Childless by Choice - Ruby Warrington | Maiden Mother Matriarch 52
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- My guest today is the journalist and editor Ruby Warrington, author of the new book 'Women Without Kids: The Revolutionary Rise of an Unsung Sisterhood.'
We spoke about why women are increasingly unlikely to have children, the grey area between voluntary and involuntary childlessness, and why we generally pay so much less attention to men who don't have children. In the extended version of the episode we also spoke about the political and economic consequences of falling birth rates.
03:48 Childfree vs Childless
05:23 On being 'A-reproductive'
10:14 Childless by circumstance
12:14 Dependence from being a mother
14:52 App culture and human interaction
18:52 Childfree dads
25:07 How society disincentivises having children
28:22 How conditioned is maternal instinct?
39:12 Should society encourage childlessness?
MMM is sponsored by 321 - a new online introduction to Christianity, presented by former MMM guest Glen Scrivener. Check it out for free at 321course.com/MMM. Just enter your email, choose a password and you’re in - there’s no spam and no fees.
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: / maiden_podcast
Instagram: / maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: tiktok.com/@maiden_podcast
#LouisePerry #RubyWarrington #MaidenMotherMatriarch
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
An important conversation but an incredibly frustrating one.
(Speaking as someone who used to believe they wanted to be "child free" but as soon as I ceased hormonal control, I was hit with baby fever like never before. I'm pregnant now and I absolutely cannot wait.)
Hormonal control is exactly that, it disrupts your hormones production. It controls everything in your body and brain, maybe even how you felt about motherhood. I wish you the best!
Being child free is a perfectly good lifestyle choice.
Congratulations and good luck with everything to come!
HOW DARE YOU HAVE A CHILD! THAT'S INTERNALISED MISOGYNY!
Congratulations!
I think it's a psychological and very embodied phase shift that's hard to understand from the other side - you just don't have the frames of reference.
While I understand her statement that childless women are left out of the conversation is because its incredibly difficulty for anyone who hasn't had a child to truly experience and know the meaning and joy that children bring to your life. Mothers know what it was like to be childless and potentially not want to have a child. They also know what it's like to be a mother.
And they can be bitter. Childless women as policy-makers is likely to be bitter women making policy.
@@AnselLindnerThey're not bitter. There is nothing wrong with choosing not to have children.
@@sarahrobertson634 If so that would only be because a small minority make that choice. If everyone made that choice, the species would die out.
@@sarahrobertson634ya women who don't want to have children should be seperated so that they don't create problem for the men who want to have children
@@sarahrobertson634but there clearly is something wrong. whether it's for lack of economic stability, or lack of a good partner, or lack of desire to have kids... there is always something wrong when a mammal does not want to reproduce. it's our primary function that we evolved over billions of years... it's quite obvious. if somebody starves themselves to death because they "dont want food" you don't enable that and say it's a choice... and this is metaphorically what the lack of children is doing to our civilisation
Perhaps the reason a disproportionate amount of blame falls on women for childlessness is that women have a disproportionate amount of control when it comes to children being born?
this woman is dumb, it takes very little thought or knowledge to understand these things
We don't control the financial aspect of it, which is the missing piece of the puzzle. Also, being child free is a perfectly good lifestyle choice. Louise Perry with her soft life of privilege loves to condescend child free women, calling them "childless". If I ever see her on the street, that face won't be quite as pretty anymore.
The financial issue is not women's problem. It's a lack of partner problem.
Duh
@@sarahrobertson634 then why do poor families have more children? The financial quality partner problem is a standards problem which is a control problem. That's why we have standards, to control.
There's a wide spectrum between "good,healthy marriages" and "marriages where one person is violent, abusive or erratic." I haven't read the book about two-parent privilege, but I imagine that your parents' marriage doesn't have to be GREAT for you to still benefit from it, over against their being divorced or unmarried.
I often think part of the problem is we have lost the ability to take a long term view of our lives. Our day to day material comfort comes so effortlessly and easily compared to most of human history and our attention spans are so short, our main focus is pleasure seeking. Children are hard work. Your guest eludes to this attitude by being amazed that someone would have to prepare meals for other beings on the daily 😳 as being particularly onerous. The essentialism of children comes into sharp focus as you age and they go off into the world as capable citizens, enriching your world in ways you can barely fathom or express. I simply cannot imagine approaching later life without a biological legacy sharing that journey.
I agree. These women choosing not to have children are not taking a long time view. One of the results of falling birthrates is high immigration. The party life they are choosing might not be possible should society change and women don't have rights or freedoms. And when they and their friends get too old to look after themselves they will have years in a nursing home where the staff don't speak English, the food is inedible, and bedsores full of maggots get reported in the news. It's well known that residents with few or no visitors suffer the worst neglect.
They might be having fun now, but one day the party will end.
Then perhaps you should envision yourself as being a whole person all on your own, instead of being codependent on your children.
@@sarahrobertson634 I suspect you will remember this when you are elderly in a nursing home, with inedible food and untreated bed sores and no one to complain you are being neglected.
@@sarahrobertson634 Falling birthrates leads to mass immigration. I left the regional city that I'd lived in my whole adult life when at the age of 48 it became unsafe for unaccompanied women to shop for food in the daytime unless there were armed police present. I'm sure you will find this liberating and enriching.
The cooking comment struck me as well. Can't fathom the idea of preparing a meal... Madness.
I look back to me in my 20s though (before having kids) and the idea of my life now would have been unintelligible to me. I think before you have kids it's hard to imagine how it all works. I feel like my capacity has actually expanded.
I enjoy neutral arguments, but obviously anti-natalist biased positions come across as anti-human and I'm not able to empathize. P
? I don't understand
Just because one woman doesn't want to have children and feels ok, doesn't mean she advocates for all women not having children. 🙄
"anti natalist"? biased ? ..."comes across as anti human"?!!! wow,so a person who choose not to have children is "antinatalist"and then inherent in that is also apparently an anti human" perpsective !!! wow what about those who do not have children but are busy fighting for human rights and who contribute huge amounts fo society say as teachers,doctors,lawyers or activists in some way ..climate activists or who are able to use their time and energy by not having childen to contribute to society in myriad of ways and yet you consider that "antihuman"...they might be fighting against arms trade or against wars that people with kids do not even care about or have the time ot interest in doing do but somehow those without kids in your eyes are considered "anti human just by virtue of advocating choice and the right to have kids or not.Seems to me you are the only one with real bias here.
@@joane24 I've plenty of channels who's ideas espoused would contradict you on that. That's why so many, including myself are so strongly opposed to allowing such people to have a say, especially since feminism has already done enough damage to my generation.
@@Hammerhead137 I believe you there's channels/ people like that. But I was referring to this particular video and this conversation.
I believe I experienced a biological switch flipped in me for wanting children after meeting a man who I immediately felt I would know and be with for the rest of my life. I am 68 , have three adult children and have been married for 42years.
Yes, I had this exact experience too. When I finally met my man, I all of a sudden wanted children massively. But my whole life prior, I was looking for strange things in men, and when I met my K it took me a while to realize he was great. I had to also get my head screwed on right. 😅
That's kinda my story too but I'm still in my late 30s - three kids in and going strong - hopefully we have as good a run as you have!
That’s how it was for my wife. She always wanted to be a wife and mother but baby fever kicked in after we got stable and were married. There’s definitely something to this
This was me too, didn't even consider it until I met my now husband at 21 and was like one day we will definitely have kids because he will be an amazing father and together a great family. Fast forward 13 years and we have a 3 year old and another on the way after 10 years together travelling and living a full life before kids. We will get back to this one day I'm sure but for now we are fully embracing home and family life and enjoying giving our children experiences that we all enjoy together, it's just a different time. But more fulfilling than I could have even imagined!
It's really hard to know beforehand how the hornonal storm of pregnancy and breastfeeding will change you - body, mind and soul.
thats so profound
Indeed. I think about the dreadful lives of people who never had that magic of having kids work for them.
@@skylinefeverIt's a shitty life. There are plenty of people who regret having them.
@@sarahrobertson634the way you are spamming the comments section makes it seem as though you're really trying to convince yourself more than anyone else... :-/
100% - I like Mary Harrington's observation that pregnancy doesn't just create a baby, it creates a mother, too.
There’s a tiny chance had I met the right man that I might have had children but I’ve never been that in love with someone or sensed I would be safe enough to risk it and marriage was never offered so no way am I putting out without that.
I doubt I would have made a decent parent even with the right support as never been very maternal and the idea of being pregnant makes me want to heave frankly. Yes I’ll probably die alone with my dogs lol (for all the lovely trolls that are lurking) and it’s fine 😊. Glad I had that option instead of being forced or pressured into motherhood (and damn did my family try!). Met lots of other childfree women lately so maybe we’ll take care of each other in our later years, who knows. Life is a weird ride for sure so do what you think will be best for you, whatever that is ❤
I appreciate and even respect your honesty. Also, good on you on not wanting to have kids out of wedlock.
