Country Living Series

Monday, June 25, 2018

The contempt for "breeders"

I'm still coughing my guts out from this nasty and lingering bronchitis. Lately I've taken to sleeping in a recliner chair because I cough too hard when lying horizontal (it's no fun not sleeping with my husband!). It's amazing how this illness has diminished my lung capacity -- walking the dog actually means taking some rest stops along the way. Whee, it's been fun.

Anyway, here is the past weekend's WND column entitled "The Contempt for 'Breeders.'"


A reader sent the column to a friend of theirs, who commented: "Excellent article!! Reminds me of when I was pregnant with Andy (#3) and our neighbor in posh Palo Alto said, 'Is this a mistake or are you just trying for a girl?'"

The reader responded incredulously. "'Is this a mistake?' ... That's how the left sees children, isn't it?"

Here's the text of the column for those unable to access WND.



The Contempt for ‘Breeders’

We had some friends over for dinner a few weeks ago. They brought with them their three-point-five youngest kids. Three were already born; the youngest was still in the oven.

This deeply religious family is expecting their eighth child in August, and we hope they top out at a dozen. Why? Because I don’t think I’ve ever met a more “perfect” family.

I mean seriously, this couple puts most peoples’ parenting skills to shame. In their quiet, modest way, they have produced a brood of some of the most charming, polite, well-educated, and contented children we’ve ever met. Packed into a 1600-square-foot house, the kids share bedrooms, toys, adventures, love, friendship, work, prayer and meals. The boys swarm around their father and engage in engine repair, construction projects, and livestock care. The girls help with the youngest children and generally do traditionally feminine activities (they’ve won county fair awards for their exquisite sewing skills). Needless to say, the children are homeschooled.

We live in a part of the country where very large families are common, so no one blinks an eye at this family’s size. But in other parts of the country, they would be metaphorically (I certainly hope not literally!) spit upon for reproducing so frequently.

Why? Because so many progressives hate “breeders.”

The first time I heard the word “breeder” as applied to women was from a critic who had read my book “The Simplicity Primer” and felt compelled to take me to task over various issues, including the shocking and reprehensible fact that I have two children.

I later learned this term was often contemptuously thrown at traditional women by those of the feminist persuasion in an attempt to reduce mothers to the sum of their genetic output. Presumably the ones with the lowest genetic legacy “win.”

Or do they?

I am surrounded by “breeders.” Here in the rural heartland of America, families are sometimes breathtakingly large – we’re talking 12 kids and sometimes more. Often the older siblings are married and having kids of their own while the younger ones are still in diapers.

When we first moved here, this penchant for large families took a little getting used to. How do these families cope, I wondered? How do they manage a budget? How do they transport so many children at a time? How does the mother handle it?

Then I got to know some of these families. Large families aren’t for everyone; but for those who have them, they seem to have a special gift for calmness, patience and efficiency that would leave any CEO in awe.

It got me thinking about the sneering contempt of feminists toward children. Not all feminists, of course; many are happy mothers of their own genetic output. But no one who uses the revolting term “breeder” can possibly fathom the utter contentment and fulfillment of those women who choose to become mothers – particularly mothers of large families. Instead, these feminists are appalled at women who take on what they see as a subservient role in a marriage centered around reproduction and domestic tranquility.

Even many feminists dislike the term. “It’s possibly one of the less attractive aspects of radical feminism,” notes a radical lesbian feminist (who is also a mother). “To apply such a term to fellow sisters, a term that reduces them down to their reproductive capabilities is, without argument, pretty offensive and dehumanising. Not only that, but it flies in the face of what I perceive to be feminism. A love for your sisters shouldn’t manifest itself in offensive terms such as that. A commitment to make the world safer and more supportive for women does not include a sneering disparagement of their choices or circumstances.”

But you see, the radical feminists want to dehumanize children. It’s the only way to be gung-ho supporters of abortion. The lesbian quoted above may be committed to making “the world safer and more supportive for women,” but what does that mean?

A dear friend of mine (who has five children, all splendid) wrote of what she sees as the liberal agenda of death. “On the surface, the constant stream of propaganda fed to us by the media appears to promote unity and peace, safety and tolerance; however, beneath the veneer of this great deception lurks the true agenda – death, on a massive scale. … Liberals proclaim their love of life by encouraging mothers to rip their children from their wombs. That is the deception – they speak of life, yet promote the death of entire generations.”

