I don’t pay much attention to the more popular “feminist” blogs, as I’ve found them to be completely dismissive of childfree individuals, favoring instead the furthering of a pronatalist point of view, to the detriment of those who have chosen to forego parenthood.
That being said, I do still occasionally pop over and read some of the posts when someone points me to something s/he thinks I would find interesting. Such was the case with post, “Rejecting ‘Population Control’ as a Way to Fight Climate Change.”
The topic of having fewer (or no) children in an effort to help stave off global climate change is always the elephant in the room. It’s obvious. Fewer people = less consumption. But no one ever wants to talk about it. And, if someone actually does dare to bring up the topic, people, usually women, become absolutely livid, usually precluding any hope of a calm, rational, and intelligent discussion/debate.
I don’t pretend to understand the desire to have kids, since I don’t recall ever having it. But I do understand that some people have the desire. I also don’t understand the whole “it has to be my biological child” thing, as opposed to parenting an adopted child, but, again, I understand that this desire exists, as well.
And that’s just fine.
So why do people who have the desire to procreate have to get so defensive about their choices? And why is it so taboo to discuss it?
I own a car… something that, even though it’s a hybrid and gets awesome gas mileage (compared to nonhybrid vehicles), uses fossil fuels. My computer runs on electricity and I don’t have solar panels, a windmill, or any other such source of alternative energy. I don’t currently compost. So, I’m not perfect. At least not in the environmentally-friendly way. 
But I don’t get all defensive about it when someone points out to me that, were I to be really environmentally conscious, I would get rid of my car, compost, and put solar panels on my roof. Because they would be correct.
However, if anyone dares mention that not having children is a “greener” choice than having them, parents immediately go on the defensive. Yes, people have the right to have as many children as they want. But they need to stop pretending that (a) they’ve done it for some altruistic reason(s), or (b) that having children is good for or does not impact the environment and the rest of society. Because just like my driving a car or my using electricity to run this computer I’m typing on affects the environment, so does having a kid.
Should we encourage people to have fewer children… or forego biological parenthood entirely? Why not? We encourage people to put sweaters on in the winter and turn down thermostats to save energy, don’t we? We encourage people to recycle instead of sending everything to the landfills, don’t we? We encourage people to walk, bike, or take public transportation more, don’t we? Why wouldn’t we include not adding to our already burgeoning population to the list of things one can to do help alleviate some of the stress on the earth?
I’ve said it in my past posts about feminism… the answer is one word: EDUCATION. Instead of throwing around red herrings about how encouraging people to have fewer (or no) children is based in racism, classism, anti-feminism, or any other –ism you can think of, why not advocate for better, more comprehensive education – financial education, environmental education, and reproductive (including complete and accurate information regarding birth control) education?
And, by the way, that education I’m suggesting includes educating women and men.
Crossposted from EriePressible