However, if you do end up finding the right person, don't worry about fearing pregnancy or not having a maternal instinct. You'll be surprised at how much you can tolerate and how much you really know.
Good luck, and take good care!
I am from a culture where fathers do not value investing in their children as much as other cultures and it shows on many socio-economic fronts, spanning many countries and predating so-called "modern feminism". It's interesting that a small but quiet bifurcation has happened where the women who are in the position to provide a stable family have to marry out or more commonly simply opt out of motherhood altogether. Then that leaves the less sophisticated group of women to contort and subject themselves to all kinds chaos in pursuit of motherhood, only to unwittingly continuing the cycle of childhood disadvantage due to lower paternal investment.
What culture u from?
Where do you come from?
So it's all mens faults wonderfull
she doesnt tell us what culture it is either, im guessing western black, cos they got more single mothers than whites@@00Daddy
Idiocracy got it right.
No one is truely independent…looks like this is the result of successful feminism - not being dependent on a man. You are still dependent on your boss, your job, the government, your fellow citizens, etc
It must be very cathartic for those seeking 'independence' to be free and independent of anyone who truly cares about them, to only be dependent on those who truly don't care about them: their boss, company they work for, government.
Why more people aren’t making this point?
To me, nobody should be having children they don't want because to me children should be wanted, you can force/shame people into having children I'm afraid. Some people don't want kids so get over it. I agree about Feminism to an extent but that said, I do not want to return to a society where women have no autonomy over their life choices.
@@joce11
by that reasoning, should nobody be delaying/not having children they do want because of the delusional enjoyment of sitting in cubicle hell 2000+ hours a year because of some imaginary fulfillment of a job and hateful boss? few jobs are actually 'fulfilling careers'
it's about 5% that don't have a natural desire to have children. when a larger percentage of people avoid the urge to have children or reason it away (too expensive, can't go on vacations, can't go to bars, etc) or when they have children at a later age (38 vs 19) then it becomes a population collapse issue, objective fact. the population becomes top heavy with old people (unless someone lets a virus out of a lab to kill off old people) or allows mass migration. I'm less than 10 years from retiring so I won't be around to see the real collapse afterwards.
That is a false equivalency. Everyone has to be dependent to someone, yes. Men and women both are dependent on their employers and their government.
Not being dependent on men was, as they say in the video, something women fought to get BECAUSE they were mothers who wanted to be able to care for their children on their own when their husbands were abusive, deadbeats who spent the family's income on alcohol/gambling, or dead to violence, accident/injury, or illness.
I really like Ruby's point about motherhood not coming naturally to all women. I didn't grow up with lots of family nearby so had no exposure to looking after cousins/neices etc in my teenage years. When my eldest (not planned!) was born I was pretty clueless and didnt have much of the usual family support. I don't know what the solution to this problem is... probably not a course or anything like that. I just think it's increasingly rare for young people to experiece having to care for other people before they become a parent themselves, which can make the whole thing very daunting.
We lost that community web when we both stopped living rurally and intergenerationally.
Go watch Alex Clark's lengthy but fascinating interview with Jefferson Bethke to learn more.
100% agree, I didn't either and I think this is the result of smaller families and the loss of 'the village' there's a lot of empathy, caring and nurturing values that develop from being an important part of a family and community that work together to raise children and this has been lost. One of the main reasons for so many women being scared of becoming mothers or not feeling maternal in my opinion.
Damn, she said that stat earlier in the episode... "90% of women who do not have kids regret not having kids" That's crazy!!
She has no way to prove that. It's simply a guess. Notice that they never poll the women who had kids and now regret it. It's totally bias.
@@kaybrown7733She’s referring to a study by Rinska Kaiser who found that out. The numbers are just different.
10% of the women didn’t want kids at all and didn’t plan to, which is complete fine of course.
The next 10% wanted kids but due to some medical issues were infertile and couldn’t have them.
The last 80% planned for kids but due to life circumstances were unable to have them. Those 80% are known as being involuntary/unplanned childless.
@ARR409 And no one does everything they want to do in life. It's all choices and trade-offs, except when the state stops a person from making their own decisions. I don't know why you all think you can give people the life you think they want. Also, they never discuss the regretful parents who wish they wouldn't have had kids. I know wayyyyt more people who fit that category than those who are childless but wanted kids. So it evens out.
There's no proof of that whatsoever.
@@kaybrown7733There are tons of women who regret having children.
As a woman who has made the conscient decision not to have children for various reasons, I want to thank you for this very nuanced conversation. 😊I was fearing a more shameful perspective towards Ruby, but it wasn't the case at all. The last part of the conversation would have great intellectual potential and could deserve its own episode one day, to discuss in more depth the various roles of "non-mother" women in society throughout history and why not to also re-invent in the future.
May I ask, why do you not want kids?
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 I can't speak for the OP. I'm an older woman who has never, ever wanted children. My reason for not wanting children is really simple - I have literally never, ever had any desire whatsoever to have children. My decsion was driven by my zero desire to have children. There are some men who don't want to be fathers yet these men don't get questioned about their life choices like women do. Reality is, women like me have always existed and we will continue to exist albeit in the minority..
Yes, they do, @@joce11 .
Perhaps not as often but it is a myth that men are never asked why they aren't married or have kids.
Anyway, is there anything that would have incentivized you to ever marry and have kids?
Found this a very interesting discussion, thank you both. I disagree with you both regarding men's lack of interest in children historically though. Men have always wanted an heir, to be able to pass down their property or business or trade. You can call that a selfish reason, but it's still a reason that men have wanted children. Before the industrial revolution, children would work alongside their parents from a young age, and boys often learnt their father's trade and would inherit the father's business when they came of age. The industrial revolution gradually broke the idea that you'd follow in your father's footsteps, and thus broke the idea of legacy. I do not think men are as interested today in becoming fathers, but I think historically they were. The only place we still see that today imo is in farming. Farmers expect to pass their farm wholesale down to one or more of their children. I grew up in a farming community in the south West and it's still the case that children work on the farm, particularly as teens, and that one of them shall inherit the farm. Pretty much all farmers I know married and had a reasonable number of children. Food for thought.
I always joked about how industrialization and urbanization removes a financial ROI on having kids, that's the problem.
Unrelated, but the guests bookshelf collor gradient is very pleasing.
Enjoyed this back and forth conversation and the spirit in which it was had 😊
I’ve taken a lot of flak over the years for not wanting kids so it’s really nice to see the childfree community develop of late. It is beautiful to me that so many women have a choice now, that’s all it’s about really ❤
I’ve never been anti-mother (although a few have been very rude about my choice), I just knew it was never a path for me and there’s nothing wrong with that. Best part about aging is that people have stopped asking me about it!
I say this not out of pity for the guest in any way, but more as a self-reflective realization - As a mother of 3, who came to motherhood late due to a mix of misguided 'feminist' ideology and lingering fertility challenges, this interview made me so sad. And it made me want to hug Ruby. Perhaps out of my own love for motherhood and children, but also out of the sheer knowledge that we can't know what we don't know. Again, this is more visceral than cerebral, I understand Ruby's reasoning, I support her choice because its informed and feels right for her. And yet, the human female in me aches for her and for women who won't know motherhood. I too am extremely concerned about the falling birth rates, about the schism forming between women who have and do not have children, and yet, my pain for women who won't or don't have children comes from a primal place. We just can't know what we don't yet know.
Interesting. Why does the human female in you ache for her and for other women who choose not to have kids? Are there any other areas the human female in you ache for women?
Have you ever researched women who had kids and wish they didn't?
I understand where you're coming from, but your comment reads as extremely patronising. I think we need to accept that people feel the way they feel, on either side, and stop seeing things simply from our own frame of reference
I am childless and I have a discerned vocation of celibacy (in the regular, secular state of life). I'm active in my local church. Although most people are naturally called to marriage, it's not that only way a life can be purposeful.
Interestingly, I used to have periods in my life, particularly around my early 30s, when I felt a sort of a desire to have a child.
Not in any specific way and not enough to want to pursue it in any way - I would consider a child only within a loving relationship/marriage, and that necessities the need to have that kind of relationship first; the child being a natural fruit of that relationship.
(as a side note: I can't relate to some women who may willfully decide to have a child outside of a relationship, it seems unnatural to me and a nightmare scenario. Obviously, tragedies or other complicated life situations unfortunately happen, but it's not something one should take as an natural and normalized order of things.)
Also, it is was just an abstract feeling, I suppose just some biological maternal instincts, a very natural drive. I don't have that anymore, and I am also much more clear about the direction of my own vocation.
As of now, I don't have any desire to have my own biological children whatsoever.
