• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids? | Sadhbh Walshe | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Part of the reason I put this here is that the argument of the article appears to be totally ass-backwards.

For instance, Fox and Friends invited former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on their show this past Saturday to discuss the Time cover story and its implications. The most terrifying thing about the article, according to Huckabee was that it might send the (obviously wrong) message that it was actually possible for people who didn't have children to lead a fulfilling life. (Imagine the horror if childless women started to believe that their lives were still worthwhile.) As far as Huckabee is concerned, reproducing is "the highest particular calling that I think we can have as human beings" and anyone who rejects that calling must be in some way lacking. One of the co-hosts, Tucker Carlson, was even more direct in his criticism of the childfree:

Having children means less time for vacations and spin class, where the real meaning in life resides, right? I mean, have you ever seen anything more selfish, decadent and stupid?
Take that ye clever women who choose decadence over duty. The irony is that it's the very people (yes Fox and Friends, I'm talking about you) who go around waxing lyrical about the virtues of motherhood and conception that are also the most likely to be pushing policies that make it next to impossible for many women to even conceive of being a mother. No one ever mentions the selflessness of women who choose not to have a baby, not because they wouldn't love one, but because they don't feel they are in a position to provide that baby with the kind of life it deserves.
Frankly, I don't understand why anybody cares who does or doesn't choose to have children. As long as you can provide for however many children you have, that's your business.

But the whole IQ vs momhood thing is lame.
 

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Aren't people concerned about population growth, though? Wasn't it Nixon that had a NSC study on it as well gave a speech? Women choosing whatever they want over children is their business anyway. Just because they're the baby-makers doesn't mean they HAVE to or it is the highest achievement a woman can attain. Just more of the right showing how outdated their ideas are and why Huckabee is stuck on Sunday's.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,091
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
.. and this was the whole basis of the movie Idiocracy, which is looking more and more realistic...
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids? | Sadhbh Walshe | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Part of the reason I put this here is that the argument of the article appears to be totally ass-backwards.

Frankly, I don't understand why anybody cares who does or doesn't choose to have children. As long as you can provide for however many children you have, that's your business.

But the whole IQ vs momhood thing is lame.
I don't really "care" per se, but I would say that a lot of modern Western attitudes towards children and parenthood in general strike me as being disturbing, counter-productive, and supremely narcissistic to say the least.

Between "pro-choicers" basically arguing that children are expendable chattel at best and parasitic monsters at worst, lunatic environazies ranting about "zero population growth" and how any new human life brought into the world is a curse, and the apparent modern feminist conviction that literally any form of female behavior (no matter how risky, depraved, or inherently self-destructive) can be viewed as being "empowering" except for traditional motherhood, I'm really kind of beginning to wonder whether I've stepped into some kind of absurd defeatist "bizarro" world by accident.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't get it. When exactly did the natural and necessary process of procreation become something to be feared, scorned, and generally looked down upon by society rather than celebrated? wtf.gif

As the unsustainably low population growth figures currently seen in both the United States and Europe demonstrate, these kinds of attitudes are hardly limited to the fringe elements of our society I mentioned above either. Even the cultural mainstream seems to view children as being an unnecessary inconvenience more than anything else.

Children are basically treated more like high-maintenance fashion accessories than essential elements of the family unit these days.

"Go forth and multiply" isn't just a religious mandate, people. It's biological common sense.

Do it for Darwin's sake if nothing else. :roll:
 
Last edited:

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,091
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't really "care" per se, but I would say that a lot of modern Western attitudes towards children and parenthood in general strike me as being disturbing, counter-productive, and supremely narcissistic to say the least.

Between "pro-choicers" basically arguing that children are expendable chattel at best and parasitic monsters at worst, lunatic environazies ranting about "zero population growth" and how any new human life brought into the world is a curse, and the apparent modern feminist conviction that literally any form of female behavior (no matter how risky, depraved, or inherently self-destructive) can be viewed as being "empowering" except for traditional motherhood, I'm really kind of beginning to wonder whether I've stepped into some kind of absurdly defeatist "bizarro" world by accident.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't get it. When exactly did the natural and necessary process of procreation become something to be feared, scorned, and generally looked down upon by society rather than celebrated? View attachment 67151932

As the unsustainably low population growth figures currently seen in both the United States and Europe demonstrate, these kinds of attitudes are hardly limited to the fringe elements of our society I mentioned above either. Even the cultural mainstream seems to view children as being an unnecessary inconvenience more than anything else.

