Going abroad allowed me to see another country’s media, and I loved being able to sample all the newspapers in Britain. The other day (here) I reported on a hostile account of Eric Hobsbawm’s life from the Daily Mail, which surprised me as for some reason I had thought of it as left-leaning. Today I want to report on something from The (London) Times, which I think of as right-leaning. But that didn’t stop them from having a big article the other day (Sept. 29 – here) entitled “‘Why Have Kids?’ Asks the Feminist Fighting the Cult of Motherhood.” The article talks about a new book by feminist Jessica Valenti and says that “she talks about the thousands of anonymous confessions on discussions boards, websites and forums that articulate what many women think but dare not say out loud.”
Yes, that is what the article said. In spite of the fact that women have been daring to say this out loud for several decades now, going back to the 1970s, we are still being told that somehow women don’t have a voice on this issue. I’m surprised the article didn’t use the phrase “breaking the silence.”
Yet what is astonishing here is the bubble that feminists like Valenti live in. There is not the slightest indication in the article that she has ever heard of Mark Steyn or thought about his ideas on the shrinking native population of Europe and what that entails for its future. What it entails, given the lack of interest on the part of native Europeans in perpetuating their own kind, is that others who have moved in and are having more children will own the future of Europe. And since they think little of present-day Europe, with its feminism and what not, one can guarantee that feminism won’t be around in Europe fifty years from now (unless a drastic change of heart comes over the native European population).
The bubble that Valenti lives in keeps people like Steyn out, and so she doesn’t talk about him. (I looked up her book on Amazon and did a search for his name; just as I expected, nothing came up.) Accordingly, when people like her run across his ideas, they just seem utterly strange, as though he were from an alien planet. They don’t even seem worth refuting, except with a snide remark. I run into the same thing when I talk to some of my acquaintances about the dangers of the Muslim problem. They just find it hard to take me seriously, despite the carefully-crafted arguments I give them. I'll admit that Valenti is an American, and we Americans don't have the problem to the same extent that Europeans have, but it is still a possibility for us, and anyway a Muslim Europe is about as attractive an idea as a Nazi Europe.
Accordingly, any feminist who has read Steyn should be able to figure out the best reason for a feminist to have kids: it is simply to perpetuate her own ideas about the world and her own ideas about how to live one’s life. If you let others have all the children, then those others will eventually dominate with their own ideas about the world and life. It is true that the children of these people may find themselves at odds with the “real” world when they get to school, but in fact our schools seem very “soggy” about this sort of thing. They seem more interested in attacking racism than defending feminism from reactionary immigrants. Plus, lots of these children will not go to public schools anyway. At some point, a large minority or even a majority of the population will reject all the feminism that our liberals and leftists hold dear, and all the laws on the books won’t be able to prevent a reactionary turn in our culture.
This is one of many reasons why it is such a bad idea for liberals and leftists to be empowering Muslim reactionaries.
Yes, that is what the article said. In spite of the fact that women have been daring to say this out loud for several decades now, going back to the 1970s, we are still being told that somehow women don’t have a voice on this issue. I’m surprised the article didn’t use the phrase “breaking the silence.”
Yet what is astonishing here is the bubble that feminists like Valenti live in. There is not the slightest indication in the article that she has ever heard of Mark Steyn or thought about his ideas on the shrinking native population of Europe and what that entails for its future. What it entails, given the lack of interest on the part of native Europeans in perpetuating their own kind, is that others who have moved in and are having more children will own the future of Europe. And since they think little of present-day Europe, with its feminism and what not, one can guarantee that feminism won’t be around in Europe fifty years from now (unless a drastic change of heart comes over the native European population).
The bubble that Valenti lives in keeps people like Steyn out, and so she doesn’t talk about him. (I looked up her book on Amazon and did a search for his name; just as I expected, nothing came up.) Accordingly, when people like her run across his ideas, they just seem utterly strange, as though he were from an alien planet. They don’t even seem worth refuting, except with a snide remark. I run into the same thing when I talk to some of my acquaintances about the dangers of the Muslim problem. They just find it hard to take me seriously, despite the carefully-crafted arguments I give them. I'll admit that Valenti is an American, and we Americans don't have the problem to the same extent that Europeans have, but it is still a possibility for us, and anyway a Muslim Europe is about as attractive an idea as a Nazi Europe.
Accordingly, any feminist who has read Steyn should be able to figure out the best reason for a feminist to have kids: it is simply to perpetuate her own ideas about the world and her own ideas about how to live one’s life. If you let others have all the children, then those others will eventually dominate with their own ideas about the world and life. It is true that the children of these people may find themselves at odds with the “real” world when they get to school, but in fact our schools seem very “soggy” about this sort of thing. They seem more interested in attacking racism than defending feminism from reactionary immigrants. Plus, lots of these children will not go to public schools anyway. At some point, a large minority or even a majority of the population will reject all the feminism that our liberals and leftists hold dear, and all the laws on the books won’t be able to prevent a reactionary turn in our culture.
This is one of many reasons why it is such a bad idea for liberals and leftists to be empowering Muslim reactionaries.
Leftist side with the Koranimals because they side with anything that is against: (1) white people, (2) Western Civilization, (3)free market, (4) Christianity. In other words, anything that is European in origon. The average leftist is, deep down inside, a proto-fascist. They think they need to be running things and telling others how it is going to be. Why let messy things like voting get in the way. But since they do not reproduce, they will only rule for a very short time. But since they do not believe in an afterlife, it doesn't really matter what comes after them, now does it?
Posted by: Kevin Stroup | 10/13/2012 at 10:07 AM
Leftists siding with Muslims still doesn't make any sense to me. Liberals and leftists in the Middle East don't do this. They resist them as hard as they can, but liberals and leftists in the West embrace them. Sheesh.
Posted by: John Pepple | 10/15/2012 at 05:24 AM