One thing I need to add, one can also be a spiritual mother figure, not necessarily having own biological kids.
This, in fact is also a part of my religious vocation. The spiritual life is very fruitful, in some ways more than the natural/biological one.
I think it's a natural tendency of women to want to nurture and provide a kind of care of others. An emotionally mature woman is a mother figure, just like an emotionally mature man is a father figure.
Motherhood is, in a spiritual sense, is a fulfilment of a woman, in the sense that it's being oriented towards the care of others and not just satisfying one's selfish wants.
Basically, it's about giving live and living for someone else apart from just for yourself. We became more wholly through our relationships with others.
Again, that doesn't mean it has to always be the natural biological motherhood. There's many other ways these qualities can be expressed in other forms of social relationships. (Same could also be said about men and fatherhood - giving his life's energy for the provision of the others).
The same can of course be also applied to couples who can't have biological children. They can still mature in these qualities in other ways, within their broader community. A healthy loving relationship isn't hermetically closed off on itself - that's when a relationship is dying - but as it takes its force and energy from its intimate connection, it naturally wants to share and radiate their love to others.
Every arg ruby is making ultimately comes down to whether her career has more worth than having formed a family. I’ve never truly met someone that I truly admire for their career achievements. But I’ve met plenty of good parents that I admire for being parents and showing how much they care for their kids.
Do you admire scientists and inventors? Leaders of great social movements? Firefighters and emergency responders? I'm genuinely curious, this is not a trick question.
I'm a counselor and Christian, trying VERY HARD to help men get with the program. I can only effect change with them, and don't give "us" men a pass
I am so happy I was blessed to have a child. I never realized what I would have lost had I not been so blessed. As one of 5 kids where only I had a kid and then I only had one I can't say enough how much of a positive impact it has had on my life. I didn't realize it so I know how lucky I am to have lived as a mom.
Such an important conversation! I started experiencing really strong baby fever in my early twenties (I’m now in my mid twenties) and it still persists. When I asked my girl-friends about it, they told me they don’t experience it as strongly. I find it even more peculiar that none of my guy friends, male acquaintances, or even my boyfriend and his friends have experienced baby fever or have a desire to be a father. When I asked my boyfriend if he desires to be a dad, he tells me it’s up to me and he’ll be there to support me but I have never met a guy who desires to play the role of a father the way I desire to play the role of a mother. And no, I wasn’t conditioned into desiring this role, this desire is very innate. I wonder why men don’t experience baby fever the way some women do… how do I tell if my partner is going to be a good father before he becomes one?
So I’m 26 and my wife is 25 and she absolutely has baby fever. Cries when she holds a baby and her entire tiktok feed is about mothers and babies. I have always wanted marriage and children but I’ve never had intense baby fever. I wouldn’t get down thinking that your boyfriend wouldn’t love your kids or anything like that, I just think it’s a biological thing or a cultural thing that women get once they’re at a certain place in their lives. My wife didn’t have it before she met me and didn’t have it the first two years we were together before we got married.
However as a man I am very excited to have kids, I recently got my fertility results back and I have a low count and it was pretty devastating to think we might have trouble conceiving. So men absolutely care about being kids. I really want to be a father.
Men care about having kids*
@@awsambdaman This is heartening to hear. All the best to you and I hope life blesses you with your heart’s desires! 😃♥️
Thank you and same to you!
Esha bahal ji ki mamata kaafi shaktishaali hai!
The fact that man says its upto the woman and he'll be there to support her might be an indicator of his dad ing abilities. Maybe he'll change once his kid is in the world and he feels that connection.
I have felt sometimes wanting a wittle baby as a young man. Its mostly from a very traditional and religious mindset
I've met so many miserable, embittered parents. Not to mention their screwed-up kids. I really value the greater freedom of choice to have or not have kids. I think it's ultimately good for human happiness if people aren't steamrollered into clearly unsuitable parenthood. When you educate girls and they gain greater access to contraception, a significant minority choose not to have children, living perfectly fulfilled lives.
Let individuals be individuals.
Contraception follows demand, not the other way around.
I think about how the demand existed for ages, that's why in the USA, Comstock Laws existed a long time, and Margaret Sanger too great risks to fight them.
Absolutely. Plus I think about how the demand was around a long time. The Comstock Laws of the USA wouldn't have been passed if there was no demand for contraception. The free market would let it exist. The demand would create an incentive to invent contraception.
I relate so much to the perspective of not being self-centred and feeling the benefits of being childless but more just a case of it never coming into question (until someone else questions it)!
The male dating pool!! It's really bad! Men want to delay childbearing for ever, "not now" is their mantra it seems. They so often don't commit to one woman completely so the womans fertile window doesn't affect them. If you marry a woman, then her fertile window becomes his also.
But it's also true that woman have too high standards. We are so busy asking so many things of him other than marriage. The truth is, most of them are redundant. If you focus on sacramental marriage, all the redundancy will fall away.
Thank you for such an interesting conversation!!
thats because they dont want a child with YOU, they having their fun and games cos you giving it, theyve still got time but u aint and u most likely giving it up to the men with options, thinking you are worthy of his children
Yeah women really really have to focus on character more than anything. And honestly so many of the games we play while dating just take up precious time. I am with you though, if a man dates a woman during her fertile years and leads her on with the promise of marriage and children, and then decides against that when she’s 30+…that’s a really really awful thing to do and needs to be shamed more in our culture.
Men have to focus on character just as much, but I think men are waking up to that reality
What@@spiff1 said! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Women often date above their mate value.
fair play for hosting the conversation but she's only crossing the aisle to you so she can hawk her book, her talking points are all boilerplate feminist guardianista cope
If this is not a massive cope or making a virtue out of a necessity - what was the need to make up a new term - when there is already a term for this: childless
I do sense a lot of cope from her
@@awsambdaman Good gawd, time you grew up and realised there are some men and women albeit a minority who literally don't want kids. Not everyone wants kids. Gees.
what are you even talking about ?!!! a massive "cope"or virtue out of a necessity? shes not trying to virtue anything,she is merely talking about choice and options and what it means to choose to be childless ...by choice and how society interprets that especially in women !!
How many men do you know who are called childless or who are judged by that label or are asked constantly about having children and why or why not ?
Sounds like a buig "cope"from you but then I'm not even sure what that means other than you seem to find it extremely threatening that this conversation is even being had.
The reason there are two words is because:
Childless: Wanted to have children but didn't get any.
Childfree: Never wanted kids, and got to go without them.
Nah, childless denotes people who wanted kids but couldn't have them. Childfree is people who probably could have kids if they tried but weren't too fussed.
I have some unrelated thoughts that this subject brings up in my mind. The first observation I have is that feminism as a movement is predisposed to communalism to the point were they have problems dealing with what are inevitably individual decisions. Women don't seem to be able to deal with a question like: "Do you, or don't you, want to be the president of Apple?" Feminists, and all women for matter never actually answer a question like that, but the vibe they give off--at least to me--is: "I want women everywhere to be the president of Apple."
The individualist, patriarchy is likely to take the attitude that the communal approach will never work like that. I'm admittedly biased, but I can't imagine any scenario where the individualist, patriarchy doesn't win this argument.
The second subject that comes to my mind is a thought that no one is discussing yet, but we probably should in the near future: the rights, and responsibilities, of eccentrics. The first right of an eccentric is to exist unmolested, they often do things that move society along. The first responsibility of an eccentric is to acknowledge that most people are not like them, will never be like them, and are under no obligation to become like them. Indeed, it is very probably a good thing that most people are not like them, and those people should be left alone to not be like them.
I often wonder to what extent the problem of feminism is that feminists can't be happy with just the first part of the above thesis: "It isn't enough that I be left unmolested, it is essential that everyone (or, in this case, every woman) have exactly the same mindset that I have."
You're 100% right about the eccentrics - or statistical outliers, as I call them.
its solipsism, the world revolves around her and her thoughts/ experience is obviously every other womens', even in timbucktu.
One reason I like LP is that she faces the fact statistical outliers will always exist. The masses must not force them into conformity. The outliers must not make the rest of the world conform.
'No biological urge to reproduce'. Is that the same as a woman deeply aching for a baby? Because there are plenty of women who experience that and its seems pretty biological
@@emilyh7912No, it's definitely more biological over conditional. If you had a society in a vacuum where there were no expectations placed on women that they should have babies, would women still want kids; absolutely.
@emilyh7912 I find it odd that so many people today contribute phenomena that is relatively consistent throughout cultures and time periods down to simply social construction. I mean that's one hell of a coincidence.
...Yup, @@emona! It's nuts!
There is nothing wrong with examining why a society does something and see if it is necessary or harmful but it is another to just chuck it out entirely.
@@emilyh7912 I mean I think I see where you're going with this, but in order for you to be right, you'd have to assume that women didn't know that doing it would create babies.