Children are basically treated more like high-maintenance fashion accessories than essential elements of the family unit these days.

"Go forth and multiply" isn't just a religious mandate, people. It's biological common sense.

Do it for Darwin's sake if nothing else. :roll:

I've been thinking. I think it is time to shut down DP, turn off the news, stop bothering to vote, and call it quits.

The very fact that there are so many important things you can't even TALK about without being labeled a racistbigothomophobesexistpig suggests to me that we're done for. You've heard of 'too stupid to live'? We've become too PC to survive.
 

Republic Now!

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
1,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids? | Sadhbh Walshe | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Part of the reason I put this here is that the argument of the article appears to be totally ass-backwards.



Frankly, I don't understand why anybody cares who does or doesn't choose to have children. As long as you can provide for however many children you have, that's your business.

But the whole IQ vs momhood thing is lame.
First, to answer your question as to why anyone would care, the general idea behind natural selection is that traits have to encourage reproduction in order to be selected for. If smart people choose not to reproduce, then intelligence is selected against. Of course, that was already answered in the article you quoted.

Huckabee (who I know absolutely nothing about) seems to be completely off-base here. And by off-base, I mean he's acting like a left-wing social engineer.

Jango said:
Aren't people concerned about population growth, though? Wasn't it Nixon that had a NSC study on it as well gave a speech? Women choosing whatever they want over children is their business anyway. Just because they're the baby-makers doesn't mean they HAVE to or it is the highest achievement a woman can attain. Just more of the right showing how outdated their ideas are and why Huckabee is stuck on Sunday's.
Oh, I completely agree that this thinking is warped, but I have to ask how it's any different then any of the other policies which we must forgo principle because science shows us a clear and present danger.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are you guys melting? This is news of the weird. It's a weird article. Do people honestly believe that smarter women are less likely to choose to procreate?! That's ridiculous!

You guys were specifically Goshin and 88 guy.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, to answer your question as to why anyone would care, the general idea behind natural selection is that traits have to encourage reproduction in order to be selected for. If smart people choose not to reproduce, then intelligence is selected against. Of course, that was already answered in the article you quoted.

Huckabee (who I know absolutely nothing about) seems to be completely off-base here. And by off-base, I mean he's acting like a left-wing social engineer.



Oh, I completely agree that this thinking is warped, but I have to ask how it's any different then any of the other policies which we must forgo principle because science shows us a clear and present danger.
Sorry, you hadn't posted when I said 'you guys.'
 

Republic Now!

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
1,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
.. and this was the whole basis of the movie Idiocracy, which is looking more and more realistic...
Good movie, and to be honest, I would rather become it than sell out our principles. I think it's more important to respect human dignity then it is to continue human existence forever as some kind of soulless collective.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,091
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I've been thinking. I think it is time to shut down DP, turn off the news, stop bothering to vote, and call it quits.

The very fact that there are so many important things you can't even TALK about without being labeled a racistbigothomophobesexistpig suggests to me that we're done for. You've heard of 'too stupid to live'? We've become too PC to survive.
I wouldn't worry too much. As far as I can figure, the modern West's current cultural stupidity is the very definition of a "self-correcting" problem.

If we decadent Westerners are literally "too stupid to breed," there are roughly two or three billion Indians and Chinese waiting in the wings to step in and take our place.

It's like Douglas Adams said, every society goes through three essential stages.

"What will we eat?"

"Why do we eat?"

And finally, before general cultural malaise and decline sets in...

"Where will we eat?"

I think it can be safely said that our current society pretty squarely fits into the latter category at the moment. :lol:
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,091
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But that's not the allegation. My wife is exceptionally bright. She didn't go to college.


Sure, there's a distinction between native intelligence and education level... but the latter is widely used because it is easier to measure.
 

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
2,378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I couldn't care less.

