Here
and
Now

opinions

Being child-free has been deemed ‘selfish’ for decades – the history of this misconception explained

25 Comments
By Aude Campmas

Choosing to be child-free is more common than ever before in some countries, including the U.S. Many people see not having children an ethical and ecological choice, made to protect the environment, people and other species. Being child-free is about being “green.” Consequently, more positive discourses around childlessness are emerging.

But this was not always the case. In societies that encourage an increased birthrate, motherhood is often presented as natural and caring. Meanwhile, women without children are often described as biological failures, or as deviant. For example, when visible in popular culture – they are often not represented at all – women without children are either presented as animal-lovers like the “crazy cat lady” or animal-killers, like Cruella de Vil. In these examples, the focus on animal represents their supposed inability to care for humans (their species), their “unnaturalness”.

In the 19th century, women without children were already being described as selfish and unnatural. The natural world was conversely used to describe fertile women, who were often compared to flowers in bloom in literature.

The association of women with plants and fertility is an ancient one, found particularly in agricultural pagan figures. Demeter, the ancient Greek goddess of the harvest, for example, was the goddess of grains, but also of marriage and fertility.

Many expressions still link women’s reproductive systems and flowers. In French, the flower is a metaphor for a virgin sexual organ. To avoir ses fleurs (have your flowers) is an expression for having periods, and being une jeune fille en fleur (a young woman in flower) means that the young woman is ready for marriage – and therefore reproduction.

Women themselves are also compared to flowers: in English, both “pretty flower” and “English rose” describe attractive young women. Reducing women to flowers, through these comparisons, is not only misogynistic, but reinforces the social pressure to produce children “on time”. Timing is important in these comparisons, as flowers fade quickly.

Being child-free in the 19th century

But what about women without children, those flowers that will not produce seeds? My research into literature and paintings from the second half of the 19th century has shown that they were often represented as monstrous horticultural hybrids.

At the time, “hybrid flowers” – which were often sterile – became the preferred metaphor to describe sexually active women who were either unable or refused to bear children. In France, having and raising children was seen as a woman’s natural and civic duty for the nation. Conversely, women who were sexually active but without children were often seen as unnatural and dangerous.

Comparisons that described women as flowers were historically about fertility. How was it then that flowers became a metaphor for sterility at the end of the 19th century?

The emphasis on flowers as sexual organs and as a metaphor for women’s sexuality appears to have been used more often after the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus openly discussed the sexuality of plants with anthropomorphic language at the end of the 18th century.

It is important to note that, for a long time, if men knew at all that flowers were sexual organs, they believed they were unisexual and feminine. They did not believe that both male and female organs were involved in the production of fruits.

Once the sexual nature of plants had been established, the nature of the floral metaphor changed and the innocence of the flower was lost. Flowers progressively became the symbol of a young lady with an emerging sexuality or who was waiting to “bear fruit”.

Horticultural hybrids

During the second empire in France (1852-1870) and the beginning of the Third Republic (1870-1840), horticultural hybrids were extremely popular.

Horticulturists developed large plants and flowers such as cattleya, hibiscus, nidularium which often looked like enlarged genitals (natural plants are often a lot smaller and less colourful). These hybrids made the sexual analogy even more obvious.

By the end of the 19th century, the artificial hybrids became used for describing, indirectly, near-pornographic scenes. Here is an example from The Kill (1895), a famous novel by Émile Zola. Instead of describing the characters making love, he describes the plants:

"As their glances penetrated into the corners of the hothouse, the darkness became filled with a more furious debauch of leaves and stalks; they could not distinguish on the terraces between the marantas, soft as velvet, the gloxinias, purple-belled, the dracoenas, like blades of old lacquer; it was a great dance of living plants pursuing one another with unsatisfied fervour."

Many of the hybrids being created at this time were sterile. They therefore became a metaphor for “unproductive” sexuality. Because they were man-made, they could be seen as a perversion of the laws of nature. Comparing women to those hybrids was a way to criticise what was deemed the artificiality of their infertility, or decision not to have children.

Fertile, childbearing women were frequently compared to natural, more classic flowers such as roses or lilies.

