A New York Post article posted on April 10, 2014 reported that over the last seven years, the number of live births from women between the ages of 15 and 29 is down a startling 9%. Studies show that women are replacing the joys of motherhood with the simplicity of pet ownership:
"Women are not only having fewer children but are also getting married later. There are more single and unmarried women in their late 20s and early 30s, which also happens to be the demographic that buys the most small dogs."
These statistics – if scientifically supportable – are more than a little troubling. Were feminists truly concerned about the reproductive choice they so ardently champion, they would (but won't) be sounding the alarm over this growing fashion among Millennial women. Superficially, this act of replacement presents feminist leaders with the partial attainment of their goal which is to destabilize the traditional family. Realistically, it heralds emergent government intrusion into reproductive concerns.
This is a terrible trend for the feminist movement because the current population replacement rates are not sustainable and can too effortlessly lead experts to the wrong conclusions about the role of government in gender equality (specifically the constitutional protection of gender equality) over fears that the lack of social engineering into matters once left to individuals necessarily ends in a cultural death spiral.
Such inference is false, but one must arrive at the truth with such hard-fought reasoning that pop science will not bear the tedium.
It may not seem possible right now, but the feminist goals can eventually end in a constitutional crisis and ultimately to the bureaucratic enslavement of biology that was characteristic of Nazi Germany and the kind that is again rearing its ugly head in China and increasingly in Russia…and all supposedly for the greater good.
How did we go from June Cleaver (who is the archenemy of feminism) to this recipe for social disaster in just 60-some years? A couple of quotes from the Post article:
"I'd rather have a dog over a kid. It's just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You don't have to get a baby sitter."
"Dogs are better! Look at Toliver! He's great, except he snores a lot. He even has his own Instagram. A dog is easier to transport than a child. It's less final than having a child."
Two different women, two different forms of emotional impedance, yet both women descend to the rejection of natural gender roles – this is wholly different from gender equality by the way – and must fulfill their biological urges by forcing dogs into abnormal mother-child relationships.
Take this comparative idea that dog ownership is less work…comparative because it's less work in relation to what? Motherhood? If the cultural perception is that motherhood is too much work for modern women to endure then why did Ann Romney withstand so much condemnation from liberal feminists for her life choices? If you had asked those confused dog owners what their view of Mrs. Romney was during the 2012 election cycle, what do you suppose they would have said?
Would they have said that she is a hardworking mom or would they have said that she is a selfish, lazy, good for nothing stay-at-home who fills her days eating bon-bons and getting manicures?
We now learn from this emerging social trend that selfish is the way we're supposed to be. You don't have to have children at all. You don't have to get married. You can have a nice home, nice clothes. Go out when you want to. Get one of those tiny dogs and you don't even need to walk it very much. There's hardly any emotional burden at all because it will be dead in a few years and you can flush it down the toilet or something.
Given the feminist logic that accused Romney of laziness, since dog ownership is less emotionally taxing than motherhood, then motherhood should be the preference. But they didn't attack Romney for being a mother. They attacked her for making motherhood her career choice.
The MSM denounced Ann Romney as emotionally stunted, as subjugated, even as lazy because she has chosen to forgo a fulfilling and thoroughly modern career path like women are culturally encouraged to pursue. But what we learn with this current cultural trend is that women aren't finding themselves more fulfilled for having chosen career paths over motherhood. Clearly, something is lacking.
For too many women, the mission of self-realization warps into self-absorption and infantilization. Living only for one's own carnal impulses has women believing that pet adoption is better because the finality of motherhood is too stifling. This is such an odd psychological malformation. Dogs are preferable because they die sooner? Ick.
Talk about the coarsening of the culture, and this is where this social phenomenon becomes tricky to analyze because pop science will reject thoughtful examination in favor of easy answers.
Women are not immersed in narcissism because they are educated or emancipated or career oriented. For as long as there has been marriage there have been men and women who have sought different paths, but it is rare that society values single adulthood over the traditional family. Moreover, the pursuit of self at all costs has always been seen as great depravity.
When we consider that very foreign idea stated in the Post article of motherhood being too final, we realize that gender equality didn't create this attitude. Materialism did…and again, it is necessary to understand that materialism is not and has never been defined as extreme capitalism as our modern ethicists would lead you to believe.
Materialism – simply stated – is the philosophical rejection if the idea that there is any higher destiny for mankind…and womankind. This is done by eschewing the purpose of being, by denying individualism and by refuting free will. Materialism actually acknowledges culture as a merely social construct that was created in order to subordinate. It therefore reverts Man to the mere mechanism and impulses of atoms that makeup the human condition and in so doing, emboldens the extremes found in socialism and anarchy. If there be no human spirit, if reason exists in our own individual reality, then we are left to decadence, moral decay and extravagance and we begin to see the work of childrearing as too hard or too easy for the likes of you and me depending on which way the wind is blowing today. The why of it is hardly important – it's the fallout that will change the definition of the human family.
The rejection of motherhood will unavoidably result in the bureaucracy of procreation because when humans no longer see the point of reproduction, the State will have to get involved or risk human and cultural extinction.
You thought puppy mills were bad? Wait until the government begins breeding humans in captivity.