feel that (generally speaking) this represents our mentality of children as tokens of success. People feel they have the ‘right’ to bear children rather than a responsibility to rear them. Again, I’m over generalizing and don’t mean to denigrate all modern parents, but I see this attitude as being more and more prevalent. Not to mention that fertility clinics would not be so busy were it not for high stress levels contributing to infertility, abortion taking precedence over adoption as a solution to unplanned pregnancies, etc.
I don’t disagree, but both would result from an overall change in societal attitudes toward childbirth and childrearing- as well as a change in our materialistic tendencies.
I wonder how culture and religion efect birthrates and motherhood in China and India? Could education and opportunity have maore to do with birthrate than Islamofacism?
Of course they do, Rudi. But I think the point here is that higher education may lead to a tendency for more individual women to opt out of childbirth and childrearing, and we ought to think about how that affects society as a whole. If it’s not a trend that bodes well for society, then how can we reconcile the need to reproduce with the need for women to have equal opportunity?
It’s tough to pay the bills and have children.
We should be looking at simple data like that long before we start assuming the change is along idealogical lines. Politicizing debates like this by implying sweeping changes are based on supposedly faulty thinking doesn’t seem all that wise, productive, or insightful.
I work in the government, which means I work with a lot of women. Many have children. Many don’t. The ones who have advanced the farthest more often then not do not have children, or their carreer stalled until long after the child-rearing. One woman recently took an intentional demotion the second she got married so she could work less and raise a family. Others get pregnant and eat up their entire sick leave and find themselves in stressful economic situations.
No one ever looks down on anyone for being a mother. No one considers motherhood versus feminism an issue. But the value of the dollar runs through the entire scenario.
Obviously, this is a simple, rediculously small sample-size and the observer may be biased. But…
To fashion this debate around belief systems instead of, perhaps, the data on the floor, seems utterly silly.
CS:
I’m afraid I disagree-almost entirely- with your take.
Instead of seeing motherhood as diminishing, many working mothers feel unfulfilled unless they also become mothers. Childless coupes are the ones under pressure to explain why they don;t have children, rather than the reverse. Even women who decide not to have children when young, often change their minds when the biolobical options start to run out. Newly married couples are more likely to discuss when to have children and how many, rather than whether they should have children at all. The image of a family in our psyche, still predomiantly incluedes kids.
Maybe it depends on who you talk to. It would be interesting to see some polls or other statistics. I only know what I read and the stories of people I meet. My daughter being in the age group most concerned about child related issues, I hear a wide array of opinions, but none reflect your thinking.
The ‘children as posessions’ attitude strikes me as particularly odd.
I don’t doubt there are scads of ‘wrong’ reasons why people decide to have children (lke the one to hold a marriage together), just as there are scads of ‘wrong’ reasons for getting married or any other decision. I’m sure you have your reasons for seeing it this way, but for me, to lump everything under this heading seems way too simplistic.
How you got to abortion as an issue in fertility clinics, I don’t understand at all. If you research the causes of infertility, you will learn more about the increasing rates of hormonal imbalance, ovarian tumors and other physical malfundions. Stress is suspected as a factor in this, as in every other disease or difficulty, of course. But abortion? That’s really casting a wide and far-fetched net.
Sorry, but I find it odd that you would think that this is odd.
I think you are right that it depends on who you talk to, and most likely you are right that my opinion is in the minority. That is actually why I speak of it, because it doesn’t often get voiced.
My “children as possessions” view was, as I stated, an overgeneralization. I certainly don’t think that all parents view childbearing this way, but the pressure that you speak of that leads couples to assume that they SHOULD have children, in my opinion stems from the idea that the American dream consists of 2.5 kids in a home in the suburbs with a
station wagonminivanSUV in the driveway. It’s more about status than about a serious desire to create and nurture the next generation, in too many cases. I link this to the IVF phenomena because that dream doesn’t seem to allow for adoption of kids rather than IVF when a couple is infertile. It seems that the selfish desire to have kids often stems from a desire to replicate oneself biologically.And it was in that context that I brought up abortion; not as a cause of infertility but as it relates to the societal stigma against mothers who give children up for adoption. We seem to prefer that they make unwanted kids go away, and meanwhile couples who want kids and can’t conceive spend tens of thousands of dollars to create their child in their own image.
egrubs,
I don’t see how the economics can be treated separately from the values. We put our money where our values are.