The 20th century was a inflection in human history where modernity centered on the individual spread far and wide supplanting the ancien regime that centered on family, tribe, or other group as defining the person. Alan Macfarlane's 'The Invention of the Modern World', Ch 8 is enlightening.
"The ‘modern’ pattern is one where it is lowered fertility which keeps population in check, rather than high mortality. Different mechanisms are used, late marriage and high rates of non-marriage, various forms of controls on the numbers born alive through infanticide and abortion, and nowadays high levels of contraception. These are what Wrigley calls ‘low pressure’ regimes. Until quite recently it was widely believed that this ‘low pressure’ regime is the product of some ‘demographic revolution’, perhaps caused by improvements in contraceptive technology in the nineteenth century.
"It is now quite clear from the work of Tony Wrigley and other that in England a combination of late age at first marriage (often over twenty-five for women), plus selective marriage (with up to a quarter of women never marrying) was enough to keep population more or less static for some centuries."
"As Malthus argued, the only force strong enough to stand against the biological desire to mate and have children, was the even stronger social desire to live comfortably and avoid poverty." --Invention of the Modern World
I think another reason for smaller numbers of births is falling infant mortality. Until the second half of the nineteenth century a family may need to have five babies for two or three to grow into adulthood.
PS Malthus has been proven to be wrong many times over.
thanks for the book recommendation 😊
I started to have baby fever when my son was 5 months old. I was NOT a baby person or a kid person in general until I deconstructed leftist/very modern feminist ideas
Are you saying you were wanting another baby that you could not afford to have? Or that you deconstructed feminist ideas of not wanting children and afterwards had another baby?
You sound nice
its so clear that every explanation she has is a post-fact rationalisation... literally every point is "yeah but what about this exception!?". well no shit there are exceptions to everything
shes trying to justify it to herself and take everyone else down with her
Case in point :
'Single mums' plain statement of fact.
'Deadbeat dads' judgemental label.
Can't tell the difference.
'Absent fathers' would have been the equivalent to the former.
'Deadbeat mums' are probably more prevalent as being present in the household & lives of their children than not
& those that abandon their children are rightly felt to deserve a worse moniker than 'deadbeat'.
You have to start off denying the biological differences of men & women & the parental bonds of mothers & fathers.
Exceptions exist, telling them they don't deserve to is not good for anyone. Ever buy a statistically good product and end up with the statistical dud? You'll be treated as the one to blame.
Exceptions dont prove the rule, when you are talking about groups of people, u are talking averages or trends or patterns, it doesn't apply to any one individual, talking outliers is a tactic to dismiss the point, applying their anecdotes/experience to debates about society as a whole, it's a common tactic/thought process, particularly with wimmin@@skylinefever
@@spiff1Of course exceptions don't prove the rule, but it's equally ridiculous to act like they don't exist. It's completely possible to encourage motherhood for most women without shaming and ostracizing the small number of women who simply don't have maternal feelings and don't want kids. You see a percentage of mothers even in animals that consistently reject their young and have no interest in caring for them. If you truly value the well being of children you shouldn't want women like that to have children, and if you care about the well being of society then childless women must be encouraged to be productive citizens in other ways.
1. Sitting listening to this whilst breastfeeding my third child, and hearing her describe motherhood as a 'job' that has economic value has me cringing (for want of a better word). Like, please no. Well maybe theoretically you could draw up some autistic spreadsheet and put an economic value on this, but I'd rather do this on my own time and to my financial detriment than have someone describe my job role with defined economic outcomes - I think that approach almost misses the point of motherhood in its entirety. Which isn't to say there isn't work or societal economic benefit to motherhood that we can pay some form of attention to, but surely it just misses the point.
2. The idea she can't cook is a tad surprising... I understand in a way where she is coming from because before kids I had a full time job and thought i was busy. I've worked a job (as does my partner) with two kids and it's fine, in my experience your capacity expands as your family grows. What I can't understand is how women 'of old' could do everything I do, but with more children, no time saving gadgets or running water etc, and likely manage a smallholding on top. Basically I think we manage the hand we are dealt. The issue is now she (and we) can choose the cards in the deck which maybe limits our perspective.
3. She has a friend who could ('only'! Lol) afford a private cook for a month... well that figures. Her social milieu have their outlooks and challenges etc, but I'm wary of them because I suspect their perspectives impact their outlook on the rest of us and (as widely read as she no doubt is) I think she may be a little out of touch.
4. Pregnancy and motherhood initiate a cascade of hormonal and biological changes that are real and embodied in profound ways that I don't think are understandable before you go through them.
5. Her reliance on science ("a study has shown..." etc) is interesting. One famously can't derive an ought from an is. There is a difference in values between those who think a loving and supportive mum and dad are best, and those who think any supportive and loving adult caring arrangement, with absolute leave to have no family or obligations at all, is best. I really haven't read as widely as this guest has so I'm maybe speaking out of turn but I've heard science and studies used to support both positions and ultimately suspect this is ideology/value systems seeking after evidence on both sides.
6. On which point, I read that gay male parent study when it was reported (some time ago now?) in the Guardian as evidence that maternal instinct is a myth and I can't remember the details but I wasn't impressed - certainly the journalist reporting was looking for evidence in support of a world view rather than doing 'proper' science reporting.
7. I think her methodology / way of being / form of engagement with the world won't 'work'. Our formation as people (and our culture) is complicated, but in so far as she represents liberal individualism I think she's on the losing side.
8. Her idea that what modern people need is to invent yet more 'identities' around sex/sexuality/relationship choice (she's 'a-reproductive'...!?) seems profoundly off in some way, though I take her point that if we want to talk about it we need words and ways of understanding. I just don't think another new identity is the way. Ultimately it strikes as a sneaky-liberal linguistic battleground move - who gets to define the terms is halfway to winning the argument. As with point 7 though, she can identify how she wants - by definition (whether thinking biologically or socially) the a-reproductive are (perennially perhaps, but always ultimately) a dying breed.
9. Nuns (as I'm sure both Louise and guest know) were more than intellectually minded childless women. They were a sequested spiritual almost priestly class doing important religous work on behalf of society. It was a deeply religious and sacrificial life, not an expressive individualistic one. I agree we need ways to integrate the marginal and those who don't 'fit' prosocial norms so that they have a positive role. I genuinely hope we can manage that as demographic changes unfold, I just can't see how that will all pan out. I guess time will tell!
Great response. The gay couples and maternal extinct point she made immediately reads as misleading to me, but I haven't read the study. But if that were true it would be weird that evolution would have created different sexes at all. If men and women could just take on each other's instincts so naturally why even have a distinction in the first place??? All the biological changes and hormones that coincide with pregnancy and child rearing in the first year of infancy certainly has an impact on mother and baby, no? A gay male may also see changes, but I would assume those changes wouldn't be all that different from any new dad,or a single dad....i doubt that would be the exact same as a new mother who actually has to go through a biological shift, honed through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution....but again I haven't read the study.
@@emona kids without both parents don't even develop their brains in the same way, kids NEED both and their mother and their father. It has been found that boys without their father in the home have smaller parts of their brains that deal with impulse control (regardless of social status or income) there is an guy (Warren Farrell) who wrote books about it and does talks I saw a Jorden Peterson interview him a few years ago that was really interesting
Wow. Can you get off our high horse and show a little kindness to us lowly imperfect mortals. Probably not. So, I’m gonna put you on major blast.
You’re one of the reasons why many women nowadays aren’t keen on having kids.
Don’t you ever say that having kids isn’t a job and you’d do it for free within the earshot of any man. Virtually all of them will take you at your word and have done so to the detriment of women around the world.
Are babies and children lovely and cute? Yes. But they’re also extraordinarily physically and mentally draining, time consuming and incredibly stress inducing. On top of that they don’t stay babies and children for very long and you have to put in a Herculean amount of time and effort - particularly if you’re not that maternal - to make sure they become decent, well adjusted, productive, capable members of society.
So please stop with the pernicious Mother Earth BS.
As was pointed out by the guest, most childless women would probably have had kids if they’d met the right man or had enough money to be a single parent.
Also, can we please start being really honest about the quality of men out there. It is and always has been really bad, but up until very recently women weren’t in the position to say it. I love how so many on here have conveniently forgotten why the women movement came about. Today one of the reasons why the problem of low quality men persists is pretty shoddy parenting partly by pompous snidey women like you. There I said it.
Ask most fathers who live under the same roof as the mother and kids if they know their kids birthdays, the name of the school their kids go to, even their kid’s favourite meal. They’d be hard pressed to tell you even one of those facts. In fact I bet you’d be shocked and impressed if they did know. That’s not because fathers are too busy working to know the basics about their kids - most women have jobs outside the home as well as look after the house and kids…no…It’s because they can’t be arsed to remember basic information about their kids. The father is definitely at fault, but so is the mother for allowing it to happen.
