You don't have to have kids if you don't want to, and you can justify that choice to yourself as you see fit. But the assertion that people with kids can't be radical is unfounded. Most labor militants and many if not most guerrillas have had kids, for instance.
Oh yes let’s look again who did the actual labour of raising the kids of, let’s say, Marx, or Ernesto “Che” Guevara? The invisible mothers and the inevitability traumatized children, that’s who.
All the while, the “radical revolutionary” could actually be revolutionary- not being held back by changing diapers or having to move closer to a school.
It’s clickbaiif/ragebait. A sign of the times. He’s $truggling and needs the attention, plus he probably cannot find himself a partner that wants his offspring. So now the “childhavers” are the issue.
take on jobs Westerners feel too good for (when they are not drowning in the Mediterranean, that is).
Nah dude, I applied for some of these jobs (farm labour normally done by migrant workers) and they are not on offer, I was never responded to and many of the adverts actually stated speaking Polish was a requirement.
Reality is they want migrant workers because they will not know their rights, and lack the language skills to get them enforced. They want slaves. We’re not thinking we’re too good for those jobs, they’re thinking we would not let them abuse us as much as they want to abuse their workers, so they find people who will be too vulnerable to resist.
And also, your application was rejected because you would not fit in with the rest of the team made up of the migrants who would no doubt connive to get you to quit their little territory that they were given or that they fought to establish.
The more optimistic corollary of this is that in a world where every child - no matter their parents - is guaranteed health, safety, opportunity to develop their abilities and the rest… then choosing to become a parent remains a sacrifice of flexibility/convenient, but no longer is a sacrifice of your independence vis-a-vis other adults and their institutions.
Amen to that! The Big Lie that "everybody must procreate" is just as outdated, outmoded, and specious as that other pernicious Big Lie that "everybody (and their mother) must work for a living".
My reason for not having children. My older brother, like me, had ASD. He was not capable of keeping a relationship, but really good at producing children. When his first wife had his first child, he left her for the girl 2 doors down the hall. She was alone with a new baby and needed help. I had just turned 17 and moved in with her. I cared for my niece while she worked. The experience changed me. I saw her struggle. I struggled to care for that tiny human. I came out of that knowing I was no capable of hearing children. I made the right choice. I struggled with undiagnosed ASD and alcoholism for many years. I am sober almost 28 years now. I know would have ruined lives if I made another choice.
…if fucked up world is your reason not to have children, i have a question: AT WHICH POINT IN ALL EXISTENCE IT WASN’T ?! …and if you don’t have children that means you willingly decline a chance to bring up to this world someone who can make a positive impact and change it a little by little along with others, yes it is a dilemma, but only desire for better world can be viable reason to have them, it’s not easy and if you’re looking for easy life - don’t, but do not blame a “broken world” for your decision
These people who don't have kids because of the "the state of the world" really, truly ought to kill themselves if they think living in the richest, safest, most luxurious society in the history of the world is just too much for them to handle, after literally every single one of their millions of ancestors managed to raise kids under conditions of war, famine, slavery, disease, and dire poverty.
The main difference is that now, people (particularly women) actually have the CHOICE not to procreate. For now at least. I'm afraid the GOP and Project 2025 have other plans though....
God you people are tiresome. Has your cult’s decisive rejection by the American electorate instilled any skepticism at all of the narrative being peddled by your cult’s leaders? Like maybe just for a day try asking yourself: what if they’re lying to me? You’ll be amazed at where this line of inquiry can take you.
I don’t vote in U.S. elections. Just an observer. But sure, keep telling yourself that the cult who tells you that men can get pregnant is being honest about reproductive rights.
You don’t need to motivate people to do this, it is already happening. My suspicion is that if a simple, kind means of ending our life by choice existed, tens of thousands of Americans would do it every year (if not more)
The answer to this is basic math. At which point in all existence wasn't the world fucked-up, or at least, as hugely fucked-up as now (hard as it is to define "fucked up", but we'll give 'er a stab)? At that point when humanity passed perhaps the 2-billion mark, around which point science, crunching all availbale data related to sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet, seems in general agreement our long-term future had exited the building. 1930's then, at that point is which point. There's an answer to your question. All things are not equal to what they used to be in other words, not by any stretch of the imagination. We are now "we need at least three more planets like this one!" level-'fucked'. A place humanity has never before in the history of our species been.