At the time, France was obsessed with its low birth rate. Many politicians believed it explained why France had lost the war against Prussia (1870-1871). Childless women were therefore also seen as bad citizens.

Through their comparisons with hybrid, infertile flowers, women who could not or choose not to reproduce were deemed un-French, undesirable and, in some ways, monstrous.

Understanding how women are associated with nature and very often compared to flowers is essential to understanding how being childless continues to be demonised in contemporary society. As contemporary art, culture and the very language we use demonstrates, child-free women are still often described as “unnatural” or biologically deviant.

Aude Campmas is a lecturer in French Studies, University of Southampton, England.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

This article speaks largely to decisions to remain child free, and some affects and ramifications encountered by those who make the decision, by others inside of some perceived societal norms. But when we encounter a growing number of adults who decide to remain sans child in estate planning and end-of-life decision making (e.g. durible power of attorney, and ordinary vs extraordinary medical treatment choices). We will frequently encounter many who have either skipped over this consideration entirely, or have delayed thinking about this until later in life ('we'll see, and then we'll know,' kind of a thing). And, admittedly, when it is brought up, it mostly doesn't change the original kid-less decision. But it is still a good topic to consider, since time and circumstances seem to have a way of catching up, when you least expect it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I think this discourse is pretty simple to navigate. If a woman has made the choice not to procreate for ANY reason, then that should be the end of the discussion for everybody except maybe her partner. If people want to argue the economic benefits of balanced population replacement, they should also look at the economic detriments of children born to parents who are not mentally, emotionally, or financially equipped to take of a child.

Don't get me wrong though, those people on social media who smugly declare why they are superior for choosing to not have kids are super annoying, too.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Odd article - it has almost nothing to do with the title and instead focuses on 19th horticulture and similarity of some flowers to genitalia. A pretty arcane subject, so I don't blame the bait and switch headline.

So far as the headline, it's really nobody's business. The world is overpopulated and rampant procreation is not needed. Some people can't have kids. That said, kids are usually an essential part of human personal development. There is nothing necessarily selfish about not having kids though.

The comment above about childless elders being a burden on taxpayers is unsupported. People with kids also use public support because their kids don't care or are unable to help. And people without kids are more likely to have sufficient savings because all their money didn't go to their kids and their education.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

The fertility rate everywhere with the exception of Africa, the Middle East, and some Southeast Asian countries are all below replacement levels. More and more people are having 1 or no kids whatsoever.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

djdenkiToday  07:54 am JST

I think this discourse is pretty simple to navigate. If a woman has made the choice not to procreate for ANY reason, then that should be the end of the discussion for everybody except maybe her partner. If people want to argue the economic benefits of balanced population replacement, they should also look at the economic detriments of children born to parents who are not mentally, emotionally, or financially equipped to take of a child.

Don't get me wrong though, those people on social media who smugly declare why they are superior for choosing to not have kids are super annoying, too.

Parenthood is a huge onerous responsibility. When I was in college I was asked to be a surrogate father to three foreign students so they could stay in the USA, and I turned them down. It takes two to tango and the last thing I wanted to be was a long distance daddy paying child support and maybe visiting once a month.

I have also seen 'shotgun marriages' and that too can/will/does change everything, even for males like me. Never mind the woman. It's a big responsibility, for both sexes.

When I was in the Navy they made it damn clear at recruit training - you'd better tell them now about your dependents, even 'illegitimate' kids. They're gonna find out and dock your month pay for support. And they do.

Is it 'selfish' not to have kids? That's a decision for both partners to decide and nobody else's. And they may be medical issues of various sorts (physical or psychological) to consider.

girl_in_tokyoToday  09:13 am JST

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

Absolutely. Sure, one of the couple's parents would love to be a grandparent. Who wouldn't? But they also need to recall just how 'easy' it was when they became parents. And everything has radically changed since those 'good ol' days' which weren't always so GOOD. At least not easy anyway.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I strongly disagree with characterizing being child-free as "selfish" and agree with previous comments that its basically a decision that should be left to people to make on their own without judgment.

That said it makes me sad that fewer and fewer people are having kids, especially here in Japan.

Having kids is a really great part of the human experience. They bring you happiness that you never knew existed before you became a parent. And they are literally our society's future so a society without them is one that is essentially giving up on that future.

Not everyone wants to be a parent of course, but looking at Japan its apparent that its not an inherent lack of desire to become a parent per se that explains the low birth rate here but rather a lot of factors outside people's control that make having a kid either impossible or at least undesirable for those who otherwise would want one (or more). If the vast majority of young people are stuck in insecure low paying jobs with low prospects on the one hand, whlie all the social institutions that parents need to rely on (education, day care, relatives etc) are still stuck in a Showa-era mindset that every family has a salaryman dad making enough to comfortably support a family with kids then yeah, not many are going to go down that route.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

girl_in_tokyo Today 09:13 am JST

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

Imagine using this as an arguement in relation to domestic violence. You hear it next door, "Best to stay out of it. Not my business." But people are encouraged to make it their business because there is a negative impact on society by permitting such violence. Well, Western societies have been adversely affected by low birthrates. Oh well, these societies look like they are on their way to being replaced with those who have not tossed their traditional values. The wheel of history turns. . .

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

As an addendum to my post, I would note the following:

[M]arital-decline scholars believe that our culture has become increasingly individualistic since the 1960s … Our data on friends and group memberships support this view. The decline in shared social networks and the decrease in marital interaction … indicate a shift away from companionate marriage as well as institutional marriage. Moreover, the decline in social integration since 1980 appears to have had primarily negative consequences for marital quality. Consistent with the views of marital-decline scholars is our finding that increasing individualism appears to have had a corrosive effect on marital quality.

—Paul R. Amato, et. al., Alone Together: How Marriage in America is Changing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) 203.

Thus “individualism” has had a deleterious effect on marriage quality. How is the relevant to the present conversation?

Research on family structure has burgeoned over the past few decades, as scholars have carefully investigated living arrangement patterns and their implications for child well-being. Children residing outside of families with two biological married parents tend to fare less well, on average, than those in this family form. The differences among children in single-parent (mother or father only), married stepparent, and cohabiting families (two biological parents or stepparent) are comparatively small. This pattern holds across several domains of child outcomes, including cognitive, behavioral, and physical and mental health.

—Susan L Brown, Wendy D Manning and J Bart Stykes, “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Integrating Family Complexity,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 77/1 (2015): 178.

Thus the ideal family structure is one in which both biological parents, mother and father, are present. It is this family structure which produces the most socially adjusted individuals and therefore constitutes the ideal. A society that seeks to continue should thus be upholding this basic family structure as the ideal with marriage and child birth being encouraged. Emphasizing “individualism” leads to decreased marriage quality which in turn has an impact on the social development of children. Over the generations, since the 1960s, this has created a problem with men and woman not knowing how to be or not wanting to be fathers/mothers or husbands/wives. Thus this same “individualism” certainly comes into play in the decision to get married and have children.

From the article:

more positive discourses around childlessness are emerging

Yes, indeed they are. From the same people who advocate for open borders to allow immigrants to offset the population decline of the indigenous inhabitants.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

As a gay female I will never have children, because I do not want to........end of......It is my choice I care not about what any one else says. My girlfriend has my opinions too, and altho she works with children every day she is adamant not to ever have any. Both her parents and mine respect our choices and support us as always.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

This is an interesting and highly complex topic.

I don't mind others choosing to be child-free, but would question how much agency is involved in each individual case.

If women are choosing career not motherhood, we have to question why society is organized in a manner that makes this an either/or choice. So long as it is an either/or choice, the woman in question cannot be said to have full agency over the decision. They are just making the best of a bad lot.

The same applies to people who think they cannot afford children. This now happens to dual income households, something unthinkable forty years ago. My father raised two, paid off a nice house, had two holidays a year, and retired at 65 as an electrician whose wife barely worked. That's not possible now.

So as far as I am concerned, people can make whatever choices they want. I just have my doubts when people present the decision to not have children as some huge positive expression of free will executed in a vacuum. It may be for comfortably off middle-class folks or the independently wealthy (whose interests and concerns magazines are more likely to write about than the hoi polloi), but that is only a tiny segment of society.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Parenthood is a huge onerous responsibility. 