The world is not “safer and more supportive for women” when entire generations die. Isn’t it better to have loving close-knit families who will contribute to society, than to kill off our native children and resort to importing violent, radical people (ironically, who breed like rabbits among multiple wives) whose children grow up to oppress women (at best) or become terrorists (at worst)?

When pressed to verbalize their objection to large families (or children in general), many progressives fall back on the “It’s bad for the environment” argument, though they’re curiously silent about the huge number of children the afore-mentioned immigrants have. More and more progressives are electing to remain childless or forego biological children:
Consider this tweet from Comedy Central comedienne Nikki Glaser (since deleted): “Don Jr. and his wife have five kids. No one should be having five kids. Why are people still allowed to have five kids?”

The most telling – and disturbing – word in this tweet is “allowed.” Who should make the decision about how many children people should be “allowed” to have? Glaser? Why do women in happy committed marriages earn hatred for their 11 children, but women who have 11 children by 10 different men are praised for their “bravery” and heaped with government largesse?

Personally I applaud progressives who decide to forego having babies; they may well be responsible for saving the nation. The real hope for the future of our country is not to be found in the increasingly obvious failures of liberal policies. No, it's in the children who grow up and deal with the mess made by their progressive forebears.

And these morally educated children produced and nurtured by upright, intact and traditional families could well turn the tide back to the values that made America the shining city on the hill.

So liberals, I stand with you on this: Don't have children. It may be the best way you can save the Earth – or at least America.

15 comments:

  1. So I was filling up that baby bottle with change for a donation to the young mother and baby donation place and perused their web site. It spoke about the services they provide and in it I found a little blurb about how many little girls are on their way, so much so that it is unusual to have so many coming. It occurred to me that God is truly in charge and may be helping by bringing in more girls for future reproduction that may be needed. Apparently he is also helping out all those Christians that are quietly producing. I have always thought that if you are patient and like children by all means have as many as God wants you to. I always like to laugh when a liberal feminists does have a child, it's like they have seen the world for the first time and some attitudes do change, of course then they brag about the child for every nuance of their growth. I'm with you on this, they should not have children but it is not our choice darn it.
    Take care of yourself, maybe Don can take out Mr. Darcy while you rest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only the husband and wife (offended yet Libtards?) have any jurisdiction in determining many children they have. And they are responsible for 100% of the costs of raising them.
    Montana Guy

    ReplyDelete
  3. I grew up in the 60's and 70's (born 1958) with 6 kids in our family and we got that type of response and sneers and ridicule back then. It's been going a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mother of seven here. I have indeed encountered those who treat me as if I am personally responsible for every ugly thing wrong with the world today. I've even been refused a table at restaurants saying they couldn't accommodate a table that size when you know they'd make accommodations for that many men in suits. And I've not been actually spit at by Libbers, but I've been snarled at.

    Satan is at work here. He doesn't want America strong. He doesn't want us to be able to field an army of moral people to defeat his army of the ungodly. He doesn't want us to be able to support that army, or even ourselves. He disguises his work with seeming pretty words. We can't smelt lead in America because it's bad for the environment, yet lead is still needed so it's processed in other countries that aren't as careful about it as we would be. We can't produce steel, pump oil, even make gas cans in this country anymore.

    Why? They import them from other countries that pollute to the point their people are dying like flies. But we can't because it's Baaad.

    No, we can't because Satin wants us weak and wimpy, and unable to defy him like we did in WWI and II.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I got pregnant at 18 and chose to get married to my babies father. I cannot tell you how many people told me and him that I was ruining our lives and I should just get an abortion. Thankfully I knew better because I was raised Catholic. My baby didn't do anything to deserve to die. She is the love of my life still along with her brother, sister and dad. We just celebrated 25 years. We never took a penny of government assistance. Hubby worked 3 jobs. I don't think I saw him for the first 5 years.

    When my kids were little, other women would make the most stupid comments about me being a stay at home mom. But when they needed someone to watch their kid, who do you think they called? Hint it wasn't Ghostbusters. Why can't women just be happy for other women? We should support each other like a good bra.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BOOM (mic drop)

    THAT is how you should have ended the article, LOL!

