Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   GalacticTurtle (galacticturtle@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 15:11:08 JST GalacticTurtle
   I've never heard of Louise Perry but this video popped up in my recs. Figured I'd watch it, knowing from the title that there would probably be quite a bit I'd disagree with. All in all, she's in the same camp of thought (and it seems like they now know each other personally) as Mary Harrington. So here are just some of my thoughts...
   
   The headline question here from the interviewer is basically, "Is it bad that women are having fewer children?" It seems like the main people Perry runs into opposition with are environmentalists because she first addresses them. She says that the overall gradual decline in birth rates is not steep enough to have any impact on saving the environment and that the only thing we can do at this point in time to save the environment is technological innovation. I agree that this all will likely come down to technology because the powers that be want to just keep doing what they're doing. I also think that the powers that be will forsake the majority of the global population so all us normal types shouldn't hold our breath. This scenario has played out in many a sci-fi novel.
   
   She then goes on to say that the real issue is that declining birth rates are not even across the board. Some nations are having steeper declines than others. She gives the example of North vs. South Korea stating that right now SK has double the population as NK but in 50 years that will be reversed even though both nations are below the replacement rate. She takes this example to then heavily imply that the nations that have the least drastic declines are essentially those that, if they had their way, would use their newfound massive armies to destroy the western world.
   
   I said "heavily imply" because she doesn't phrase it that way. She says that "modernity-resistant cultures" (the ones with the lowest decline in birth rates) will gain power while "secular/urban cultures" (the ones with the steepest decline in birth rates) will lose power. She associates secular/urban cultures with places like the UK, America, South Korea, etc. She doesn't go on to explicitly list any "modernity-resistant cultures" but last I checked, North Korea was entirely secular... if you don't count worship of a dictator as a religion. I do recall hearing that the only nations with increasing birth rates are in Africa. But in Perry's mind, she's probably thinking about an increase in power amongst Islamic countries. Again, she didn't say that, but I do think it is implied.
   
   So the answer to if it is bad that women are having fewer children? Yes because we will ultimately be invaded and have our way of life destroyed. I think, if anything, this speaks to what I believe to be the inherently political nature of childbirth. It's a choice for women until it becomes a problem, then freedoms will begin to be stripped away. To once again bring up the environmentalists, she tacks on a tidbit about how more children means there will be more eventual adults around who will come up with the technology that will ward off the environmental apocalypse. That made me chuckle. I guess she doesn't have much hope in military technology to help us fight off the massive hoard of imbeciles.
   
   More thoughts to follow...
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd5l1mZfSZM
   • Seahorses are horses likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     OCATBC (doctordee@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 15:35:03 JST OCATBC

     in reply to
     @GalacticTurtle I was just looking her up...it seems like she's doing a lot of really important feminist work. And I don't see a word online about her husband or children (if she has them). Hm.
     Seahorses are horses likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     GalacticTurtle (galacticturtle@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 15:35:04 JST GalacticTurtle

     in reply to
     They briefly go over the "child-free mindset." Nothing new here. The main argument is that if you don't have kids you won't have anyone to take care of you in old age. Meanwhile, if everyone had kids got automatic elder care, the nursing home industry would be quite a bit smaller. The second argument is that most people find fulfillment in their connection with others rather than through their jobs. I think this is a factual statement but I don't see how this argument is specific to having children. There are tons of connections a person could have with others. Offspring is simply one of them.
     
     She gets a bit into government systems and childcare pointing out that efforts to have the NHS cover universal childcare from birth is simply another way to separate the child from their mother. She talks about how in civilizations across the world, it was the norm for mother and child to be together and supported by the women in their community for 30-40 days after birth and this had several benefits. All in all, she views modernity’s impact on the mother/child relationship as negative. I’d say that I agree with this. Current society is not set up to make things easy for mothers. She says that stay at home mothers are the least represented in the halls of power. I’d also pretty much agree with that.
     
     The solution she offers is that the government should do a better job at recognizing the extended family rather than just the nuclear family unit when it comes to benefits, employment accommodations, etc.
     
     I do think it is noteworthy that while on one hand she argues that the nuclear family unit is the most failsafe option for children’s wellbeing, she does promote multi-generational households… mostly to the extent that this means there will be another woman in the house to help take care of the children much like she outlined earlier with the 30-40 day rest period. She also brings up how feminists and others in the past have experimented with what are essentially female communes where children were also raised but that they all ultimately failed. I guess I just find it kind of ironic that the idea of a female community is only seen as feasible when you have this background structure of each of those women being partnered with men.
   • Embed this notice
     GalacticTurtle (galacticturtle@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 15:35:04 JST GalacticTurtle

     in reply to
     Last bit of general thoughts on this.
     
     She does touch a bit on the innate difference between men and women. I do find it interesting that the primary example she uses is the male predisposition for violence when we’ve just spent the past 30+ minutes talking about the importance of childbirth and the nuclear family. Ultimately, she only lingers on this point long enough for criticism of liberal feminism… primarily all the sex positivity stuff and prioritizing this idea of a career (rather than simply a job) over all other things… even though she also just pointed out the consequences of not having any representation in the halls of power.
     
     It was pointed out that monogamous cultures statistically have lower rates of domestic violence than polygamous cultures. She also throws out the statistic that only 15% of the world has… how do she phrase it… rules that specify monogamy. Who are that 15%? Cultures that have a background of Christianity. Oh, and that divorce is worse on children than a parent dying. I’m not saying that there is zero truth in any of those statements. However, I also find her combination of viewpoints very convenient for a particularly familiar agenda.
   • Embed this notice
     GalacticTurtle (galacticturtle@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 16:15:25 JST GalacticTurtle

     in reply to

     • OCATBC
     @DoctorDee Indeed. XD What I also find interesting in these types of conversations is that everyone skips over the entire process of ending up with a kid in the first place when asking why women are having fewer kids. Like in here they talk about the cost of housing.
     
     I remember very clearly the horror on everyone's faces in the biology class when we watched "the birth video" and everything we learned about what happens to the body in the process of making a brand new human being. That's what I think about first and foremost rather than houses. Perry mentions how the hospital kicked her to the curb less than a day after getting a c-section. Harrington opens her book talking about this moment in her life laying in the hospital with her torso stapled shut right after giving birth as well. But neither linger on that and instead jump straight to talking about their feelings revolving around the existence of the baby. It only takes half a brain cell to guess why rich women are opting for surrogacy.
   • Embed this notice
     OCATBC (doctordee@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 16:15:25 JST OCATBC

     in reply to
     @GalacticTurtle This isn't rocket science. Women are having fewer kids because they can't find men they can trust to raise a family with. (And now, unlike at any other time in history, women can choose whether and with whom to raise a family, because for the first time in history many, even most, of us have other options.)
     Seahorses are horses likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     GalacticTurtle (galacticturtle@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 16:15:26 JST GalacticTurtle

     in reply to

     • OCATBC
     @DoctorDee In the interview she does say that she has at least one kid. She did point herself out as an outlier, statistically speaking, saying that she finds fulfillment in her career while most people simply have jobs... which is why they should instead be fulfilled by getting married and having kids.
   • Embed this notice
     OCATBC (doctordee@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 14-May-2023 16:15:26 JST OCATBC

     in reply to
     @GalacticTurtle Well of course she's special.