Oh and don’t even get me on the topic of trying to find a decent man to father your kids. Most men can’t even look after themselves properly let alone looking after father a kid.
Let’s start with the basics of wanting to get up close and personal to a man to even practice the art of trying to make a kid. Do you know how many men stink? Just plain stink! Do you know how many men don’t wash regularly? Do you know how many don’t even wash their hands after taking a dump? Don’t even get me on the number of men who don’t even clean their butt crack, or the men who pick their nose or ears and snack on their boogers and earwax and would then think nothing of making you a sandwich with those same booger or earwax pasty hands in the hope of getting a blowie later. That’s just the trivial stuff. Now let’s get serious.
I have lost count of the amount of women I know who are or have been in emotionally or physically abusive relationships. It’s to the point now where it is a at best a rites of passage for virtually all the women I know or at worst standard relationship fare. Oh and there’s also the porn…ALL types of porn… I really mean ALL TYPES OF PORN which many men think is no big deal or funny. Let’s be honest, there’s a reason why teen and below porn is so disturbingly rife and it’s generally not because of us ladies now is it.
Most women want a nice, kind, decent, fair, faithful man, who they find l attractive - generally because the men have good personal hygiene. Someone who has a decent job - not a six figure salary, an average or a little above would do - some who’s not verbally or physically abusive.
Let’s be honest, since human beings have existed that’s been a pretty big ask.
Now due to the advent of birth control and women’s rights the situation has got even worse.
Hence, the decline of the global population.
Wow. Can you get off your high horse and show a little kindness to us lowly imperfect mortals. Probably not. So, I’m gonna put you on major blast.
You’re one of the reasons why many women nowadays aren’t keen on having kids.
Don’t you ever say that having kids isn’t a job and you’d do it for free within the earshot of any man. Virtually all of them will take you at your word and have done so to the detriment of women around the world.
Are babies and children lovely and cute? Yes. But they’re also extraordinarily physically and mentally draining, time consuming and incredibly stress inducing. On top of that they don’t stay babies and children for very long and you have to put in a Herculean amount of time and effort - particularly if you’re not that maternal - to make sure they become decent, well adjusted, productive, capable members of society.
So please stop with the pernicious Mother Earth BS.
As was pointed out by the guest, most childless women would probably have had kids if they’d met the right man or had enough money to be a single parent.
Also, can we please start being really honest about the quality of men out there. It is and always has been really bad, but up until very recently women weren’t in the position to say it. I love how so many on here have conveniently forgotten why the women’s movement came about. Today one of the reasons why the problem of low quality men persists is pretty shoddy parenting partly by pompous snidey women like you. There I said it.
Ask most fathers who live under the same roof as the mother and kids if they know their kids birthdays, the name of the school their kids go to, even their kid’s favourite meal. They’d be hard pressed to tell you even one of those facts. In fact I bet you’d be shocked and impressed if they did know. That’s not because fathers are too busy working to know the basics about their kids - most women have jobs outside the home as well as look after the house and kids…no…It’s because they can’t be arsed to remember basic information about their kids. The father is definitely at fault, but so is the mother for allowing it to happen.
Oh and don’t even get me on the topic of trying to find a decent man to father your kids. Most men can’t even look after themselves properly let alone look after a kid.
Let’s start with the basics of wanting to get up close and personal to a man to even practice the art of trying to make babies. Do you know how many men stink? Just plain stink! Do you know how many men don’t wash regularly? Do you know how many don’t even wash their hands after taking a dump? Don’t even get me on the number of men who don’t even clean their butt crack, or the men who pick their nose or ears and snack on their boogers and earwax and would then think nothing of making you a sandwich with those same booger or earwax pasty hands in the hope of getting a blowie later. That’s just the trivial stuff. Now let’s get serious.
I have lost count of the amount of women I know who are or have been in emotionally or physically abusive relationships. It’s to the point now where at best it’s a rites of passage for virtually all the women I know or at worst standard relationship fare. Oh and there’s also the porn…ALL types of porn… and I really mean ALL TYPES OF PORN which many men think is no big deal, even funny. Let’s be honest, there’s a reason why teen and underage porn is so disturbingly rife and it’s generally not because us ladies are watching it, is it now.
We all know, most women want a nice, kind, decent, fair, faithful man, who they find attractive - generally because of good personal hygiene. Someone who has a decent job - not necessary with a a six figure salary, an average or a little above would do - someone who’s not verbally or physically abusive.
Let’s be honest, since human beings have existed that’s been a pretty big ask.
Now due to the advent of birth control and women’s rights the situation has got even worse.
Hence, the decline of the global population.
She just said that friend had a cook, it could mean, like a neighbor cooking for her and she paying. 😅
Historically, a large portion of men never had children or even married. Men were killed off by the thousands in their youth through wars. The majority of soldiers who die in combat, died childless as the state claimed control of their life at 18-20. So it is quite normal of a man to not have children compared to women.
Some have argued that Viking raids were the product of inceldom. They could either steal what they don't have, or die in battle to limit population.
I am child-free by choice and really appreciate these women talking. I looking forward to reading Ruby's book.
I often wonder that maybe some people do not want a certain stage of childhood and focusing on that so much that they forego motherhood. I never wanted a baby per say but I wanted an older child. I think some people have personalities that suit different parts of childhood. Maybe some women just don't want a baby but would enjoy an adult child.
Some seem only interested in babies too, I wanted the whole thing and am really enjoying the teen years!
@fidgetinbed1 Very true! And I think that so many people only focus on the baby stage which is such a short period of time. They want a cutesy baby to show off but once the child gets older & goes through the rough patches in middle school/ high school the parents can’t deal with it. The baby stage is very much glamorized.
Yes, I agree. This is one of many reasons why I've considered adoption. I've never had baby fever but I enjoy taking care of my older nephews.
12:35 it's a funny thing, because in one way to be independence is kind of impossible, if you live in a big city, let's see how long you last if the garbage trucks stop working. And in another way, you'll grow old one day, you'll have an accident, etc, at that moment you'll wish you could be dependent on others.
dependent on men.. most unnecessary jobs are done by women
@@spiff1
I wouldn't call them unnecessary
But, women in male dominated fields can easily be replaced by men
But in female dominated fields like healthcare and education of elementary schools, it is hard to make this male dominated, especially in Western countries, because men aren't that interested in being nurses and so on
The countries that are very segregated by gender in the workplace are the only ones that have about equal representation of both genders in elementary education. Ironically, those same countries are considered to have less gender equality compared to Europe, but they have much higher equality in representation in elementary education.
@@MA-gu2up you'll hardly see men putting a lot of time into taking care of the young and the old, and if they do they'll do ok with providing material things like food, but not much else.
people think that only men's jobs are important but they don't realize, that woman make community, men make things that stand alone like a monolith, without that connection everyone stands alone, and dies alone.
so maybe you'll survive for some time without those things, since men can provide for the material things you need every day, but on the long run, you're done for.
Yep, though when wimmin ran the home and men ran society, things ran more smoothly, to put it simply.. Women away from the home/career focused then has negative domino effects on everything else, mainly the foundations of society ie the family. Feminism is trying to flip the script and its been a disaster, family unit is dead, wages and IQ levels have gone down, men and women are at war, sex-obsessed society, all policies helping women only, neglecting boys and men, I can go on and on. Most our problems have originated from Feminism @@MA-gu2up
It's laughable how we dismiss women's job because they're 'easy' and could be done by men while also forget about who raised the majority of us and put all of their soul and body (literally) into it.
Interesting..💜
Saying childfree instead of childless is similar to an incel saying he is voluntarily celibate.
But some women are childree by choice, so I don't think these are comparable.
Spiritual Mothers and Fathers- I love this. Also… are we being good ancestors. Probably the elephant in the room is the idea of serving others is the highest gain for everyone… including the giver.
Tell that to HUWITE women, they think serving their family is slavery
@@spiff1Serving anyone is slavery.
Servitude is not what women want anymore. If servitude is so great, go ahead and serve me. I need a cold beer.
@@sarahrobertson634 Is it really slavery to serve loved ones (family) and for them to serve you?
only to a selfish entitled Feminist..@@sarahrobertson634
I was raised in a fairly seriously religious Christian family & community & I really don't recognise this sidelining & stigma of childless women from that - though I don't doubt it is the default attitude, or that there are more good reasons than bad for that being so, (otherwise it wouldn't be).
The problem as I see it is that feminism is decidedly anti organised religion & tradition, so they just disregard figures such as Julian of Norich, Hildegard von Bingen, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Thérèse of Lisieux & many many more.