    All I can say is Amen, sister.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like Farmers Lung. A disease caused by inhaling moldy hay. Does not have to look moldy to cause it. Talk to your doctor about this specifically.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Patrice, I had the flu followed by bronchitis a couple years ago - terrible cough, thick mucous very hard to raise. My doctor recommended high doses of Vitamin C - 2-3 grams every 2-3 hours until diarrhea occurs then back off 500 mgs and continue the previous dosage. It was truly miraculous, the mucous thinned out, the horrible cough improved and I was better within 2 days. After that I read an article about high doses of IV Vitamin C being used as a cure for sepsis by an ICU doctor in Ohio. Sepsis is oftentimes a death sentence, but he had very high survival rates with this treatment. Just make sure you drink plenty of water if you try this, as it can cause kidney stones if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not surprised, Patrice....

    You forever take a few "progressive liberals' opinions on delicate subjects like this one and lump them altogether into a group of "heathens". Shame on you.

    You have absolutely no idea (percentage wise) of what the majority of people think about "overpopulation" vs. "raising quality human beings"....human beings that will ultimately have a direct effect on the continuum of this planet.

    For example (personally)...I believe you should never have more children than you can successfully raise with the love, guidance and nurturing that a child needs. I don't give numbers because that's a personal determination.

    ...but I still care about massive overpopulation and starvation in the world (as I'm sure you will find on BOTH sides of party lines). I would never call any mother a "breeder". This is where your lines blur.

    This "blame game" is not accurate...because you have no idea. J.

    PS Hope you feel better!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent article again. Spot on.
    We are 6 weeks out from baby #3 arriving. This one is a boy, #1 & #2 are girls. I have been asked if we did this to try for the boy, or if we are competing with our siblings on the number of kids, or if we are Catholic. The answer to all is no.
    What even floors them more is when I tell them I work and my husband is a stay at home dad.
    However, the most annoying is when I'm out with #1, people don't think much of me being pregnant. When I'm out with #1 (5yrs) & #2 (16 months), I get dirty looks. Like 2 kids is plenty and I shouldn't overburden the world with another one. When did the rest of the world/society decide they are the one's to determine when OUR family is complete?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love love love your posts on homesteading, canning, gardening, animals, etc.....but your hatred for people who love all, and want those great things you provide for yours makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can always not read those articles.

      "In-your-face stuff from an opinionated rural north Idaho housewife"

      Delete
  12. ...and want (no demand) those great things you provide (have worked very hard for)for yours (from the American taxpayer). They vote illegally and benefits are used by politicians in power to buy their vote.

    Many, many of the refugee from eastern block countries have been hired by local companies here- displacing local young people and have later been busted for drug trafficking. Not to mention the highly drug resistant TB that has come with them. I cannot speak for Patrice - but I think legal immigration is wonderful thing. We, however, are allowing a full scale invasion. The land of the free, home of the brave is on its way to becoming a third world country and too many do not see the writing on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Started getting those comments when H and I decided I'd stay home with #1. They started flying fast and thick when I started showing with #3.

    Don't even want to TALK about what people said (even in the waiting room at the OB clinic) when I had #2 by the hand, #3 on my hip, and #4 big in my belly.

    JEEZ!! Don't want to deal with a pack of kids?? DON'T HAVE A PACK OF KIDS. Just PLEASE stop minding business that belongs to me, my husband, my doctor, and God.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be completely fair, though, I get the same contempt from conservative women, not for the NUMBER of kids I have, but for the way I parent.

    Whether it's letting my son's hair grow until it covers his ears, or allowing my kids to explain their reasoning and their actions (apparently this is "talking back"), or not demanding that my daughters obey their brother simply because he's a male (they ARE required to obey their father, even when he's making empty threats he'll have forgotten by the next day), or reserving corporal punishment for blatant disrespect and threats to life and limb, I've lost count of the number of times I've been chastised by acquaintances and strangers and told that I'm leaving them predestined for the welfare line (or prison).

    Humans seem inclined to direct contempt at anyone whose choices they disagree with, as if life were an arithmetic problem. I agree that there are right answers and wrong ones... But not that there's one right way for everyone.

    ReplyDelete