Feminists Silent On Call For Global One-Child Policy

Great policy. And then we have television glorifying human rabbits called the Duggars (Dungbats) who are currently working on child # 20. In the black inner city communities in this country it is the thing to do for your girls to start having children at 15 and as many as possible

Reply

Perhaps there has been no outcry because the idea is too stupid and absurd to respond to.

Reply

I think it makes a lot of sense; there's a point at which you have to stifle your pride and belief of "i want a big family, will my big family really make a world difference" and humbly understand that it's going to take a huge step like this to actually curb our overpopulation (which technically, our world is already populated beyond it's natural means) and get some progress in a direction towards sustainability. More children doesn't mean more happiness, certainly not statistically- children are the main motivator of marital dissatisfaction, which keeps going upwards until they move out. If people can't see any personal responsibilities in world problems like this then their children will be the ones struggling to live in our strung-out world. We could make these decisions now to make a better living environment and financial outlook for our children.

Reply

"But even more difficult for me to swallow as a pro-life feminist " If you were truly pro-life I think you'd be adopting all the children no one wants in the foster care and adoption system and not adding more to the population.


I have to agree - no one probably addressed because it's a bit absurd (not the overpopulation but the need to be concerned about one child-policy in this country). Clearly Rachel chose to address this so she could turn it into an anti-choice soapbox.

Reply

Thank you for an excellent article. I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of some in the feminist movement. I also consider myself a pro-life feminist and I appreciate your comments.

Reply

I am appalled by the comments here.

I honestly cannot believe that any of you are actually FOR a one-child policy. Do you understand the ramifications of that? Do any of you actually understand what happens in China because of that policy? Do you understand that, for many women, abortions are not just a "choice", but FORCED? Many women are rendered infertile because they endure forced inducements and forced abortions. Sexual slavery is a result of this glorious "one-child policy". Female children are stolen and often killed. It is oppressive, the most insidious invasion of privacy that there is, and all of you are applauding it?

I agree with Rachel. Regardless of how you feel about large families, you cannot call yourself a "feminist" and then turn a blind eye to the horrors that happen in China. And if you think "it can't happen here", you are a fool. It CAN happen, because all of you wish to stick your heads in the sand and glorify things like Socialism and Communism.

Reply

Here is an example of your "great policy".

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/Forced_Abortion.html

Happy reading. I hope it gives you nightmares.

Reply

Obviously you (RCD) don't lie awake at nights worrying about the staggering impacts on the world's ecosystems of six-billion-plus humans! Hopefully, your brood, when they do mature, will end up showing more sensitivity to such matters and higher IQ levels than you display with this pathetic piece of writing.

Diane F. is to be congratulated for broaching a subject and a problem (overpopulation) that far too many are totally ignorant of, or completely uncaring about - as witness so much of the commentary on this and other websites. Really pathetic.

And while I am at it, thank God I don't live in the U.S! While the reaction to Diane's piece elsewhere has been disappointing, it does not approach the demented lunacy on the subject that eminates from many American sources. Read somewhere not long ago that most Americans still believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, and that that is when the dinosaurs roamed the world. I think I am beginning to understand now. Come to think of it, RCD, will that be you next topic here?? It would fit right in with what you have written above!

Reply

What the hell is this world coming to, seriously?

Reply

There probably has not been much of a reaction because everyone knows there is no way there will ever be a Global one child policy.

Although I see the good sides of a one child policy, I still believe people should be able to make this choice for themselves.

Many people in China actually agree with the policy because they know that if it had not been implemented China would have huge overpopulation problems.

Reply

1) Doesn't anyone remember that they were spouting the same nonsense about overpopulation in the 1970's? If they had been right, the world population would be about 20B by now. Hmm.

2) The US has an almost perfect birth rate. Meaning that if left alone, it will ensure there are always enough (but not too many) young people to take care of the old people.

3) A preference or requirement for smaller families has led to significant problems in many countries.

4) I would not put it past the militant politicians in our government to implement forced abortions and sterilizations. I don't think that's off-the-wall at all. What exactly can anyone point to that proves the US anti-child activists in politics are any less callous than those in China? I mean, how many times have I logged onto the internet to find hundreds of angry people declaring that someone or other should abort / should have aborted / should have been forced to abort?

5) It doesn't surprise me one bit that the so-called "feminists" prove to be in reality anti-choice. One wonders what could be motivating this - payoffs by abortion clinics? Hate for feminine women? Hate for children? Hate for their own womanhood? Mass stupidity? Who knows?

Reply

For the reasons SKL covered in her post, a one child policy makes no sense. Furthermore, biology takes care of the population. There's a 50/50 chance of a woman giving birth to boy or girl baby, thus balancing the population as far as gender is concerned. And a woman only has so many fertile years and in those years, can only conceive a limited number of children. I don't see a problem here.

I'm just wondering the real reason why RCD decided to discuss such a depressing topic two days before Christmas? I can only assume it is to once again draw attention to the fact that she is going to have SIX kids. WOW, the Brady Bunch, blah, blah, blah...

Why does someone deserve a medal for having relations several times while ovulating? If I wanted to, I could have had my body conceive 10 or more kids. I could still have more if I wanted to. But having lots of kids doesn't make someone a better parent or a better person. As far as God is concerned, I'm sure he would rather see be an excellent parent to the 4 kids I have, instead of continuing to be fruitful and multiply to the extent I can't have any one-on-one time with my kids.