I could take or leave motherhood. I'm the youngest of four and I have many siblings and now many nephews. I do like caring for children from the ages of 6 and up but have never been interested in babies. I'll take care of one of course - just like I would anything vulnerable. But I'm not moved by babies and have never had baby fever.
For me, I actually worry about any future pregnancy triggering an autoimmune condition. Shortening your telomeres is one thing but some studies have now said that it can trigger dormant autoimmune conditions or make them worse. And I think that pregnancy did worsen my mother's ankylosing spondylitis. The pain now limits her physically. She hasn't even retired yet but worries about her not being able to travel and hike by the time she retires. I hate seeing her like in pain like that. Pregnancy and childbirth is a sacrifice. And it's not one every woman is going to be willing to make if it doesn't benefit or enrich their life. I see nothing wrong with that. I think women have to weigh things out and come to a decision based on their own circumstances.
I disagree that manhood is not synonymous with fatherhood. Henry VIII left the Roman Catholic Church so he could continue his quests to be a father, for goodness sake! Men build homes, hunt, grow food, prorect, empire build, go to war and ultimately sacrifice themselves for their descendents. It just looks different from the 'short-term' nurturing of motherhood...
@46.11 what was that quote? I cannot catch it.
"Marriage is best" [to raise children]. In theory, I agree, but as the interviewee said, marriage is only best if it's the best kind of marriage among two people with a healthy dynamic.
For this episode in particular, I feel there could be a great benefit from reaching out to the more rational people in the "Manosphere", for example Better Bachelor or Aaron Clarey.
Better Batchelor and Aaron Clarey are rational?
@@joygibbons5482 They aren't? Aaron is very abrasive though in his usual videos, but he has done very civil interviews in the past.
- But both of them mainly talk about why men are better off opting out of the dating-market as it is now.
Sadly Colttaine, one of the most intellectual people of that community isn't active anymore.
I feel so sorry for this women. However, I'm sure she's very happy. I get the impression she may be a victim of this modern, insular attitude people have adopted towards themselves. Sacrifice and responsibility for my wife and kids has been the most amazing journey, the best part of my life and it will be until the day i die. The pride, love and self-sacrifice for the people in my life, i could not imagine not having these things, although when i was 20 i could not have imagined feeling like this, infact my now wife rushed me into having kids, i felt as though i wasn't ready and would have delayed, but damn i wish i did it years earlier! We now have 2, wish we could have more....
Cooking them meals and giving up my time for them is something i would not swap, mopping up their sick, nursing them through illness, helping them through any kind of difficult times although dwindle into insignificance are part of the journey.
She seems to see all these things as a burden or a somehow lacking in value to existence.
she's trying to convince herself and others of her own follies, shes got no eggs left.. many women will wish it to happen to other women too so they dont feel alone, its disturbing.. men will usually tell other men not to make the same mistake, wimmin try sabotage other wimmin
You feel this way because you didn't have to birth them. Your wife feels the way she does, but will never admit it.
what the feck do u know luv? U go round telling everyone birth and family is wrong@@sarahrobertson634
@@sarahrobertson634 I think he's in a better position to know how his wife feels than you are.
@sarahrobertson634 Sarah, what happened to you in your childhood to make you so bitter!?
LP always questions if the material circumstances have any real bearing on having kids, vs purely culture, because ancestors had lots in tough conditions. I nvr rly get her point on this...ancestors had no choice in the matter, mystery solved. If they had a choice, would they have done differently from us? No.
Also, she said poorer ppl have more kids. I suspect she's probably imbibed Dutton's work moreso lately, the Heretic even mentioned he heard Louise discuss "Neo-Byzantium's," TM. Basically, lots of ppl have no idea what they're doing. No future planning, no particularly abstract thought processes. They have kids by accident, they do everything by accident. I'm not passing judgement, life's tough.
But, I don't think you can argue that their situation is indicative, of how some mere shift in thought processes for middle class would be sufficient, and conditions are just incidental. Conditions and financial strain ARE prohibitive, and sufficient disincentives for most ppl, and many still have kids anyway ONLY because they lack self-control and planning. When you're not impoverished, nor struggling middle class, that's different. THAT"S when cultural influence becomes relevant, the culture variable is only especially relevant imo for the upper middle class and above.
"Ancestors living in mud huts could do it," so brokeass lower middle class Londoners can do it, is not convincing. Ancestors often didn't want to, for good reason, same with struggling ppl today. Pls focus more on socioeconomic issues in future episodes, if the spirit so moves you lol.
Indeed. I often joke about what would happen if effective contraception was a historical constant. Either humankind would be a tiny fraction of what it it, the Idiocracy would have taken over, or the "Actually has sex to make babies" genes would be selected for.
Contraception has been around for much longer than people realise. Infant mortality was very high until a little over a century ago. So realistically you might need five babies to ensure two survived into adulthood.
@@grannyannie2948 Also infanticide was quite common in non-Christian societies. If people didn't want babies they just killed them.
sounds like abortion@@jenniferlawrence2701
@@jenniferlawrence2701 Yes, though I was thinking of western countries, some countries still have high infant mortality.
I would love to see a date between this guest and Erica Komisar. I’m very skeptical of what this guest blelieves against what Erica Komisar says.
I dont agree with this argument that it's just the pleasure of sex that makes us want to have sex or the feeling of belonging that makes us want family. Nature is very smart and gives us the highest drives when it comes to our survival and reproduction. We have high drives for sex and belonging because those are crucial for reproducing a successful generations of humans.
that woman is childless and trying to justify her choices and spread her misery to other women
You mean we might have higher brain development than rabbits??
Agree. The use and abuse of 'evo psych' as a modern day Just So story. Sex as solely pleasure seeking or self expression/realisation seems like a fairly thin understanding of human psychology when it comes to relationships or family formation. That said, even if it were true, the 'is' vs 'ought' question arises. So what if humans only had children by accidental offshoot of pleasure seeking sex... who cares? Is that going to inform how you live your life, or what values you pass on to your children?
Yeah, it is pretty obvious she is just trying to justify her wrong choice, @@spiff1.
Self correcting problem. With women that have lots of children, those children will have lots of children etc. The rest of the gene pool that does not have children will die off. Survival goes to the species needing the least resources to reproduce. Natural selection is a wonderful thing. We tried to control natural selection through arranged pairing for hundreds of years.
Her body, Her choice!
Her choice, Her responsibility!
The responsibility to with the choices she, and only she, gets to make!
Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood , for women. How about men?
Is any consent to parenthood required from him before she decides to give birth?
Her reproductive rights are all about her consent to parenthood - no consent, no parenthood.
Femunism, the movement of equal rights, 'forgot' to include men in their equality!
So I disagree with the guest but her bookshelf game seems top notch.
Survival brings us together
3rd estate would be a group! 13:47
The life of the mind? What does this mean?
Why is a person who is incapable of doing something as basic and simple and essential as shopping for and cooking a meal not laughed out of the studie?
I don't want to be a mother. I would hate to bring bullies, murderers, thieves, narcisstists, drunk drivers, religious people into the world. I do not want pregnancy, chikdbirth, breast-feeding. I dont want my kids to go to a christian school. I love my freedom. I am proudly childfree by choice at 58. I have lots of hobbies. I am not lonely
I often say "Why feed the system cannon fodder?"
I don't think it's counterintuitive that wealthier people have fewer kids. Wealth tends to be a proxy for education and one of the trade-offs (or benefit depending on who's asking) of achieving education is a delay in motherhood (eg., fewer teen moms but also fewer kids overall). Also, the more educated you become, the more expensive your time becomes. In other words, if I could earn money as a rocket scientist, then the value of my time off from work for maternity leave is more expensive than that same time if I had only graduated from high school. Lastly, one facet of education is understanding just how competitive and dog-eat-dog the world is, such that it makes more sense to concentrate your parental investment rather than to dilute it by having a ton of kids. This is especially true if the fathers in your setting are unreliable or unstable (sending large %s of men to fight in conflicts, for example)-----which is why many less developed countries are creeping toward lower birth rates as well. Edited for boo-boos.
Actually, if you divide it by gender, wealthier men have more children generally speaking
Also, men with higher education have lower childlessness
Wealthy people without college have the most children
Then comes wealthy people with college
Then not wealthy people and without college
Then not wealthy people but with college.
A good thought-experiment to test any proposed way of life is to ask "What if everyone did that?"
No, it's not. Everyone is different, and thus, what works for me might not work for you. I think you people just want to dictate how other people live their lives, which is pathetic! 😂
@@kaybrown7733 Who said anything about dictating to you how to live your life?
@@jenniferlawrence2701 Maybe you don't realize it, but what you're arguing for is conformity, which seeks to get others to confirm to what you consider desirable.
@@kaybrown7733 No, I'm arguing for a thought-experiment only. The answer to the question in that thought-experiment can be one thing among others that informs how we think about voluntary childlessness. I do not advocate bullying reluctant people into having children, if that's what you're implying.
