Flack was received over me criticizing Amanda Marcotte for being so dim as to express her bratty older sibling "SEND THAT BABY BACK!" rant as alleged feminism. The piece it was from was supposedly an argument for the right of women to determine the condition of their own bodies, a pro abortion piece. If you want to see just who that is of use to, try a web search to see who has made the most use of it, you will quickly discover that the anti-choice, anti-feminist side has made lots of hay with it. An argument made by an adult based on a hatred of babies is bound to have a negative effect on whatever it is that they are arguing for. I can't demonstrate it with the amount of time I have to do research these days but I will bet that the arguments about the plus side of infanticide in The Descent of Man and other scientific proponents for Darwinism has had a net negative effect for the public acceptance of evolution which the Darwinists have always wanted to equate with natural selection.
Now, I doubt Marcotte had much of a goal in writing such a stupidly counterproductive tantrum other than to get attention for herself. Which is one of the reasons that these baby hating pieces get written, though there is certainly more than enough baby hating around than the subjects of that hatred merit, which is absolutely none. Babies are innocent of any offence which people take from them, unlike those who are taking offense.
You might give some leeway for the previous baby of the family for being a brat over their suddenly having their position usurped when they are three or, less so, if they are five when the new baby comes home. That someone has to make this point about people who have long since reached the age of majority should be incredible, especially since Marcotte and her admirers love to tell everyone that they represent the rational community. But that's another thing that bratty children like to tell themselves, though generally starting about the age of 9. Some grow out of it, clearly the Marcottes of the world don't.
In case anyone who reads this wants to turn it into a criticism of Marcotte's choice to not have children, no, I'd encourage someone who doesn't want children to not have children. Not having a child is a responsible position to take if you don't want a child or don't believe you could fulfill your moral responsibility to them. And by that I don't necessarily mean to bring them up in middle-class material security, lots of dirt poor parents are great parents who bring up children beautifully.
It is especially true that you should not produce a child if you hate babies and are so self-absorbed that you would probably neglect them, at best or abuse them, at worst. And the worst form of abuse a child can experience, short of actual violence, is for a selfish, self-centered parent to allow them to know that they are hated, that their very life is resented by the people who are responsible for them. I've known more affluent people, many of them with graduate degrees who give their children every material and social advantage but who don't give them the thing they are most responsible to give by virtue of their choice to have a child, the thing they need above all else, love. Normal people understand that, so many in the "reality community" don't. Politically, it might make you popular with them, most people will be rightly repelled by it. Needless to say, it is politically stupid to make your being a nasty adult brat one of your arguments for any position. It is the Ayn Randism of the alleged left.
No comments:
Post a Comment