WATCH: Oh, Kmart!
Pamela Poole: Talk About a Choking Hazard! What I Never Expected to…
Feminists Silent On Call For Global One-Child Policy
Filed under: Opinions
In a recent op-ed in the Canadian National Post, editor-at-large Diane Francis calls on world leaders, especially those attending the UN's Copenhagen Conference, to consider the environmental virtues of China's one-child policy. According to Francis, only government mandated policies restricting women's rights to reproduce will save the planet from what she believes will be an unsustainable global population of 9 billion by the year 2050.
As a mom of soon-to-be six kids, I am always fascinated and concerned by environmental fundamentalism and its propensity to see and treat children of large families as environmental "terrorists" guilty of violating some arbitrary carbon footprint quota. (You wouldn't believe how many moms I know who have been accosted by strangers and scolded for having a big brood.)
But even more difficult for me to swallow as a pro-life feminist is the deafening silence coming from the feminist establishment itself with regard to this outrageous op-ed. To date, despite the attention Francis' comments have received in both the Canadian and the U.S. media, I could not find a single statement from any of the prominent national women's organizations specifically denouncing Francis or her scandalous position. And while the Center for Reproductive Rights has addressed China's dehumanizing reproductive policies, it's list of accomplishments is almost entirely devoted to expanding abortion rights -- especially abroad -- and makes no mention of any work on China's one-child policy. Meanwhile, the Web site for the National Organization for Women actually has a "Media Hall of Shame" section, but there's nothing about Francis' comments. However, Burger King gets a mention for racy Internet commercials, as does Law and Order for an episode where a murdered abortion doctor is referred to as a "baby killer."
Right now, both organizations are heavily invested in the national health care debate. Specifically, they are very actively fighting amendments in the health care bill that would restrict government funding of abortion. The message these groups send women is that reproductive freedom and the energy and resources of the organizations charged with protecting those freedoms can only be counted on when what's in jeopardy is the freedom to kill one's child (or have the government pay for it). When it comes to the freedom to procreate without government or societal reprobation, these supposedly "pro-women" groups send a very clear message to women, and mothers in particular: In this battle, you are on your own.
Right now, both organizations are heavily invested in the national health care debate. Specifically, they are very actively fighting amendments in the health care bill that would restrict government funding of abortion. The message these groups send women is that reproductive freedom and the energy and resources of the organizations charged with protecting those freedoms can only be counted on when what's in jeopardy is the freedom to kill one's child (or have the government pay for it). When it comes to the freedom to procreate without government or societal reprobation, these supposedly "pro-women" groups send a very clear message to women, and mothers in particular: In this battle, you are on your own.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
RelatedVideos
-
Woman Who Donated Eggs For Cash Doesn't Regret Decision
There are many misconceptions about the dollars & cents involved in third-party reproduction. Treating infertility can be both expensive and emotionally difficult for couples in need. Surrogates and egg donors weigh in on joys and the obstacles. Guest Jasmine Stein shares her story.
-
Jenni Pulos Reveals the Best and Worst Pregnancy Advice
When 'Bravo' star Jenni Pulos stopped by the OK! offices, she filled us in on the best and worst advice she's gotten about pregnancy. Also, listen to the one thing you can stop telling her now about having a baby.
-
Banned Morning Sickness Pill Back on Market
The Food and Drug Administration has put a previously banned morning sickness drug back on the market. Find out why.
-
Explaining Feminine Products to Children
Moms: Has your child stumbled upon one of your tampons or pads? Learn how to talk to them about your feminine products.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 3 of 3)
12-29-2009 @ 11:02PM
Sara S said...I think sometimes in the feminist movement the focus is in freedom. When I became pregnant in my 20s and was not married, every woman I encountered wanted me to know that I had choices, and those "choices" were to end the pregnancy. I did not encounter 1 person who suggested I could keep the child. The focus was on my not being tied down to a challenging situation. I believe there is a feeling that if a woman does not have a large family, she has more freedom. The idea that a woman would want to choose children just doesn't seem to cross folks' minds.
