Tag Archives: Ross Douthat

Babies? We don’t need no stinking babies! The genius of Amanda Marcotte. Again.

7 Feb

babies

There are two kinds of dumb in this world:  bag of hammers dumb, and Amanda Marcotte.  She’s a blogger at Slate Magazine’s Double XX feature, and she has really outdone herself this time.

 

America Is Doomed Unless Women Start Having More Babies. How Convenient.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/02/04/america_s_declining_fertility_rate_it_is_not_up_to_the_female_reproductive.html

Hmm.  Really?  That’s interesting.  I know we can blame men for ALMOST EVERYTHING, but declining fertility, too? For fuck’s sake, men, would you please start having babies? What, you think women should do everything?  Sorry lads, we’re too busy working on oil rigs and flunking out of STEM courses to have babies.

Who needs babies, anyways?

Oh, just, you know, the ENTIRE WORLD.  I could be wrong, and correct me if you think so, but I believe babies actually grow into adults and without them, WE HAVE NO SOCIETY.

Let’s look at Amanda’s first sentence (her grammar improves, trust me).

Ever since it became less socially acceptable to argue openly that women—at least white, middle-class women—owe it to men to curtail our professional ambitions in favor of a life as our husbands’ support staff, conservatives started to panic about declining birth rates.

Ladies, you must not curtail your professional ambitions.  And what are those professional ambitions?  Oh yeah, to work as SUPPORT STAFF for someone who is NOT your husband.

Yay, ladies!  Don’t be support staff for the man you love!  Go and do it for someone else.

secretary

Ok, that’s just one job.  I hear you.  What are the other jobs?

Teachers

Nurses

Retail sales clerks

Home health care workers

Cooks

Waitresses

Maids

Childcare workers

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07/27/where-women-work/

So, let’s see.  Women found being a housewife so terribly dull and dreary and oppressive that they flocked to the labor market to teach children their alphabet, tend to the sick, fold clothes, care for the elderly, cook food, fetch food, clean house and take care of small children. And that’s just all the ladies who couldn’t find a cushy job organizing a man’s professional life.

Organizing, tending, fetching, wiping noses and asses, cooking and cleaning.

Wow.  Those are some pretty big ambitions.  Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  If it’s not the actual JOB that women dislike, since they clearly don’t mind doing those things for OTHER people, what is it that women didn’t like?

We’ll get to that.  For now, let’s go back to our favorite little retard, Amanda.

amanda

And don’t give me any crap about using the word “retard”.  Retard DOES NOT mean someone with Down Syndrome any more than gay means “effervescently happy” or computer means “someone who does calculations”. Language evolves.  It’s called semantic change, and it’s WHAT language IS.

To save America, women, especially those aforementioned pesky middle-class, white women, are going to have to start having more babies at a younger age, the argument goes. That this demand means that women will end up curtailing their ambitions and moving into the support-staff role is simply a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here.

Uhm, Amanda?  WOMEN HAVE NEVER LEFT THEIR SUPPORT STAFF ROLE.  That is what they do, by and large.  Women are not building airplanes or crafting bridges or curing cancer or designing new technologies or searching for the Higgs-Boson.  They are SUPPORT STAFF for the MEN who are building airplanes and crafting bridges and curing cancer and designing new technologies and searching for the Higgs-Boson (it’s not a done deal, yet folks!).

secretary2

And those are the ambitious ones.  The rest of them are fetching and carrying food and sorting out shit on shelves or scanning things across a bar-code reader (designed by men!) or taking care of children, the sick or the elderly.

Your outliers don’t mean shit.  Look at the facts.  The doors have been thrown open to women for decades, and most of them are still housewives.

They’re just not at home.

If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function.

WOMEN’S EQUALITY?  Equal to what? Because it sure as hell isn’t men.

Where is our Mozart?

Where is our Galileo?

Where is our Hawking?

Where is our Mersenne?

mersenne

Oh, wait, I know.  She’s busy getting an order of wings ready.

wings

Let’s rework our economic system, shall we?

First of all, ladies, stop going to college.  Seriously.  Just stop.  Most of what you study is complete and utter bullshit (film theory degree here).  You don’t need an exhaustive knowledge of the Sonnets of the Portuguese to be a secretary.  You need to know your alphabet, how to tell time and the days of the week.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/03/a-decade-of-dishes-will-turn-a-girl-into-a-woman-and-a-sensible-one-at-that/

Secondly, get out of the labor market during your reproductive years.  Stop taking care of other people’s children and parents and husbands and go take care of your own.  You can get to filing shit alphabetically AFTER you have made your contribution to society by raising stable, happy, healthy children and supporting a man who is probably out there doing something useful.

home

Those two things combined would have quite an impact.  First of all, the labor market would contract dramatically and wages for men would rise correspondingly, allowing them to support a wife and young family.  Funding that is currently being poured into Children’s Literature and Urban Anthropology would go instead to the STEM fields, where all the real innovation and work is done.  By men, of course.  Social spending by the government would decline as women contribute more to the care of children and the elderly.  Federal tax revenues would stay about the same, because the fact is that while there are MORE jobs in the current labor market, there is not more MONEY.  The money would shift to men, and they would pay tax as usual on that income.  If anything, reduced need for social spending would lower the government’s outlay, giving them MORE money to spend on defence and debt repayment and infrastructure.

bridge

So why don’t women want to do this?

Because it would make them dependent on a man during their reproductive years.  They would need to rely on a man for income, and if you are going to rely on a man, you will have to give him something in return for that.  His own children, first of all.  Oh my.  Well that will require fidelity, won’t it? #sorrysluts

baby

If he is heading out into the labor market every day, earning a wage for all of you, you will have to accommodate the stresses and anxieties that entails.  How do you do that?

nice

Be nice.  Cook.  Clean.  Take of the children. Teach them manners and how to read and how to count.  Take care of your parents.  His and yours.  Keep the house organized.  Fold clothes.  Book your appointments and needs around his schedule.  Watch your finances.  Don’t spend too much money.

clothes

In other words, do all the jobs that women do in the labor market.  Secretary, teacher, retail sales clerk, home care worker, nurse, waitress, cook and maid.

But don’t do it for money.  Do it for love.  Love for your husband, love for your children, love for your parents, love for your country.  The alternative is to do everything for yourself.  Your own goals (be a secretary!), your own ambitions (fetch people food!), your own fulfilment (fold clothes at the Gap!), your own actualization (I never see my children!).

There is plenty of time to get to being a secretary or a waitress or a teacher.  Children are only young for a short period of time.  The real problem with people like Amanda is that she has uncritically accepted a male timeline for achieving what she defines as “equality”. Go to college, repay horrendous loans, build a “career” (if you can call being a secretary a career) – all during a woman’s reproductive years.  The result is obvious:  no babies.

cradle

All to avoid being dependant on a man for a few years. Amanda is probably one of those feminists who would claim that she “loves men”.  And yet, she’s terrified of them.  She has bought, hook line and sinker, the idea that men are abusive power-mongers who will oppress and mistreat their dependent wives and children without remorse or hesitation.  And she is hell-bent on making sure other women believe that, too.

And we all pay for that.  Dearly. The consequences will be stark when we have failed to produce the next generation.  The most important thing we lose is love. Feminism has destroyed the family, destroyed the love between men and women and destroyed the love between parents and children.

How very sad.

True love, and true happiness comes from loving another person.  For most of us, the greatest love we will ever know will be for our children.

family

Who needs babies?  We all do.  Without them, we have nothing.

There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.

George Sand

Lots of love,

JB

%d bloggers like this: