There are a couple female life patterns that feed contemporary leftism in the West: that of the babykiller and the bastard factory. The babykiller lifestyle tends to be for more up-market women, whereas the bastard factory lifestyle is for the poorer and usually (marginally) more religious demographic.
Babykillers, we’re all familiar with, perhaps intimately so. They get their first birth control prescription when they’re maybe around 14, perhaps a little older — whenever their parents start to become nervous about what their daughter is up to. The usual euphemism is that it’ll help her control her acne.
Of the two, the babykiller lifestyle is the most glamorized. They’re the heroines of romantic comedies and TV shows. They fall in love, enjoy sterile sex within a succession of relationships, advance their careers, and live in cities or tony suburbs.
Bastard factories, on the other hand, tend to be objects of pity. Conservative pro-life activists tend to be somewhat mislead in that they tend to encourage pregnant single women to go and have their bastards. This may be right, writ small, but writ large, the moral acceptance provided to mothers of bastard children is completely a-historical and opposed to traditional morality. Women who go and have their babies out of wedlock will sometimes be accorded a patina of grace from both progressives and conservatives. The former, for being ‘strong single mothers,’ and the latter, for not deciding to kill their bastards in utero.
The two types of behavior result in different kinds of damage. Bastard factories create external costs for the rest of society. Bastards, like children of divorce, tend to create disproportionate amounts of public disorder. Many single mothers wind up relying on welfare to make ends meet, which necessitates higher taxes on everyone else and enormous government programs besides.
This tends to make babykillers feel morally superior to their less ‘responsible’ sisters. Why, they have real jobs, real educations, and fabulous lifestyles! Besides, they mostly just sterilize themselves chemically, only occasionally making a visit to the abortionist when something slips up. From the perspective of the government, shouldn’t more women be productive, taxpaying babykillers?
The rest of the society is not really that much better off with babykillers as compared to bastard factories. With the former, the country misses out on all the potential added productivity from children raised in a productive and intact household. One woman, like my grandmother, can put out six children, give or take a few.
While the babykillers are probably net taxpayers rather than taxeaters, the future value of their potential progeny gets gobbled up, even so much that they fail to even replace themselves. Because the most productive babykillers tend to be the most intelligent and genetically desirable of women, the lost potential from their sterility is much higher than the EBT and childcare expenses of even the most fertile bastard factory.
Sterilization culture is central to the lived reality of leftism in a way that most of the stated ideas of the left are not. Similarly, the dysfunction created by the bastards provides grist for the leftist-bureaucratic mill. Few really care about equality. Many more care about being able to fuck without planting an infant.
Fortunately, a recent blog post by Jayman’s showed that fertility is eugenic for men, outweighing the dysgenic trend for women.
Hardly ideal but a positive sign
There is always SOME form or eugenics in the sense that society creates the rules that encourage some and discourage others.
It’s a crying irony that the eugenics that were chosen in the West are disgenics.
A recent case in Divorce Court concerning the Wu-Tang Clan illustrates these principles:
We have an underclass of professional breeders for factories which don’t exist.
Well said
According to Anonymous Conservative, the Babykiller and the Bastard Factory are two sides of the same r-selected coin. Either mates with any man she fancies irrespective of his ability and willingness to provide resources, and neither feels a strong bond with her offspring. The only difference is incentives: Live births hinder the careers of high-IQ women, while bringing more welfare benefits to low-IQ women.
Both women are going to be in a world of pain when resources become scarce and K-selection takes over!
Lena Dunham presents perhaps the most pure archetype of the babykiller model. Rich urban college-educated (usually in a Liberal Arts field)
Murdering one’s children is a classic symptom of idolatry. The link is obvious-idolatry is the projection of one’s particular desire or fear on an outside object, then sacrifice and demonstration of fealty to the object as though it had inherent and objective value. Once you start going down this road, you have to keep upping the ante until you sacrifice the things you most love, in as public a way as possible. The akedah, illustrated above (poorly-Isaac should be shown bound,) was revolutionary-it demonstrated to the world that G-d was above idolatry, above any particular human desire and object upon which it might be projected, and didn’t want child sacrifice. The world has yet to get the message.
My priest talked a lot about this idolotry-sacrifice connection in the class he taught last night, particularly in relation to the covenants.
It’s pretty clear where this leads. God might not demand child sacrifice, but there are others who do.