Article: Smart Women are Stupid for Choosing Not To Have Children
The insults, negative assumptions, and antagonism against people (especially women) without children never ceases.
It’s quite amazing to see the amount of hostility towards those who do not have children, for those who choose not to have them.
Personally, I think the choice to have children is a bit on the selfish side. Many people want to have kids to have someone to love, to love them back, it’s just something that most people do (you’re having a kid to fit in with societal expectations, or pressure from your mother to give her some grandchildren), and some people hope that their kid will take care of them when they’re in a nursing home when they are 80 years old.
The greatest and most mind-boggling insult in this study or editorial is where some guy twists the findings to insult CF (Child Free) women.
Oh, by the way, why are CF men not mentioned in these studies/editorials? Why do men get let off the hook for not reproducing?
Anyway, this idiot actually surmises that intelligent women who do not have children are stupid.
Here is the article. Note the replies at the bottom of the page, where some of the commentators are insulting women who do not have children:
- by Sadhbh Walshe
theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 August 2013
It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies. Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter.
In an ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices, but instead it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who don’t have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers but dumb ones as well.
Satoshi Kanazawa, the LSE psychologist behind the research, discussed the findings that maternal urges drop by 25% with every extra 15 IQ points in his book The Intelligence Paradox.
In the opening paragraph of the chapter titled “Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life”, he makes his feelings about voluntary childlessness very clear:
If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness.
All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.
That said then, Kanazawa finds it paradoxical that intelligent women apparently don’t possess the desire to pursue what should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence, (hence the loser reference).
He says that it’s not yet known why intelligent women are having less babies but says it’s not the reason most people assume, that women with higher IQs are more likely to go to college and have demanding careers. Basically he seems to come to the paradoxical conclusion that intelligent women just aren’t all that wise.
I’m not sure why he dismisses the link between higher education and fewer kids as there’s census data that shows women with advanced degrees are less likely to have children. (I should probably note that Kanazawa’s judgement has been called into question in the past, regarding a study in which he found that black women are less attractive).
His ultimate conclusion, however, is that intelligent women’s failure to reproduce is bad for them because they are flying in the face of their biological destiny and it’s also bad for society because fewer intelligent moms means fewer intelligent kids and that may have drastic implications for the nationwide IQ.
So put another way, smart women are doing society a disservice with their dumb reproductive choices. This plays nicely into the narrative that women who choose not to have children are selfish or sad or both.
Time magazine’s cover story this week deals with the phenomenon of “childfree” couples. Birthrates are at an all time low and couples choosing to forgo having babies are contributing to that. The article focused mostly on the female half of these couples, who explained their decisions to not have children.
The reasons were varied; some of the women alluded to demanding work schedules that made having a child undesirable, others to the fact that they simply have no desire to have a child. A common thread among all the women’s stories was that they felt they were continually having to justify their choice. As the author Lauren Sandler pointed out,
We rarely ask, ‘Why do you have kids?’ Instead it’s ‘Why don’t you?’ And that ‘why don’t you’ comes with a ton of judgment.
For instance, Fox and Friends invited former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on their show this past Saturday to discuss the Time cover story and its implications.
The most terrifying thing about the article, according to Huckabee was that it might send the (obviously wrong) message that it was actually possible for people who didn’t have children to lead a fulfilling life. (Imagine the horror if childless women started to believe that their lives were still worthwhile.)
As far as Huckabee is concerned, reproducing is “the highest particular calling that I think we can have as human beings” and anyone who rejects that calling must be in some way lacking. One of the co-hosts, Tucker Carlson, was even more direct in his criticism of the childfree:
Having children means less time for vacations and spin class, where the real meaning in life resides, right? I mean, have you ever seen anything more selfish, decadent and stupid?
Take that ye clever women who choose decadence over duty. The irony is that it’s the very people (yes Fox and Friends, I’m talking about you) who go around waxing lyrical about the virtues of motherhood and conception that are also the most likely to be pushing policies that make it next to impossible for many women to even conceive of being a mother.
No one ever mentions the selflessness of women who choose not to have a baby, not because they wouldn’t love one, but because they don’t feel they are in a position to provide that baby with the kind of life it deserves.
Anyone who is genuinely concerned with falling birthrates should be supporting policies such as paid maternity leave, subsidized day care, flexible work schedules, affordable health care and so on that would make it feasible for more women who want babies to have them. As for the women who don’t, we should be grateful in the knowledge that they are intelligent enough to make the choice that is best for them and then back off with the judgement.