You’re obviously very angry over this subject. Relax, bud. Big ol’ world out there. And by the way, defaulting to “you would never undertand so i’m outta here” is a standard tactic of the intellectual coward.
I read the title as “Government Realizes Child Free Citizens Are Harder to Oppress”. No child, no one for them to figuratively kidnap and ransom for your obedience. Ouch.
There are problems with this essay-- as much as I agree the sentiment is generally true, or at least might be on paper.
The ruling class-- whether capitalist or communist-- wants to control how many children you have. That's all. Nothing more to see. It really is two sides of the same coin that is population control.
Your post falls into the trap of the natalist vs/ antinatalist binary. Leave this conversation with the assholes that started it and those who continue to mold global policy.
Whether or not people have kids should be the question of the person having them, within community of people who support them. Anything else is misogyny.
Human Breeding is a biological imperative that can be ignored because we're the apes that ask questions.
Discussing human breeding in terms of moral imperatives-- the natalism vs/ antinatalism binary-- is a legacy of authoritarianism. In all its decadence, it amounts to a Marx vs. Malthus vs. Organized Religion circle jerk.
Some, though not all, of the most radical women have had kids. It's just a statistic that most who can birth children will in their lifetime. To suggest that those who are on the front lines of any radical movement are the childfree is lofty, if at all ideal.
The other problem is that of all the childfree people I know-- few of them are radical or ungovernable and several of them will likely end up having children, despite their childfree proclamations. To be fair, I can say this of the parents in my life too. I also give possible exception to those childfree who live with the necessity to be outspoken and radical in their existence because they're Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ and/or other people of color/otherwise strategically undervalued. Their being radical effects others only so much in that them existing does, which is to say "somewhat".
They are as consumed in their lives as the parents are, except potentially without the obligatory survival sense that comes with parenting (for better or worse). Again with exceptions, they are professionals in bullshit jobs-- protected and driven by commerce, academia, and bureaucracy.
Ungovernable? Not really.
In an invasion, would any of them be making molotovs beside parents and their kiddos? Would they be throwing stones? Would they be fleeing? I hope whatever they're doing, it isn't freezing and fawning. As you note, many families already do. As the childfree are a growing population, let's hope they don't.
Everyone is governable when a knife is at their throat. Unless they have skill, community, luck and the fortune of timing.
The more arguments are made about whether people should or shouldn't do whatever they can do with their bodies and their lives, the more schizmogenesis. The less fostering community in any effective way. The more governable we will all be and the more things are going to stay the same.
If the capitalist class wants you to have as many children as possible, then it begs the question if it even is the ruling class, since birth rates are plummetting below sustainability. But does the capitalist class want you to have lots of children? Does it support policies that encourage family formation?
You don't have to have kids if you don't want to, and you can justify that choice to yourself as you see fit. But the assertion that people with kids can't be radical is unfounded. Most labor militants and many if not most guerrillas have had kids, for instance.
Oh yes let’s look again who did the actual labour of raising the kids of, let’s say, Marx, or Ernesto “Che” Guevara? The invisible mothers and the inevitability traumatized children, that’s who.
All the while, the “radical revolutionary” could actually be revolutionary- not being held back by changing diapers or having to move closer to a school.
BINGO
Right on
Marx didn't do anything other then write in his study. Most of the followers of che had families.
You're talking about some radical thinker/philosopher ideal archetipe, but the people willing to rise up are the people with most to loose.
It’s clickbaiif/ragebait. A sign of the times. He’s $truggling and needs the attention, plus he probably cannot find himself a partner that wants his offspring. So now the “childhavers” are the issue.
take on jobs Westerners feel too good for (when they are not drowning in the Mediterranean, that is).