Huge, yes. Onerous, no. A mature adult with a healthy attitude toward life can derive immeasurable benefits from raising children. Not material benefits in most cases, other than being motivational in making one work harder, but spiritual. We teach our kids, but our kids teach us as well.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

jeffyToday 12:19 pm JST

girl_in_tokyo Today 09:13 am JST

If people would just mind their own business on personal matters this world would be a far more peaceful place.

Imagine using this as an arguement in relation to domestic violence. You hear it next door, "Best to stay out of it. Not my business." But people are encouraged to make it their business because there is a negative impact on society by permitting such violence. Well, Western societies have been adversely affected by low birthrates. Oh well, these societies look like they are on their way to being replaced with those who have not tossed their traditional values. The wheel of history turns. .

You are comparing apples and oranges. Domestic violence is a crime. Having children is a personal choice.

You could argue yourself blue in the face that people should have children because societies have been adversely affected, but it's going to be a bad argument regardless of how well you can prove society is adversely affected.

Simply put, it's both unrealistic and nonsensical to argue that people must do whatever is deemed good for society, no matter whether or not it is good for them personally. No government or individual could, or should, be give that kind of power over others.

Besides that, I highly doubt you could even make a very good argument that societies are adversely affected by the current birthrate since the world population is INcreasing, not DEcreasting.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I just have my doubts when people present the decision to not have children as some huge positive expression of free will executed in a vacuum.

Just a thought - you've completely discounted that a lot of people who actively chose not to have children are child-free because they don't LIKE children. Anecdotally, this is the case for everyone I know who is childless, myself and my partner included. Personally, I find kids tedious and boring. I can handle being around them for a bit, but after a while they just irritate me. I don't have the motherly instinct, the patience, or the desire. Hahaha ... it's like that line in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when his father says, "You left just when you were getting interesting."

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Personally, I find kids tedious and boring. I can handle being around them for a bit, but after a while they just irritate me.

Not trying to change your mind or anything but wanted to mention something in relation to this. This is basically how I felt about kids before having them -boring, tedious, irritating, etc. Its a fairly common feeling people have about other people's kids.

When you have your own kids though your feelings are completely different, so for those hesitating to have kids solely based on that I would just say that how you feel about other people's kids is a very poor predictor of how you will feel about your own.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Domestic violence is a crime.

It is now. Before it was just "a man managing his household."

Having children is a personal choice.

In China there was a one child policy. Having more than one child was a “crime.” It wasn’t a choice there.

These two examples show that what is considered to be a “crime” and what is considered to be a “choice” is artificial and depend on what a particular society permits in line with desired goals.

it's both unrealistic and nonsensical to argue that people must do whatever is deemed good for society, no matter whether or not it is good for them personally.

But I didn’t actually argue that individuals “must do whatever is deemed good for society” did I? What I actually argued was,

[T]he ideal family structure is one in which both biological parents, mother and father, are present. It is this family structure which produces the most socially adjusted individuals and therefore constitutes the ideal. A society that seeks to continue should thus be upholding this basic family structure as the ideal with marriage and child birth being encouraged. Emphasizing “individualism” leads to decreased marriage quality which in turn has an impact on the social development of children. Over the generations, since the 1960s, this has created a problem with men and woman not knowing how to be or not wanting to be fathers/mothers or husbands/wives. Thus this same “individualism” certainly comes into play in the decision to get married and have children.

Encouraged, not forced. Deemphasized, not erased. I use “individualism” in quotes intentionally here because what some present as “individualism” is not really individualism, but selfishness. Healthy individualism lies at the foundation of America society which is perhaps the society most associated with individualism. Now it is commonly noted that the view of the individual and their associated rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence were inspired by the views of John Locke. Summarizing how Locke’s view of individuals was understood during the 18th century, the book The Good Society explains that:

The Lockean ideal of the autonomous individual was, in the eighteenth century, embedded in a complex moral ecology that included family and church on the one hand and on the other a vigorous public sphere in which economic initiative, it was hoped, grew together with public spirit.

