A month or so ago, a blogger named Amy Glass garnered quite a bit of attention for a post titled, “I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry”, expressing her disgust at young women who place a husband and children ahead of a career. She uncorks her vinegar tinged merlot of wisdom with this screech directed at these breeder women, these traitors to feminism:
“You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.”
Radical feminism shares most of the traits of “progressivism”, especially the selfish focus on “self” and the fatalistic belief that only what happens to me matters, to hell with everybody else. There is a distinct lack of concern for the future – not the individual’s future, there is clearly plenty of concern for that – but there is no concern for the real future that makes families with children necessary.
With these good folk, since they seem to believe that since there is nothingness beyond their death, they seek to create a legacy of deeds and things, rather than a living legacy of children. Apparently they can’t even fathom the logic of a woman who would be so selfless as to give of herself to her kids, indicating the incredible degree of selfishness this flavor of feminism requires.
Perhaps no aspect of womyn’s fight against the oppression of the heteronormative patriarchy indicates the crass arrogance and selfishness better than support for abortion because elective abortion says this to the unborn:
“I deserve to live and you do not. I have worth because I was born. I was nurtured and educated to achieve social and economic relevance, but I’m too selfish to give you that chance, so for you, I choose not to give you the opportunity that I was given.”
A couple of years ago, there was an article in the UK Guardian, with the same tone and aim as the post. Of course, it was in celebration of the sacrament of the anti-child feminism, abortion.
Titled “I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me”, author Lynn Beisner wrote:
“An abortion would have absolutely been better for my mother. An abortion would have made it more likely that she would finish high school and get a college education. At college in the late 1960s, it seems likely she would have found feminism or psychology or something that would have helped her overcome her childhood trauma and pick better partners. She would have been better prepared when she had children. If nothing else, getting an abortion would have saved her from plunging into poverty. She likely would have stayed in the same socioeconomic strata as her parents and grandparents who were professors. I wish she had aborted me because I love her and want what is best for her.
Abortion would have been a better option for me. If you believe what reproductive scientists tell us, that I was nothing more than a conglomeration of cells, then there was nothing lost. I could have experienced no consciousness or pain. But even if you discount science and believe I had consciousness and could experience pain at six gestational weeks, I would choose the brief pain or fear of an abortion over the decades of suffering I endured.”
I suppose we are expected to see the Beisner as heroic for wishing her mother a better life – but I just find it sad and tragic. What a weak and pitiful person she must be to say this of herself:
“The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done – including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner – could have been done as well, if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.”
This is the very kind of fatalistic thinking that I find so disgusting of the pro-abortion feminist crowd, the view that every human is just the sum of their constituent chemicals, “nothing more than a conglomeration of cells”. Ms. Beisner’s paean to her own worthlessness is pretty hard to read. I almost wanted to ask why she just didn’t run away – or even kill herself – but then I figured it out – she actually does love life – she wants to live – but can’t reconcile her desire to survive with her belief that her life is worthless. By her own admission, it is likely that her mother was not headed down a normal path even if she hadn’t been born, but seems to be a convenient excuse for her own failures as much as it is a celebration of the life she has built.
And Ms. Glass – every child deserves two parents. That is both the purpose and necessity of marriage. It’s not a condemnation to prison; it is the consummation of a partnership.
C.S. Lewis wrote:
“The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only – and that is to support the ultimate career.”
Is that not true? Why do we pursue careers if not to provide for the future? What is life for if not to celebrate and extend it though our children?
The screeds of Lynn Beisner and Amy Glass are but two examples of why this brand of radical feminism is the most repulsive, fatalistic and hopeless belief system on the face of the earth – for what is the purpose in life if not to see that it continues on through our children?
And what could be nobler than to care for the next generation?