At the point where so many women forego motherhood that we face extinction, that will change. Biotechnology should soon make such discussions irrelevant, anyway.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,325
Reaction score
24,878
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Forget the whole IQ/Education debate about why some women have fewer children later in life. Let's go back to the part where a woman who chooses not to have children is selfish, decadent and stupid, because that "should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence..." "...because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny...".

Statements in quotes are from the linked article. Does anyone here share those views?
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
21,940
Reaction score
9,975
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are a lot of implications. One is, kids are effing expensive. Some young couples, who wish to be responsible, wait till they can "afford" them...and wait...and wait, and never have kids. Some just don't LIKE kids all that much.

And some are making a choice NOW that they very well might come to regret greatly later in life. They are enjoying life, and lets face it, without kids, you get to be more selfish, have more "fun", be more spontaneous, etc. this is a fact. But I'll wager this "live in the moment" **** that the "me" generation has embraced...is going to rear it's ugly head and roar in 20 years or, once pregnancy for some of these people becomes less of a viable option. As this becomes more mainstream, link for adoptions to become more and more common.


IMO, it's really sort of a win.
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
21,940
Reaction score
9,975
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Forget the whole IQ/Education debate about why some women have fewer children later in life. Let's go back to the part where a woman who chooses not to have children is selfish, decadent and stupid, because that "should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence..." "...because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny...".

Statements in quotes are from the linked article. Does anyone here share those views?
No. It's a Time article. They're idiots, and plagiarists.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,325
Reaction score
24,878
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
No. It's a Time article. They're idiots, and plagiarists.
Actually, it's an article from The Guardian, and your response certainly didn't address my question.
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I mean really. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears for instance.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
22,800
Reaction score
12,789
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The question I'd have to ask is why would ANYONE want to have a kid in this day and age?

Both my kids swear they're never having children. Never. Which is great considering they are 21 and 17 years old.

I don't want either having a child for at least another 10 years or so.

But they're adamant. I can't blame them either.

The world is a pretty messed up place and it appears to be getting much worse.

So why would anyone with common sense and intelligence want to bring more life into this world at this time?
 

Sykes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,295
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The question I'd have to ask is why would ANYONE want to have a kid in this day and age?

Both my kids swear they're never having children. Never. Which is great considering they are 21 and 17 years old.

I don't want either having a child for at least another 10 years or so.

But they're adamant. I can't blame them either.

The world is a pretty messed up place and it appears to be getting much worse.

So why would anyone with common sense and intelligence want to bring more life into this world at this time?
My wife and I have three.
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
21,940
Reaction score
9,975
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, it's an article from The Guardian, and your response certainly didn't address my question.
Huh. Just proves my point further, then, I guess. I read this at work a day or two ago.

The Childfree Life - TIME

Just assumed this was what was being referenced in the OP. Time really are a bunch of plagiarist scumbags, lol.


And I did answer your question. No. I don't agree with those quotes. Only difference between a woman WITH kids, and one without, is the amount of free time the later has. It's a personal choice. Simple as that.
 

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,801
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Good movie, and to be honest, I would rather become it than sell out our principles. I think it's more important to respect human dignity then it is to continue human existence forever as some kind of soulless collective.
Any "principle" which proves to be destructive to society as a whole isn't worth upholding in the first place.

I couldn't care less.

At the point where so many women forego motherhood that we face extinction, that will change. Biotechnology should soon make such discussions irrelevant, anyway.
Brave New World, HOOOO!

Honestly, I think a big part of the problem here is that human beings are simply too fundamentally short-sighted and irrational to effectively manage a society as large and complex as the modern Western World happens to be.

Who knows? After a certain point, we might actually find that it's better to turn the running of our civilization over to the benevolent dictatorship of a bunch of self-aware computers with 10,000 point IQs than to continue ineffectually mucking around in our own affairs.

Let the insane hairless apes throw feces where they will. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. ;)

Forget the whole IQ/Education debate about why some women have fewer children later in life. Let's go back to the part where a woman who chooses not to have children is selfish, decadent and stupid, because that "should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence..." "...because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny...".

Statements in quotes are from the linked article. Does anyone here share those views?
I sort of do, though I would say that the position applies to couples in general rather than just women in particular.

How is civilization supposed to survive if a majority of people ever arbitrarily decide that their petty day-to-day concerns trump the survival of the species?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom