The contempt for "breeders"

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

Anyway, here is the past weekend’s WND column entitled “The Contempt for ‘Breeders.’“

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

The reader responded incredulously. “‘Is this a mistake?’ … That’s how the left sees children, isn’t it?”

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

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

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

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

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

Why? Because so many progressives hate “breeders.”

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

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

Or do they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When pressed to verbalize their objection to large families (or children in general), many progressives fall back on the “It’s bad for the environment” argument, though they’re curiously silent about the huge number of children the afore-mentioned immigrants have. More and more progressives are electing to remain childless or forego biological children:

• Women who refuse to have babies — to save the planet
• Having children is one of the most destructive things you can to do the environment, say researchers
• Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?
• I’m an environmentalist and I’m not having kids
• My uterus is officially closed for business and I have no regrets

Consider this tweet from Comedy Central comedienne Nikki Glaser (since deleted): “Don Jr. and his wife have five kids. No one should be having five kids. Why are people still allowed to have five kids?”

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

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

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

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