@jenniferlawrence2701 it's not only about having kids. It includes all life decisions. Most people don't care about what everyone else chooses to do. We're simply doing what works for ourselves. So, asking what would happen if everyone made a choice has no influence on what we choose to do.
It might be good to make children a requirement to graduate with an education degree.
💘
Yes, childless minorities in a healthy society are the 'clerics,' who contribute in spite of not so obviously having a stake in the future.
Personally, I'm a 32 yr old man without a family, but I'm not resorting to donning the metaphorical monk's robe for at least a few more years.
in fact, be it male or female, this is even more noble given their genes won't get passed on, it's a rather selfless act to live alone and die alone while contributing so much of your life to the society, that said, no one really leaves behind their genes, we humans share tons of genes with each other and are more similar than the political divide is, especially those who are alone and suffering from being alone without blaming the society nor being an incel, those people have my respect in this age and in this world
It is amazing to hear the mental gymnastics that people will perform in order to validate themselves.
It is also fairly obvious to say but, statistics and their interpretation are not this lady’s strong point.
Love Louis. This guest, however… no thanks. I wonder if she is even aware of her bias and hubris. And if so, shame on her. She just sounds like an old woman who, over the years, has been able to craft a message that helps her cope in the world.
As a frequent commenter, I asked for a comment section this size for my amusement (5x bigger than before) and within a week or two, it magically appeared. Next, I would like a million dollars, US non-sequential.
after you reach 40 and after a certain number of men that you knew have taken their lives . You know the rest of that one.
Well after all that i have become less able to quietly ignore what your guest is saying
Why would you think the idea that nunneries are sites of intellectual activity is an idea to be laughed at?
i dont want to be a hater but Ruby's views are so... has she even thought about it AT ALL? complaining about men not having societal pressures to be fathers... um... enforced monogamy? pressure to marry? absolute responsibility, fiscally and physically, for their wife and children? having to go to war? a man's entire purpose is to make a safe world for mothers and men are OK with that social contract. it's only women who act like only they are hard done by, only they have expectations placed on them.
the brutal fact of the matter is that society needs children. we do not need women writing books, which is a luxury. we live in a post-total-freedom world now and need to snap out of it.
she talks about women being expected to be mothers with no guidance or help, and no government help or incentive. what planet is she on? the second a woman is pregnant she is surrounded by ppl who want to help and teach (not to mention give her free stuff) and there are loads of benefits for parents and children
I can't agree more. As Mark Steyn said, The future belongs to those who show up. Every future adult will be the result of people who Did have children.
shes a Feminist bro, theyve lost the plot
i don't disagree with you, but in my personal experience, people wouldn't even give up their seat for me on the train when i was 9 months pregnant, struggling to stand. mothers and families are so socially discarded by modern society. i was so utterly disgusted i almost swore at them all 😅
@@justathumb I remember being 25 and heavily pregnant and needing to catch a train to sign some mortgage papers. Nobody offered me a seat. And I got pushed getting out of the train by the swell us people rushing to exit the train. I twisted my knee and it's never fully recovered. But that was in a city.
I now live in a small seaside Australian rural town. In a small town life is so different. People are genuinely interested in other people, and pregnant women and young mothers are celebrated. And men and young women do take care of them. My conclusion is that people aren't really designed for cities. We are meant to be in villages.
I remember a lecture at university about a dreadful crime committed to a young woman in NY in the 60s. Apparently thousands watched but nobody intervened or even rang the police. Everyone assumed someone else would. And that's the problem with cities.
Exactly, we as humanity are starting to be so wealthy and so removed from our general nature that we're starting to question the very things that got us here, like having kids. It seems like a Chesteron's fence scenario played out at large scale.
I cringed when Ruby started talking about "the ideal normal" and "the values of 1950's". The topic of motherhood (to be or not to be) is so universal to women now, it seemed like a missed opportunity. Heterosexuality and motherhood are normal for the vast majority of us. It's how our species survives. Not having children when your culture deeply values large families, tradition, multiple generations living together, lineage, etc- it seems far easier to be single or woman without children in many parts of the west vs. the rest of the world. The "ideal normal" for most of us will be our communities, our own families.
Normal in the west to not have kids?
Japan and South Korea are in th east and have few kids.
Werent into beer aur footy!!!
I had a vasectomy in my late 20s because I was so certain I never wanted children. I would have had it much earlier if I'd had the health insurance and money for the deductible.
I am now in my late 40s and I can honestly say I have never, ever regretted my decision to remain child-free. In fact, this decision stands as one of the wisest and best I've ever made, and even more so than when I originally made it.
I can imagine no worse hell than having children, and my view of that has never changed.
"I can imagine no worse hell than having children, and my view of that has never changed."
Really? there's nothing worse than having kids?
@jesusmtz29 well of course there's stuff that's literally worse, like Soviet-era gulags or the Bataan death march. But in terms of my own life and the circumstances in which I could plausibly find myself, no, there would be nothing worse than having kids.
I don't think that people who don't want children should have them, but I do think they have an obligation to actively campaign in that instance against social retirement programs and welfare programs which act as a pyramid scheme that will be paid for by the people who are currently in their childhood. And I hope that when childless people reach the age where they are no longer able to care for themselves, they will find ways to manage, because a much smaller workforce is unlikely to decide its dream is to work in elder care.
By your attitude I would say you made the right decision. People like you worry me though. I’m going to have kids someday and I’m afraid to have them around people who so clearly hate children. It’s very weird when people say “I never regretted it for a second”. Some old dude came in to my office the other day and said that after talking to him for like 3 minutes. I was like “doth protest too much?”. But anyway, please for the rest of us, just be nice if you see children. Don’t treat them like bugs or parasites.
@@awsambdamanI'm fine with kids, I just don't want any of my own.
As long as there are babies in the world, those babies are going to inspire baby-fever in women (I think men can expereince something similar when they see older children.) Although our culture has stereotypes about women and motherhood, those stereotypes are largely based on biology.
I never had baby fever 😊
The childfree still see them as little more than screaming snot rockets.
@@beaulieuc8910 Me neither. Looking at babies does not ever make me want one of my own.
Thyroid glands n all... some people dont have the HOREMOANS FOR IT!!!!
As a mother I strongly believe there’s such thing as a maternal instinct, which is the result of giving birth and the chemical cocktail that we get in the process, same as other mammals. My female cat clearly has an instinct, which the male cat doesn’t. Which doesn’t mean gay men or other caregivers can’t get higher oxitocin levels when just looking at a baby.
I believe I read the study she cited when it was first reported in the guardian newspaper in support of the idea that maternal instinct is a myth. Wasn't impressed with it, can't now remember all the details (it was some time ago, if she's referring to the same one). Certainly the journalist reporting had an agenda.
The changes in women during pregnancy and motherhood quite obviously can't be replicated in men - hormones etc are acting on a female vs male biology for a start, and as I understand it that's actually important. Also ignores the perspective of the baby - admittedly hard to study but seemingly not a priority to try to consider for that researcher.
The way I see it this mindset links with Mary Harrington's idea about an emerging transhuman culture - biology should be mutable substrate, and it's unfortunate that mothers in particular seem to be at the sharp end of the shift.
@@littlelights6798 You two new to Louise? She's mentioned parts of her book where she's covered the drop in testosterone in fathers with close contact with their babies and happens after birth, which a bond ensues as well as a want to fill the father role. This advantageous adaptation was needed when the female pelvis narrowed and birth had to occur at 9 months instead of the natural 18 months, a baby 9 months more helpless than a baby born at 18 months. Where testosterone didn't drop, the father did not have the urge to protect the baby, so those genetic lines ended with death of baby so those fathers had no successful offspring. There is both maternal and paternal instinct, both of which feminist/marxists want to suppress via social conditioning.
@@thebluelunarmonkey hey :) yes I agree there's a drop in testosterone in fathers and that that will help with being interested in caring for their baby - I wouldn't dispute any of that. I suppose the point is that any such change in a father's physiology is not the same as the change in mother's (in that the various changes to a woman during pregnancy/birth/breastfeeding (if she chooses to) is not just a drop in testosterone). Even if there are similar changes - let's say women's testosterone drops, or men have an increase in oxytocin - those changes happen in male and female bodies, which I would guess (I'm not a specialist of course!) has a different impact, particularly when considering the hormonal profile in men and women is different to start with.
So I just don't think that the fact there may be changes in a gay man's hormone levels if he looks after a child, is the same as saying mothers simply don't have a maternal instinct that is in some way (possibly many ways) different.
I read that computers can accurately identity the difference between the brains of mothers and women who are not mothers based on the fact that mothers (during pregnancy) go through something like a second puberty, pruning the brain ready to optimise for caring, something that doesn't happen in fathers or women who are not mothers, either before or after birth.