No. We put our money where our money is.
If the option is to be a poor, stressed out, struggling mother unable to provide the kind of life you idealize for your child… or to be a surviving, less stressed, capable working woman who hopes to be a mother at a later date…
Well, you tell me. Where do values come in before the economic reality? Follow the money.
Don’t create esoteric value systems to argue about in ivory towers. Life is expensive these days. Follow the money. We’re doing a great disservice to our entire struggling nation every time we fill it with the lie that it’s all just values.
You do understand C. Stanley that this is in fact the MAIN reason people want to have children? I know you are religious and I also know that humans can look beyond their animal instinct and do things for the “greater good” but the basis for wanting to be a parent is biology, an impulse deeply ingrained in every single living organism in existence. Humans are exceptional in the sense that they CAN overcome these instincts to a point, the acceptance of adopted children into a family is an obvious example. But you’ll notice how most people able to have children would rather have them of their own instead of adopting. Part of this is that conceiving naturally is free (and fun!) while adoption is costly and difficult, but part of it is our wish to perpetuate ourselves. Otherwise adoption would ALWAYS be the first choice and only if their were no orphans would parents choose to have their own baby.
I do think that being a stay at home mother is considered less of an “achievement” than a successful working career (let alone the derision heaped upon a stay at home dad, now THAT’S sexism). Part of it is logical, being a stay at home mother is considered “easy” in the sense that you don’t need to study for years or compete with others for the job. Another factor is that in a time when marriages don’t always stay together a woman really does need a guarantee that she can be economically independent if and when the time comes. ESPECIALLY if she has kids, custody is almost always given to the mother (to a point I consider unfair in many cases) and she needs to be able to support them economically. It’s hard enough to do with two salaries, one is harder and one salary of a woman who never worked after childbirth is more difficult yet.
C. Stanley I will say this, I think the problem is MOSTLY economic and generally work-related, but I do see a social factor. Marriage is not taken nearly as seriously as it should. I think it’s good that the stigma has been removed from divorce because it allows people (like battered women) to leave a non-functional relationship. But this has been taken to ridiculous heights and I think there is a consciousness that “till death do us part” is in no way necessarily true. This encourages a too individualistic attitude within marriage (as opposed to a long term partnership) that causes instability. This instability is part of what forces women to keep their working lives on the upkeep reducing or eliminating children from the picture, because there is no security that 20 years down the road you won’t be on your own.
Yes, Lynx, but beyond religious reasons I think there are reasons for society to evolve beyond that. We should put more emphasis on the child part of the equation rather than the parent’s desires for fulfillment.
But that’s my point, Lynx: we don’t have to look at achievement from the standpoint of intellect or financial potential, etc. If as a society we honored people for what they give to society rather than their acheivement of some status or power strata, then motherhood would rank high. There’s actually few cases where individuals can have a greater influence on the world than in influencing a child through good parenting.
What I’m trying to ask, egrubs, is why are these the options? Societal values influence those options, and IMO it’s sad that they’re often reduced to that.
The kind of factors I’m speaking of also include FATHERS taking a more serious role in their kids’ lives (again I’m generalizing…and of COURSE there are plenty of fathers who do so), and fathers who honor the choices of the mothers of their children. So please don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying that women should more often choose to have children under the current societal structure as I fully understand the reason why many do not. What I’m saying is that I think it would be useful to think about the ways that women lack the support structure from men and from institutions (employers, etc) to make a choice that they may wish to make but feel unable to do so.
Lynx,
I agree 100% with comment #20.
CS: “If as a society we honored people for what they give to society rather than their acheivement of some status or power strata, then motherhood would rank high. There’s actually few cases where individuals can have a greater influence on the world than in influencing a child through good parenting”
===========
You are advocating for the old either/or stance. Either a woman is a good mother, or she is a career woman. In my universe, women have both a desire to have children and a desire for the kind of intellectual stimulation she can find in the outside world. How well she navigates these two factors depends, to a large extent, on her economic capabilities. Oddly, I have to bring up something from the early history of feminism: a lot of studies found that women who are fultilled as people (work or study),) end up being better parents.
All economic questions being equal, a woman is a person who should be able to choose how to arrange the various aspects of her life.
But economics are not equal, and the choices are often difficult.
‘Society’ should, certainly take these issues seriously, but it’s not doing it. There is a long list of unaddressed issues: poverty, healthcare, and on and on.