—Robert N. Bellah, et. al., The Good Society (New York: Vintage Books, 1992) 265.

This same work shows that the view of the individual in the 18th century was taken to be part of “a discursive community capable of thinking about the public good.” (Bellah, 139) It is thus in this light that Thomas Jefferson, responsible for much of the wording of the Declaration of Independence, argues elsewhere that an individual “has no natural right in opposition to his social duties” (Thomas Jefferson, Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802)) and that what natural rights he or she might have “are triable by their conformity with the moral sense and reason of man.” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on French Treaties (1793)) Thus one should not see individualism as one which advocates for the full autonomy of individuals to seeks their own self-fulfillment apart from a concern for others, rather the American view of individualism as it was originally intended is one where the individual is actively engaged both physically and intellectually in the society in which they live and whose individuality is in fact balanced with considerations of the larger society. This is very different than the mantra today: "I don't care what anyone says, I'm gonna be me!"

No government or individual could, or should, be give that kind of power over others.

Governments as a norm attempt to steer the consciousness of the people it governs through social engineering in school, in media, etc. It depends on what the desired goals are which determine the direction this takes.

Besides that, I highly doubt you could even make a very good argument that societies are adversely affected by the current birthrate since the world population is INcreasing, not DEcreasting.

“world population” is the key phrase here, as Aly notes:

Aly Rustom Today 11:11 am JST

The fertility rate everywhere with the exception of Africa, the Middle East, and some Southeast Asian countries are all below replacement levels.

So if a Korean person is worried about the low birthrate in their country, it is unreasonable for them to be worried because Nigeria might be doing well? Let me ask you, should I dismiss people who complain about not having enough money to make ends met because Elon Musk has lots of money?

And from your past posts, I would imagine the line of argument you would try to pursue in defense would not be logical or factual, but based on your subjective personal opinion and something racist and/or sexist. Something along the lines of "'Cause conservatives are more moral, immigration and the mixing of races causes crime and social havoc, and them there wimmens should be in gol-darn kitchen anyway."

Well this is just ad hominem right here. But I always come with sources, as I have done once again in my comments here, and you always resort to this. But hey, to each their own right?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This topic has been beaten to death. Based on plummeting birth rates you can't encourage let alone force women to have children. Any reasonable man will readily admit that having a baby is a massive physical burden on the woman and pretty much none on the man.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

rainydayToday 04:17 pm JST

When you have your own kids though your feelings are completely different, so for those hesitating to have kids solely based on that I would just say that how you feel about other people's kids is a very poor predictor of how you will feel about your own.

Honestly, I've heard that a million times, and it's simply not true for me. It's not even about hesitation - it's been a dead set certainty for my entire life.

I also just find it really patronizing, since how could anyone possibly know my mind better than I do? I know my own mind, and so do most people who actively chose not to have kids.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

jeffyToday 04:33 pm JST

But I didn’t actually argue that individuals “must do whatever is deemed good for society” did I? What I actually argued was,

You argued women should have children for the good of society. So yeah, you did argue that.

I'm not even getting into the rest of what you posted, because it was nonsense.

Well this is just ad hominem right here. But I always come with sources, as I have done once again in my comments here, and you always resort to this. But hey, to each their own right?

First, it was not an ad hominem. Secondly, I was RIGHT - that's exactly what you argued.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Honestly, I've heard that a million times, and it's simply not true for me. It's not even about hesitation - it's been a dead set certainty for my entire life.

Thats cool, I wasn’t really directing that comment at you personally or anything, to each their own. What you wrote just reminded me of my own feelings so I quoted it.

I also just find it really patronizing, since how could anyone possibly know my mind better than I do? I know my own mind, and so do most people who actively chose not to have kids.

I wasn’t purporting to know your mind, I was expressly describing my own in case it was of use to anyone else whose mind was not made up about this. Not everyone who dislikes kids is a certain as you are that they don’t want to have any and for them I wanted to inject, based on my own experience, that how one feels about other kids isn’t an accurate reflection of how they will feel about their own.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

girl_in_tokyo Today 08:52 pm JST

You argued women should have children for the good of society. So yeah, you did argue that.