Nah dude, I applied for some of these jobs (farm labour normally done by migrant workers) and they are not on offer, I was never responded to and many of the adverts actually stated speaking Polish was a requirement.
Reality is they want migrant workers because they will not know their rights, and lack the language skills to get them enforced. They want slaves. We’re not thinking we’re too good for those jobs, they’re thinking we would not let them abuse us as much as they want to abuse their workers, so they find people who will be too vulnerable to resist.
Exactly.
And also, your application was rejected because you would not fit in with the rest of the team made up of the migrants who would no doubt connive to get you to quit their little territory that they were given or that they fought to establish.
Dude the conditions on those farms are kinda fucked you make it sound... weird.
The more optimistic corollary of this is that in a world where every child - no matter their parents - is guaranteed health, safety, opportunity to develop their abilities and the rest… then choosing to become a parent remains a sacrifice of flexibility/convenient, but no longer is a sacrifice of your independence vis-a-vis other adults and their institutions.
They will only be "guaranteed" these goodies if they comply with every diktat of the state.
Entitlements ensure conservatism.
That's exactly what the author is saying. It's not "optimistic." It's fatalistic.
Under the current system of neoliberalism and authoritarianism, that is true. But that is not the only possible system, of course.
Amen to that! The Big Lie that "everybody must procreate" is just as outdated, outmoded, and specious as that other pernicious Big Lie that "everybody (and their mother) must work for a living".
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2024/02/mother-nature-knows-exactly-what-she-is.html
As Edward Abbey famously said, growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. Which eventually kills its host, by the way.
(Mic drop)
My reason for not having children. My older brother, like me, had ASD. He was not capable of keeping a relationship, but really good at producing children. When his first wife had his first child, he left her for the girl 2 doors down the hall. She was alone with a new baby and needed help. I had just turned 17 and moved in with her. I cared for my niece while she worked. The experience changed me. I saw her struggle. I struggled to care for that tiny human. I came out of that knowing I was no capable of hearing children. I made the right choice. I struggled with undiagnosed ASD and alcoholism for many years. I am sober almost 28 years now. I know would have ruined lives if I made another choice.
…if fucked up world is your reason not to have children, i have a question: AT WHICH POINT IN ALL EXISTENCE IT WASN’T ?! …and if you don’t have children that means you willingly decline a chance to bring up to this world someone who can make a positive impact and change it a little by little along with others, yes it is a dilemma, but only desire for better world can be viable reason to have them, it’s not easy and if you’re looking for easy life - don’t, but do not blame a “broken world” for your decision
These people who don't have kids because of the "the state of the world" really, truly ought to kill themselves if they think living in the richest, safest, most luxurious society in the history of the world is just too much for them to handle, after literally every single one of their millions of ancestors managed to raise kids under conditions of war, famine, slavery, disease, and dire poverty.
The main difference is that now, people (particularly women) actually have the CHOICE not to procreate. For now at least. I'm afraid the GOP and Project 2025 have other plans though....
God you people are tiresome. Has your cult’s decisive rejection by the American electorate instilled any skepticism at all of the narrative being peddled by your cult’s leaders? Like maybe just for a day try asking yourself: what if they’re lying to me? You’ll be amazed at where this line of inquiry can take you.
I am assuming you are a MAGA cultist enjoying your pride before the fall. And fall you will, sooner or later.
I don’t vote in U.S. elections. Just an observer. But sure, keep telling yourself that the cult who tells you that men can get pregnant is being honest about reproductive rights.
Says the guy (presumably) with the name of the worlds deadliest drug by far in his name, lol.
The suicide rate is up 30%
You don’t need to motivate people to do this, it is already happening. My suspicion is that if a simple, kind means of ending our life by choice existed, tens of thousands of Americans would do it every year (if not more)
The answer to this is basic math. At which point in all existence wasn't the world fucked-up, or at least, as hugely fucked-up as now (hard as it is to define "fucked up", but we'll give 'er a stab)? At that point when humanity passed perhaps the 2-billion mark, around which point science, crunching all availbale data related to sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet, seems in general agreement our long-term future had exited the building. 1930's then, at that point is which point. There's an answer to your question. All things are not equal to what they used to be in other words, not by any stretch of the imagination. We are now "we need at least three more planets like this one!" level-'fucked'. A place humanity has never before in the history of our species been.
