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.
I’ll let Protein Wisdom respond:
I say to author “freethinkr” and some of her sisters in the comments ... 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.
The author “freethinkr” must be a university student or graduate; for only on a university campus can such incredibly arrogant post-modern pap be found.
And President Obama wants to increase spending on education?
via Instapundit.
No comments:
Post a Comment