Yes, I argued women should have children for the good of society. This is different from the view which you imputed to me that “people must do whatever is deemed good for society.” One involves suggestion, the other involves compulsion. And I clearly supported this suggestion with evidence as to why it is indeed the best course for a society to pursue.

I'm not even getting into the rest of what you posted, because it was nonsense.

Can’t answer objections. Understood.

First, it was not an ad hominem.

First, it was ad hominem because nothing in the statement “Cause conservatives are more moral, immigration and the mixing of races causes crime and social havoc, and them there wimmens should be in gol-darn kitchen anyway’” actually addresses any point that I made in my post, but only preemptively attempts to caricature my person as if that would overturn what I said. And I would note that you are given to personal attacks, for example:

girl_in_tokyo Oct. 25 03:37 pm JST

it really does not surprise me that old straight men value strict gender roles considering that it is in their best interests to keep them. After all, they would be horrified to have to wash their own underwear.

girl_in_tokyo Oct. 25 12:54 pm JST

it would not surprise me at all that what a bunch of old straight men are afraid of at core is women gaining equality.

https://japantoday.com/category/politics/kishida-cautious-on-same-sex-marriage-separate-spouse-surnames

These comments make you appear to be a heterophobic agest misandrist. But I have not called you such. What I have done is made points, points you do not like, supported by sources, sources you instantly dismiss.

Secondly, I was RIGHT - that's exactly what you argued.

Secondly, you were wrong.

Nowhere did I say “conservatives are more moral.” What I did say is that “individualism” today is not the healthy individualism intended in American society but is in fact selfishness. I supported this with sources showing that healthy individualism stands in balance with the larger societal good. The fact that I argued for a scientific basis for gender dysphoria, when conservatives argue that it is just a mental problem or a sexual perversion, should have made it clear that throwing the word conservative at me would not be quite accurate. Perhaps you are referring to our previous discussion which ended here:

jeffy Oct. 25 06:08 pm JST

Well if they are “less likely to respect segregated gender roles,” then they evidently do not cherish “traditional family values,” e.g. lesbian couples do not care about having a man present to carve the Thanksgiving turkey, if they celebrated Thanksgiving. This is not to say that same-sex couples don’t have any values, but they most surely do not have “traditional family values.” Case in point: my own sister asked me to donate sperm so that she and her wife could have a child that shared some DNA with her. Well, since that would in fact be my child, I politely told her no. So here is an example of how her “family values” clashed with my “traditional family values” from my own “lived experiences” if you will. Now if you don’t think such differences in values impacts societal cohesion, well, my sister doesn’t talk to me anymore because of my obviously “bigoted” decision.

https://japantoday.com/category/politics/kishida-cautious-on-same-sex-marriage-separate-spouse-surnames

Nowhere did I say “immigration and the mixing of races causes crime and social havoc.” What I did was pose a question to you about a Korean person, if they have a legitimate concern for the low birthrates in their country or not. You argued as if “world population” increasing somehow means peoples in individual nations are not ill effected by low birthrates. Perhaps you are referring to my previous posts which explained the rise of antisemitism as not arising from the war in Gaza, but from the work of left-wing Jewish groups promoting mass-immigration into Europe ( https://japantoday.com/category/world/macron-urges-france-to-rise-up-against-'unbearable-resurgence-of-antisemitism'-before-paris-march ). There I cited two Jewish sources in support on the matter, one actually engaged in such work and one who doesn't agree with such work.

Nowhere did I say “them there wimmens should be in gol-darn kitchen anyway.” What I did say is that people, woman and men, should be having families. Yes, this entails that woman and men have social responsibility. Sorry if it offends you to think of women also having social responsibilities.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yes, I argued women should have children for the good of society.

It's a bad argument.

Can’t answer objections. Understood

More like can't be bothered to waste my time with your Gish Gallops.

These comments make you appear to be a heterophobic agest misandrist.

LOL ... and you said I was using ad hominen?

. I supported this with sources showing

This is not a scientific argument where citations are factual and provide solid evidence. This is your argument from personal belief, citing other sources of personal beliefs that agree with your personal belief. Ahem. Just as I said you would do.