So basically - yes, fathers also change and many attest to that felt sense of change after a child. I think something similar may happen in the gay dad situation. I don't accept that that is tantamount to saying that maternal instinct is a myth, or that mothers and fathers are exactly the same, or that any adult with care of a child is the same as a mother.
I also think this is very adult focused (what do women/men experience when looking after a baby) and fails to focus on the needs of the baby - which I would say is for its mother primarily particularly in the early years, mother and father ideally, and as a poorer substitute an alternative caring adult.
Wasn't intending to dunk on dads.
@@littlelights6798 I'd expect the same T drop in gay fathers if they adopt an infant. And lack of a drop in men who aren't around when a baby is born. Agree to your other points
The risk is that it can happen. However, there is no insurance policy on it.
With respect, I reckon the word 'a-re-productive" is like trying to juggle three eggs with one arm tied behind your back. What about 'non-maternal' ?
45 happily childfree (never had that urge to breed) solo (as Bella de Paulo states im single at heart) never married (dont believe in a patriarchal invention) and especially now I feel so lucky to be in my position especially looking at how exhausted and unhappy so many of my peers are, working and still doing the lions share of emotional, domestic and parenting labour at home...often on top of that having husbands that are essentially an additional child. My complete financial independence is a freedom second to none.
I'm glad you're happy, but this is my idea of hell (with the exception of financial independence, which is an area I've never struggled with anyway). Helping and caring for others is my main joy in life, even more so than the art that is my work.
@doetodeer being unmarried and without children does not mean you don't care for people. I work in disability and mental health supporting some of the most vulnerable people, and my circumstances are allowing me to go back to uni for the 3rd time to allow me to do this even better, I have a great set of friends and extended family and I love my pets. You're right everyone different but it's such a major issue with society that especially for woman connection and caring only matter when it's for a man and kids. The nuclear family is actually incredibly isolating and one of the reasons so many people are struggling. I would highly encourage you to expand who is important and what caring for others means. I also fully believe if you're not comfortable with your own company every relationship there is a little of I'm with them because I'm scared of being alone....if you're comfortable with yourself then every type of relationship you can actively choose rather than even if it's justba little bit being driven by fear of being alone.
We are missing the community web but the nuclear family is not inherently isolating, @@Bella34544.
Go watch Alex Clark's lengthy but fascinating interview with Jefferson Bethke to learn more.
Great conversation but Ruby seems very biased in her opinions. Everything about having babies isn't doom and gloom, also having baby is a lifelong decision - yes, but so is not having a baby, so weighing up whether you want family or not isn't just a choice between a lifelong sacrifice and a lifelong freedom, but I felt she was trying to paint it that way.
Your voice puts me to sleep, thank you
i would be so much more sympathetic to the non-natalist types if they would just acknowledge that they are biological creatures. you might decide otherwise (or life decides for you) but that does not magically vanish the biological urge and the civic responsibility to have children. all of the post-modern thought (read: people with aspergers trying to rationalise away the reality of their physical body) comes up with all these new labels and euphemisms and ultimately... copes.
11:07 economic considerations is such bollocks. for the vast majority of people who ever lived, they were below what we would think of as absolute impoverishment now. what she really means is "many people are too selfish to take a hit to their quality of life and luxury in exchange for making a family"
same old absolutist thinking. giving the example of "some marriages do more harm than good". WOW YES it's not a 100% perfect solution... so?? it's the least-worst one. this isn't difficult to comprehend. then moaning about how everyone pins the blame on women... well duh, women choose who gets access and who gets to date. men need to grow up, sure, but women are not rewarding the grown-up family men they are choosing poorly.
I can't agree more. Especially about economic reasons. For example in the 70s and 80s parents thought nothing of children sharing bedrooms with siblings. Today I know parents who feel they are bad parents because their kids share a bedroom. And yet a century ago entire families lived in one or two rooms, and thought nothing of it. One of my female ancestors was living in a tent when she gave birth to her fourth child. Her husband was working on a railway and they were saving money to buy a farm which they succeeded in doing. Had she thought differently I wouldn't be here.
they aint biological creatures, theyre gods who are above nature
@@grannyannie2948 In the 70s and 80s me, and my now husband both spent time living in squats with our hippy parents (and neither of us were planned) - and in fact ended up far less spoiled and entitled than many kids today - maybe it was these little bits of hardship that actually set us up for dealing with real life. We have tried to bring up our kids up to NOT value comfort and money too much but with the emotional security of a stable two parent family
Yeah, kids do not need all the bells and whistles of material life but a pair of loving and caring parents.
@@hollythebordercollie2257 Wow my parents were hippies as well. Not in squates, we had a house. But we grew food, and kept poultry and we had a house cow for a while.
Whats CHRISTIANITY got to do with all this??? 11:27
She actually asked, "How do we explain homosexuality...and non-reproductive sex?" Perhaps a male scientist could explain it to her? Nah, she'll just argue and not understand.
She'll say he's MANSPLAINING
I definitely could never have children even if I wanted to -- women won't even look at me. This goes for probably north of 50% of men these days.
Why do you think that is?
Do they consider you to be too poor and/or unattractive?
Physically unattractive for sure. I don't even get to the part where words are exchanged because my lacking looks are too great a barrier.
She made no sense
The Hugh number of childless by circumstance are the ramification of feminism particularly women entering the workforce in mass lowering the family wage leaving men economically unattractive.The two states women said was oppressive was a mother and wife.
How has women entering the workforce lowered wages? The economy isn’t a fixed size, it grows with higher economic activity
@@joygibbons5482 It’s simple supply and demand corporations helped funding feminism because they was aware more labour means more productivity at a lower wage this also applies to many other things like housing families of the past predominantly would buy a family home as a unit now many single men and women are competing for houses so prices can go up for smaller homes.
18:00 Let's watch Ruby make herself look dumb with her snarky comment. But she's not important, what Louise said just after wondered is important: We don't hear about childless men because society doesn't care about childless men. It's not men's longer fertility window. There's a sizable percentage of the male population society considers disposable.
People who don't have children are completely irrelevent within 1 generation LOL! Have no children to your own sweet demise, the world keeps on ticking
Good riddance, the gene pool doesn't need any more pee.
Actually even those who claim wanting to reproduce will face fewer and fewer chances to do so. Fertility will continue to decline inevitably. Sexual reproduction is obsolete. Do not worry, new mutations will take our place. 😅
@lemoneyesalt5513 Can you name your ancestors going back several generations? Do you know what each of them did specifically? Your ancestors are irrelevant to you in the sense that you don’t even know who they are besides a last name. Unless you accomplish something exceptional that goes in the history books, the world will keep on ticking once you die anyway. Majority of people are just average & will be forgotten within a few generations whether or not they have kids. Then there’s world famous childfree people ranging from Leo DiCaprio to Nikola Tesla who will probably be remembered forever. Life is funny that way,
@@gigiarroyo3939 You are incredibly wrong in your assumption, it is common for people to have a long list of recorded ancestors if that is culturally important within their cultural group, I personally have a record of almost all my ancestors going back to the 1700s, and many of whom a recorded profession. If you do not have children, your family line will die, and that is how it works! The contributions of geniuses are in major benefit to their people, so if you can manage to make such a large contribution to the world, your extended family and ethnicity will benefit from this and have kids on your behalf, such as nitrogen use in agriculture leading to a population explosion, having a name associated with something is not important in the future, rather what you do, and what you can do in the future, either through an extension of yourself, that being your children or your people, or through a major technological or cultural addition for your people. In both cases having children ultimately leads to more contribution in the long term.
I dont think dating is meant to find a good husband/father material!
I think it used to be. But today it seems to be a euphemism for casual sex.
hahahaaha so how do u find good husband material if you dont date? Close your eyes, spin in a circle and point then open your eyes and whoever it lands on, thats the one for you
@@spiff1 Just get to know them in social settings - that's what people used to do
met tonnes, they easy lays, good for fun, not good for mothering@@hollythebordercollie2257
...What on Earth are you talking about???
Yes, dating IS to find your spouse!
You can’t impress me by writing 6 books. But you can impress me if you’ve raised 6 children
Good for you
Yeah... Birthing six is just shows your engagement to the genetic imperative. Not impressed at all. Sorry 😅
First time I've seen mascara make a woman look worse
she got poisoned, perhaps?
Useless comment.
No need for rude comments.
but accurate lol look at her mascara, and tell me it doesnt look ridiculous@@4651adri
You know I'm right lol look at the mascara again, go on hahaha @@jenniferlawrence2701
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness - a good read. Dozens of excuses, but missing the main one: accountability. No acknowledgment that perhaps I could have made different decisions and didn’t prioritize becoming a mother (the aspects that I can control).
Well, masses of women can take a creampie from a deadbeat. However, there is only so much..