Contrary to what RCD says, I know several families who have 6-10 kids, and they are not looked down upon when they are with their "brood" in public. Negative comments are few and far between. In fact, they get plenty of attention and hand-outs because of the fact they have so many kids. Grandmothers, cashiers, and strangers in particular like to stare in awe at these mothers and their babes in tow. I know this because as a mother of ONLY 4 kids, I have people say to me things like "Are these all yours?" "Oh, what a beautiful family you have. You must be soooo busy!", but NEVER have I been accused of overpopulating the earth. There's women like Michelle Duggar (and maybe Rachel) who keep breeding to fulfill their OWN needs of attention--from both the public and the undeniable attention a baby gives its mother--and then uses God to justify their decisions to have more.

What ever happened to the articles about family holiday traditions like cutting down the Christmas tree, or issues regarding child-rearing, organizing and meal planning? Like the ones in Rachel's AOL videos. This blog has become a predictable one--all doom and gloom. Merry Christmas.

Reply

These have been some great posts and I'm enjoying reading them. I agree with Rachel in that it is downright wrong for anyone calling themselves a feminist to stay silent on the issue of forced reproductive control. However, I also agree that we need to stop breeding so much; Homo sapien have become a pest species whether you care to admit it or not. The problem is how to go about rectifying it. You cannot legislate morality. Therefore, you cannot force humans to stop breeding. The only way to properly address this situation is for people to choose to have smaller families. Most Americans are. Feminists need to address this issue and not sweep it under the rug.

Reply

Please, PLEASE do not equate this woman with all feminists. She lies far outside of mainstream, liberal, and even radical feminism, all three of which seek to protect a woman's right to CHOOSE--whether that choice is to KEEP a pregnancy or not to. Freedom of choice means the freedom to have control over your reproductive capacities, and the freedom to have as many children as you desire. Of course I might not agree with families that have 19 children on ecological and economic grounds, but I will always defend the mother's right to have those children if she desires.

Reply

I am an American who a) has lots of siblings and b) happens to live in Mainland China, so I understand the implications of both scenarios.

The one-child policy is not cut-and-dry here. In rural China, many, many families have two or more kids, and the village authorities look the other way or get paid off. In urban centers like Shanghai and Beijing, having one child is the social norm, whether a couple wants two, or none! Lots of couples whom I personally know have their one baby at the right age, whether they want it or not, and the baby is then raised by grandparents or the maid while the parents attend to their careers and social lives. Also, couples who are both only children are allowed to have two, yet many do not, and I believe it is because it would make them stand out socially. I am a stay-home mom here, and many people here can't understand why I don't just hand my kid over to a maid and just get on with my own life.

While realistically it was probably important to stem population growth during China's plights of the last century, and most people here 'agree' with it (probably because they know no different), the policy has definitely created some pretty big social problems in China, like "little emperor syndrome" among all the only children, and huge pressures on these kids to support and attend to two parents and two sets of grandparents on their own.

In short, my point is that a society, when forced to live under such severe constraints, becomes dysfunctional and weird in a lot of ways. Kids call their cousins "brother" and "sister" here. If they have cousins at all. This does not mean I believe very large families are always a great idea, especially in developing countries where women's lack of access to birth control is usually the culprit.

I don't know what I would do without my sisters, but I also think it's ok to have one kid if you want. All people should be able to make this choice for themselves. And all women should have an equal say and power in family planning.

Reply

With all this talk about people having larger families to get attention, etc., I just have to respond. My mom had 6 kids. At least the last 3 were unplanned. My mom was very fertile and unable to tolerate most forms of birth control, and those she could tolerate were not 100% effective (not that any are). Like most women who are not subjected to negative pressure/coercion, upon finding herself pregnant, she quickly got excited about having another baby. But the idea that having 6 kids was a publicity stunt is just ridiculous. There would have been a lot more if my parents had so desired. I am sure my mom isn't the only American woman who has chosen to accept and celebrate an unplanned baby (or several), even in this day and age.

The size of one's family is a private matter. The opposite of a publicity stunt, except maybe for a few odd people.

Also, the reason why we have a near-perfect birth rate in the US is that for every family that has upwards of 5 kids, there are many, many couples who have 1 or 0. It balances out. If you were to limit the number to anything less than 4 or 5, you would end up with too small an average. And a limit to anything over 3 or 4 would be environmentally irrelevant, considering the small percentage of families that intentionally go beyond that nowadays. So while a limit would not have a positive impact on the environment (in the US at least), it would clearly have a negative impact on human rights. Anyone who insists otherwise is just ignorant.

Another consideration is that the people who would be most hurt by such a policy would be the most poor, and often minority populations. This would amount to genocide. To exempt the "unfortunates" from the policy (the usual liberal fix) would be to render the policy environmentally irrelevant.

For those of you who basically just want to see the Duggars and Octomom go away regardless of all the above, you need to get a life.

Reply

Well a one-child policy would be good in overpopulated countries or countries where the population is growing too fast but not really in occidental countries, because large families are "balanced" by only children and child-free people.

And while I strongly disagree with the way that policy is enforced in China, it doesn't mean the policy itself is bad. If you think it's ok for everyone on the planet to have 20 children then you agree for your kids and their kids to live in a hellish world with no ressources and that's too bad for them.

It's very restrictive and invasive to put a policy on the acceptable number of children, but on the other hand it IS necessary at some point. Overpopulation is a threat to the world. And if all the money goes into help for abortion, maybe it's because it helps regulating the population too, starting with the people who don't want those children.

Reply