Reply
12-30-2009 @ 5:27PM
paula said...Thank you Rachel for writing about this.
With a "one child policy" in China, and most families only wanting a boy, lots of girls are killed every year because of this.
Not only that, in a few short years, the "one-child policy" generation that is growing up without siblings will also not have any cousins.
And with so many more boys than girls surving the one-child policy, how will the hetero boys marry?
No goverment should decide how many children women should be allowed to have.
What they should do is to improve the living and educational conditions where poor-striken large families are, so they have something else to do besides engaging in intercourse.
Also, the desire for large families is very noble and should not destroyed. Families who wish to have large families or struggle to conceive should not have to face sooooooo many difficulties and absurdly expensive fees in order to adopt.
Adoption, being "birthed from the heart", should be better explored as a venue to expanding one's desire to have a large family.
No government should say how many children you are allowed to have.
Having one child only, does not guarantee that you will be raising more caring or respectful individuals, or that it will solve any problems.
If anything, it will only strengthen the individualistic and uncaring society that we live in.
That's my 2 cents.
Reply
1-04-2010 @ 9:08PM
Sifrina said...Paula - You say : "Having one child only, does not guarantee that you will be raising more caring or respectful individuals, or that it will solve any problems...If anything, it will only strengthen the individualistic and uncaring society that we live in."
While I agree with some of the other points you make, you are simply incorrect and judgmental to say that my (or anyone else's) having one child is something that "will only strengthen the individualist and uncaring society that we live in." My husband and my son are only children and are among the most caring people I know. It isn't hard to figure out why - my son receives so much loving care and attention from us, which is what every child craves and needs to be a contributing member of society. Every day we show our son how to be a good citizen and how to give back to society. He has asked me if he can volunteer to work at the homeless shelter with me and is aware of the amount of money we budget to give away every year. These are our values and, importantly, the values of many other families - big, medium and small.
If you want to adopt lots of children, more power to you if it's in the best interest of the children. You are entitled to your “2 cents” but it's just as wrong for you to negatively comment on the size of other people's families as it is for any Government to dictate family size. You are essentially doing the very thing you rail against which I find very hypocritical.
Reply
1-05-2010 @ 10:00AM
PunditMomJoanne Bamberger said...The "silence" may be because there isn't any awareness of this op-ed. This is the first I am hearing of it. And as a pro-choice feminist and adoptive mother of a daughter from China, I am guessing that those without real experience with the "one-child" policy in China don't fully understand the horrible, unintended consequences of the policy.
Yes, women's organizations should be more focused on what the one-child policy in China has done to women and girls in China, but I would definitelt hesitate to say they support it.
While population control is fair topic to discuss in connection with world resources, it truly would be a slippery slope to encourage more governmental one-child policies.
Reply
1-05-2010 @ 1:53PM
Sandyone said..."The "silence" may be because there isn't any awareness of this op-ed. "
There is plenty of awareness...they're just not talking about it or outraged by it.
That's the hypocrisy of it. NOW and NARAL are fully aware of Francis' statement. They're just choosing not to address it.
1-06-2010 @ 8:46AM
Jamie said...Sandyone - unless you area member of NOW or NARL how do you know they are aware?
Feminists and their groups who are just hearing about this find it ridiculous - because most feminists are PRO-CHOICE - which means choosing what they want to do with their bodies - whether it be to bear children or not bear children and how many.
In reality, yes, we need to be careful of how many children we have because we are destroying the earth as we speak but clearly a one-child per family law would never fly here thanks to Feminist groups standing up for a woman's right to choose. But most people have to realize we honestly cannot each have 5, 6 16, children - the earth just cannot support that type of population. Hopefully most people have common sense and concern for our children and grandchildrens' futures and won't procreate wily nily.