Comment by some guy on the page:
07 August 2013 3:16pm
The idea that not having kids is selfish would imply that having kids is somehow automatically an act of selflessness.
But how many couples lie in bed and one says ‘Darling…lets keep the human race going and provide workers who will pay for all those pensioners’ ?
Or how often will one say ‘ It is our moral duty to create someone we can pay for and school and house for the next 18 years’ ?
No…it will be ‘Let’s have a baby’. And people generally have babies because they think it is a wonderful and rewarding thing to do.
But then, isn’t bringing someone into the world who is inevitably going to suffer, one day experience pain and sorrow, and eventually one day even die, a bit of a selfish thing to do merely so you can ‘have a baby’ ?
- Some, however, would argue that not having children is somehow more selfish than having children. Some, like Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at the London School of Economics, assert that it is not just selfish, it is unnatural:
- “If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.”
Unnatural? Really? The fact that most people have a biological urge to reproduce does not make it unnatural for some people to lack that biological urge.
From a biological standpoint, it may be important for a species to have enough offspring to ensure that the species survives and enjoys “reproductive success.”
But with 7.2 billion people on the planet and demographers telling us that we will likely add another 2.4 billion people to the planet over the next 37 years, humanity is hardly in any danger of shuffling off its mortal coil.
If Dr. Kanazawa and others believe that “reproductive success” requires that we all have children, then we need to have a healthy public debate about what constitutes “reproductive success.”
- A controversial scientist is out with research that claims women with higher IQs, whom he calls “ultimate losers,” have fewer children or no children at all.
UNCONFIRMED: Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa’s research does show that UK women with higher IQ rates have fewer children, but his conclusions are being challenged.
…In the chapter from his book titled, “Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life,” Kanazawa appears to conclude that the reason women with higher IQ rates have fewer children is not because they are busier with higher education or more demanding jobs, but that they have simply decided that having kids isn’t worth it.
Philip N. Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and author of the blog Family Inequality, told MSN News that Kanazawa’s conclusions are “ridiculous.”
“The idea that intelligent people are losers because they have fewer children is ridiculous,” Cohen wrote in an email to MSN News. “Several reasons for that: Intelligence is driven much more by education and social environment than by genetics. More highly-educated women have fewer children, which allows them to invest more time and money in their children. The result is highly-educated, and more successful, children. …”
Cohen continued: “Besides being inaccurate, this claim is socially corrosive, because it distracts us from the reality that low fertility levels are essential for women’s equality and well-being, and have in fact contributed to the historical rise in education levels — and independence — for women.”
- 12:13 pm August 9, 2013, by George Mathis
In a development that may doom humanity, it seems smart women don’t want to have babies as much as the feminine dullards breeding among us.
The study, conducted by a man for some reason, determined a woman’s urge to have children decreases by 25 percent for every extra 15 IQ points.
What is an “extra IQ point?” I presume every point over 100, the standard mean IQ score.
Satoshi Kanazawa, a controversial (more on this adjective later) psychologist at the London School of Economics, said 20 percent of 45-year-old women in England are childless, but among women with college degrees that figure rises to 43 percent.
The notion is not entirely new. A Pew study conducted in 2010 stated women with advanced degrees are least likely to have children.
Kanazawa, in his book The Intelligence Paradox, doesn’t seem happy that smarter women are saying no to motherhood. The first chapter of the book, “Why Intelligent People are the Ultimate Losers in Life,” states “voluntary childlessness” is “truly unnatural.”
It’s also truly unnatural to type 80 misspelled words a minute, but I do that every time the boss looks over here.
Kanazawa has a way with words (and flawed research). He was last in hot water when he presented ’scientific’ evidence that black women are less attractive. He was subsequently dismissed from writing for Psychology Today and his current employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed journals.
In 2008, before getting canned from Psychology Today, he said American leaders were not hateful enough.
Here’s the genocidal prose from Kanazawa, which, for some unexplained reason, has not been pulled by Psychology Today:
- Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter.
What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost. Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.
Meanwhile, other studies suggest humanity’s IQ has dropped 14 points since the 1800s. Why? Because “intelligent women tend to have fewer children even as the planet’s population explodes,” (Link0: writes The Globe and Mail.
At the current rate of regression, humans may be unable to figure out how to turn on “Honey Boo Boo” by 2100.
All of this reminds me of this part of the movie Idiocracy:
Related posts this blog:
(Link): The Child Free City