..i did not ask any questions and i don’t need your “answers”, stick with “atheism”, leave the fucking kids alone with your “simple math”
Why wouldn't you stay off of the comments sections if your intention is not to elicit responses? I mean, "duh", as they say.
…i made a statement and you not just missed the point, i seriously doubt you can grasp the fucking concept, good day “as they say”
You’re obviously very angry over this subject. Relax, bud. Big ol’ world out there. And by the way, defaulting to “you would never undertand so i’m outta here” is a standard tactic of the intellectual coward.
…get lost, you’re WAY OFF, no fucking clue what i’m talking about, you SUCK at “kids”, you obviously have no children, i’m done here, piss off
For as often as this article is shared in Reddit, I expected more comments here.
You show very clear insight cutting through the collective natalist pipedream.
I read the title as “Government Realizes Child Free Citizens Are Harder to Oppress”. No child, no one for them to figuratively kidnap and ransom for your obedience. Ouch.
BINGO
The child free are also evolutionary dead ends.
It matters not to this big ol impartial world, which will just keep carrying on carrying on with the whole experiment of life.
There’s this endless demand for a victim narrative around the fact of voluntary self-genocide.
Like whatever man. Hope others aren’t like you so someone is around to enjoy life long term
This is shit.
truth
There are problems with this essay-- as much as I agree the sentiment is generally true, or at least might be on paper.
The ruling class-- whether capitalist or communist-- wants to control how many children you have. That's all. Nothing more to see. It really is two sides of the same coin that is population control.
Your post falls into the trap of the natalist vs/ antinatalist binary. Leave this conversation with the assholes that started it and those who continue to mold global policy.
Whether or not people have kids should be the question of the person having them, within community of people who support them. Anything else is misogyny.
Human Breeding is a biological imperative that can be ignored because we're the apes that ask questions.
Discussing human breeding in terms of moral imperatives-- the natalism vs/ antinatalism binary-- is a legacy of authoritarianism. In all its decadence, it amounts to a Marx vs. Malthus vs. Organized Religion circle jerk.
Some, though not all, of the most radical women have had kids. It's just a statistic that most who can birth children will in their lifetime. To suggest that those who are on the front lines of any radical movement are the childfree is lofty, if at all ideal.
The other problem is that of all the childfree people I know-- few of them are radical or ungovernable and several of them will likely end up having children, despite their childfree proclamations. To be fair, I can say this of the parents in my life too. I also give possible exception to those childfree who live with the necessity to be outspoken and radical in their existence because they're Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ and/or other people of color/otherwise strategically undervalued. Their being radical effects others only so much in that them existing does, which is to say "somewhat".
They are as consumed in their lives as the parents are, except potentially without the obligatory survival sense that comes with parenting (for better or worse). Again with exceptions, they are professionals in bullshit jobs-- protected and driven by commerce, academia, and bureaucracy.
Ungovernable? Not really.
In an invasion, would any of them be making molotovs beside parents and their kiddos? Would they be throwing stones? Would they be fleeing? I hope whatever they're doing, it isn't freezing and fawning. As you note, many families already do. As the childfree are a growing population, let's hope they don't.
Everyone is governable when a knife is at their throat. Unless they have skill, community, luck and the fortune of timing.
The more arguments are made about whether people should or shouldn't do whatever they can do with their bodies and their lives, the more schizmogenesis. The less fostering community in any effective way. The more governable we will all be and the more things are going to stay the same.
Click-/ragebait. Also, quite the contrary, sometimes the most insufferable lemmings.
If the capitalist class wants you to have as many children as possible, then it begs the question if it even is the ruling class, since birth rates are plummetting below sustainability. But does the capitalist class want you to have lots of children? Does it support policies that encourage family formation?
If they do actually want this, they have a funny way of showing it