1-07-2010 @ 7:19AM
Sandyone said...It seems that it's primarily the pro-choice feminists who haven't heard of Francis' comments. We pro-lifers learned of them pretty shortly after they left her lips. Why? Because pro-life organizations make it their business to keep up to date and on the watch for life issues and 'choice' issues.
Anyone who believes that NOW or NARAL has only just recently heard of her comments (and still, I find nothing on their websites concerning this disgusting attack on the concept of choice in reproduction) is being awfully naive or awfully generous. It is the job of NOW and NARAL to be watchdogs over the concept of choice. No, these groups heard of the comments and just chose not to address them. They come out swinging against anything they consider to be a threat to abortion, but other choices aren't really so important to them.
If you just read the comments in this thread, you see that most people, even the pro-choice ones (especially? I'm not going to write down the numbers and figure the stats, but it's enough of them to make me notice), are of the idea that just one or two kids is a really good idea. Perhaps the govt shouldn't force it on its citizens, but the hearts and minds of people should definitely be steered that way. And a quick look at the thread on the mother of 9 who was sterilized against her will and without her knowledge shows an awful lot of pro-choicers who don't seem to care that this particular woman's choice was taken away. It's all very peculiar. 'Choice' isn't what really matters.
1-06-2010 @ 3:39PM
Melanie said...The idea that people shouldn't be having as many children is not entirely without merit. Ostensibly, an increased population does put a great strain on resources and the environment. Having said that, I still think it is important to note that a one child mandate is dangerous. Another thing you forgot to mention Rachel was the black market that children are sometimes sold through in China. Often because of China's one child policy, children are sold by their parents or are kidnapped to be sold on the black market.
Reply
1-08-2010 @ 2:14PM
SKL said...I may need to change my mind about this issue - maybe we should be able to tell people in poor countries how many kids they can have.
This week's global warming scare in the US has me thinking a lot. As I am required to wear multiple layers of clothes just to stay alive through a 10-minute walk, and risk my life everytime I get close to a street, and various other facts of life that we hardy Midwesterners are resigned to, I find it ironic that the "compassionate" people in this world think my winters should be even colder, that even more people should die from the winter elements, out of compassion for people who live in relative climactic comfort near the equator.
But if they are right - if my lifestyle should be regulated in order to reduce my carbon footprint and theoretically (debunked theory, but they won't let it go) prevent a few mud huts from needing to be relocated further back from the present shoreline in the next century, then by golly, I have a right to make their lifestyle choices for them. They should not be able to have any children at all until all the orphans in their land have a decent home. And then, if that ever happens, they can then give birth to one child IF they can support it and send it to school through college.
Either that, or they can come to the US and brave a Midwestern winter and contemplate the evils of global warming.
Reply
3-09-2010 @ 5:32PM
JANA said...Why is there always someone or some group that is always trying to oppose God. God gave us life and the will to make decisions on our own whether good or evil. Without procreation none of us would be here today. If someone wants or believes she should have one child, that is her choice nobody else's. As for abortion, those who choose this decision will have to answer to God on judgement day whether society or our government ok's this form of murder. Those in government who vote "yes" for abortion will also have to answer for their part in all the chosen murders. As for China, why should any government be allowed to force this choice on all their women? Pharoah tried this similar number on the Hebrews with the baby boys because the Hebrews were outnumbering the Egyptians. He ended up loosing his first born and eventually his life for thinking he could go up against God. You may not think this has anything to do with you article, but I'm tired of people taking God out of all the decisions. This has lead to all these immoral thoughts and actions.
Reply
4-12-2010 @ 1:47AM
anon101 said...anyone who doesn't realise that humanity is killing the panet and the only way to solve this population is a rapid and massive decrease in our population is either uninformed or willfully ignorant. so you're worried about your rights to carry on blasting out kids? what about the right of the earths biosphere to carry on existing? cut your carbon footprint and recycle all you want the fact of the matter is it wont help enough to make a difference.
ABORTION IS GREEN
Reply