Why Liberals Prefer Raising Dogs Over Children (breeder book review)
Posted by kidlesskim
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/30/peter-schweizer-why-liberals-prefer-raising-dogs-over-children.aspx
The book is entitled "Makers and Takers" and apparently assumes that Childfree are selfish liberals. Below are some excerpts.
"Today’s liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self....
For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won’t see very many children....
Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society — not to mention our Social Security system! — rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.
The liberal Northeastern states — Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York — have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children......
Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It’s not a lack of money; it’s a lack of interest......... The most popular answers: “No children,” “Not going to have any,” and “Don’t want any.”
Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be “child-free.” (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don’t want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many, but I can’t shoot them now and they’re here.” No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.
Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one’s self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don’t want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say “no” (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives.
another offers: “I have not been asked very often why I’m childless. If I am, I just say the truth. That I am too selfish, that I want to spend my time and money on things other than children, that I am doing my part to counteract all of the overbreeders. The thought of attending a child’s athletic event, and sitting through the whole thing, is almost enough in itself.” Peter Pan could not have put it better.........
To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population.............."
I resent the implication that a person has to be a liberal and is selfish for choosing to be childfree. In parts of the article I edited for length, it tosses out all kinds of stats that don't seem verifiable or near accurate. I consider myself as leaning toward conservative and certainly not one of those liberals who believe in every give away program for single moos and their brood. What a bunch of assholes. Notice how he lumps Vermont in with a coupla of major cities in the first paragraph. Did he miss a geography class? What does PeterPan have to do with anything? His last comment sounds like the PERFECT solution to balance out our willful "childlessness". What an IDIOT.
The book is entitled "Makers and Takers" and apparently assumes that Childfree are selfish liberals. Below are some excerpts.
"Today’s liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self....
For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won’t see very many children....
Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society — not to mention our Social Security system! — rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.
The liberal Northeastern states — Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York — have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children......
Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It’s not a lack of money; it’s a lack of interest......... The most popular answers: “No children,” “Not going to have any,” and “Don’t want any.”
Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be “child-free.” (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don’t want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many, but I can’t shoot them now and they’re here.” No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.
Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one’s self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don’t want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say “no” (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives.
another offers: “I have not been asked very often why I’m childless. If I am, I just say the truth. That I am too selfish, that I want to spend my time and money on things other than children, that I am doing my part to counteract all of the overbreeders. The thought of attending a child’s athletic event, and sitting through the whole thing, is almost enough in itself.” Peter Pan could not have put it better.........
To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population.............."
I resent the implication that a person has to be a liberal and is selfish for choosing to be childfree. In parts of the article I edited for length, it tosses out all kinds of stats that don't seem verifiable or near accurate. I consider myself as leaning toward conservative and certainly not one of those liberals who believe in every give away program for single moos and their brood. What a bunch of assholes. Notice how he lumps Vermont in with a coupla of major cities in the first paragraph. Did he miss a geography class? What does PeterPan have to do with anything? His last comment sounds like the PERFECT solution to balance out our willful "childlessness". What an IDIOT.Oh, and the "civic duty" and related "gift to society" garbage makes me laugh. Right. I'm sure the pre-babied hot-to-trot men and the wallet-seeking women were thinking, "Hmm, I have a debt to society. How can I pay it? I know, I'll get in bed with X! That'll repay my debt to society!!" Right. That was their motivation to get down and dirty. Spare me the hypocritical bullpoo.
My gift to society is not bringing another consumer into the world's most consumeristic nation. Not a bad gift, eh?
There are no environmentalists with children, as I love to continually say, with great smugness and self-congratulation.
My gift to society is not bringing another consumer into the world's most consumeristic nation. Not a bad gift, eh?
There are no environmentalists with children, as I love to continually say, with great smugness and self-congratulation.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.