I also take exception to your rosy view of adoption. Few women could simply forget the child they carried for 9 months and gave birth to at the moment of handing it over to someone else’s care. She will be the mother to that child for the duration of her life.
The first hurdle is not knowing if the child will be adopted at all, and the idea of foster care until maturity is a nightmarish scenario.
On the other side, many prospective adoptive parents are scared off by laws allowing for the arrival in their lives of the natural mother. Some handle this well, but most recoil at the idea of sharing parenthood with a stranger. That is a major reason why overseas adoptions are so attractive.
An unwanted child presents a terrible dilemma. It’s no use pretending there is an easy answer. When you talk about society’s values and obligations, you are really putting the burden on idivicual women making horrific choices.
“Career goals have been glorified to the extent that motherhood is marginalized.”
They haven’t been glorified, careers are better. Who the hell wants to give birth and stay at home. The life of a susie homemaker type seems like a prison sentence compared to the joys of making a career happen. And it isn’t all about the prestige or self empowerment, the day to day contains human interaction and relationships that people need. Interaction that vanishes when you have to care for infants all day. The whole process seems dreadful to me.
Obviously I never intend to have kids or force them on my wife. Just saying.
We do not put our money where our values are. I think economics is the primary reason for most people in limiting the number of children they have. Americans have been taught/conditioned to want a middle class (Preferably upper middle class.) life. Achieving that with a single income isn’t possible with the pay of most jobs. So the spouse goes to work too. Taken a look at what day care runs lately? After you have more than two kids to put in day care you’d better be making very good money. And even once you have them in day care you’d better hope they don’t get sick so you have to go home to take care of them. Businesses frown on that sort of thing.
I sometimes think that there are no greater enemies of the family in our country than our materialistic culture and business management.
Jim,
I think you’re contradicting yourself because your post for the most part makes my point. Our culture is so materialistic that we value the trappings of upper middle class life more than we value time with family and raising kids. I guess my statement that we put our money where our values are is confusing; what I mean is that collectively as a society, follow the money to see what we really value rather than listening to what people SAY they value. Of course if you ask, most people will say that family is among the most important things in life, and that raising children is very important. But- speaking only of a certain segment of society here, those who really do have a choice- when faced with choices of buying a smaller, less impressive home and cars, having fewer “toys” etc, in order to have one spouse stay home to raise the children, few people will make that choice. And as you mention, Jim, often the second income is largely eaten away by the costs of childcare. In some of these cases, the extra income is just that little bit extra to keep up with the Jones’s.
Now, as I said, I’m ONLY making this observation about couples who really could afford to have one parent stay at home. It is a completely different story for those who truly need two incomes to have a decent roof over their heads- in those cases even a small amount of net income from the second adult may mean the difference between decent standard of living and an unacceptable one. And, for single parents of course it is different as well.
What I’m talking about are the people who really do have a choice, but like Sam they feel that being “Susie homemaker” would be a horrible fate. Staying home with kids isn’t for everyone and I respect that, but making it into some kind of Ozzie and Harriet nightmare scenario is just ridiculous. As an intelligent and highly educated woman, I took the attitude that I would create an environment that was stimulating to me and my kids. I do get exposure to other adults and it’s true that this is absolutely necessary (and would be far easier to accomplish if more people would stay home with their kids!) In raising my kids, I’ve learned so much that I would never have been exposed to if I’d focused on my career instead; and that learning not only includes the warm and fuzzy stuff, but some weighty intellectual learning about child development, psychology, nutrition, etc. It’s quite fascinating to learn the theory and then witness it unfolding before you. I consider it my privelege to have had this opportunity, and I just wish that others would see it that way as well. I think it would be a better world if women (and men) were more empowered to make this choice if they so desire; and that means removing economic barriers whenever possible and removing social stigmas. At the same time though, this doesn’t mean that other solutions shouldn’t be respected as well (so I disagree when domajot says that I’m making it an either-or situation; I believe that some couples have done a great job of juggling careers and families and I DO respect those choices as long as the kids’ welfare is being honestly given the priority it deserves). BTW domajot, I’m an adoptive parent so I think I have a pretty good idea of how that all works and I find it amusing that you seem to think my views on it are uninformed.
My Thoughts On Recent Events…
[...] Here’s a site I found today while I was bored at work: [...]…