You always argue that immigration, independent women who eschew marriage and children, and LGBTQIA are the devil and will wreck society. I am all three of those, we are always going to disagree at a fundamental level, so I don't care to argue with you. To me, everything you write is just nonsense.

But by all means, quote everything I've said here and answer it point by point, and go back and look for more quotes to argue over, point by point, and continue to waste your time.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

girl_in_tokyo Today 07:07 am JST

This is not a scientific argument where citations are factual and provide solid evidence. This is your argument from personal belief, citing other sources of personal beliefs that agree with your personal belief. Ahem. Just as I said you would do.

It's a bad argument.

It’s not a bad argument simply because you assert it to be so.

I cited Paul R. Amato to substantiate the point that “Thus ‘individualism’ has had a deleterious effect on marriage quality.” Who is Paul R. Amato? Just some conservative spouting personal beliefs as you dismissively suggest?

Paul Amato is a professor at Pennsylvania State University in the Department of Sociology and Criminology. He is most well known for his research in social science related fields. His research focuses on marital quality, divorce, and other family related issues… He was listed as a notable scientist in Thomson Reuters' Highly Cited Researchers in 2004, which ranked him as being among the top 1% most cited scientists at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Amato

I cited Susan L Brown, Wendy D Manning and J Bart Stykes to substantiate the point that “Thus the ideal family structure is one in which both biological parents, mother and father, are present.” Who are these people? Just more conservative pundits spouting person beliefs as you dismissively suggest?

Susan L. Brown is Distinguished Professor of Sociology. She also serves as Director of the Center for Family and Demographic Research and the Co-Director of the National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Her areas of expertise include family sociology and demography. Dr. Brown's research examines the implications of the rapid transformation of American family life, with a focus on union dynamics and their consequences for well-being at various stages of the life course. Much of her work examines recent changes in cohabitation, marriage, and divorce.

https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/sociology/people/susan-l-brown.html

Wendy D. Manning is the founder of the Center for Family and Demographic Research and currently serves as its Development Core Co-Director. She is also the Co-Director for the National Center for Family & Marriage Research and served as PAA President in 2018. She is a family demographer, and her research examines how family members define and understand their obligations to each other in an era of increasingly diverse and complex family relationships.

https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/sociology/people/wendy-d-manning.html

As a researcher, I identify as a family demographer with special interests in family formation, individual well-being, gender, and survey measurement. Much of my research considers the reproduction of structural inequalities both within and through families coupled with an interest in data quality and survey measurement.

https://www.shsu.edu/academics/sociology/faculty-staff/bart-stykes.html

So no, not “sources of personal beliefs.” These are researchers in the pertinent field whose findings need to be explained otherwise if you disagree with the point made.

More like can't be bothered to waste my time with your Gish Gallops.

Not Gish Gallops, but OK. “Nevertheless, she persisted”? OK, sure.

LOL ... and you said I was using ad hominen?

I hope you can see the difference between writing “them there wimmens should be in gol-darn kitchen anyway,” which is an attempt to cast me as a backwoods hillbilly in terms I never said, and “These comments make you appear to be a heterophobic agest misandrist,” which encapsulates your clearly negative characterization of “old straight men.” Not an ad hominem from me, but yes, definitely one from you.

You always argue that immigration, independent women who eschew marriage and children, and LGBTQIA are the devil and will wreck society. I am all three of those, we are always going to disagree at a fundamental level, so I don't care to argue with you. To me, everything you write is just nonsense.

No. What I argue is that mass-migration has a negative impact on a given society. It is just a fact. What I argue is that selfishness, from men or women, when it becomes predominate in a society, has a negative impact on a given society. This too is just a fact. What I argue is that a traditional family structure is the ideal one and thus any society that wishes to continue should socially encourage this structure. This also is a fact. Where we differ is that I consistently have the success and optimal operation of the larger society in view in the formation of my views. And with that, have a nice day.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Having children, for me was a miraculous and wonderful up lifting experience which I will always cherish.

For those not choosing to have children IMHO) are missing out on something special

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites