There has been a lot of discussion going on lately on whether men have a duty to society to get married and procreate. So far I have never commented on this blog on "men's issues" or MGTOW simply because I think that it's something which men have to figure out for themselves, however, all these debates made me ponder this issue so I decided to try and formulate my thoughts in a blog post.
First, when people talk about "society" nowadays, they mostly mean a particular country, as in "American men have the duty to produce children for their country". It sounds borderline totalitarian to me, as if human beings are nothing better than breeding stock for the government. This idea isn't new, really, since as far back as in the Roman Republic there were laws compelling men to marry at a certain age as to get kids.
In Christian Europe, Catholic Church encouraged procreation, but also celibacy as it admitted certain people weren't meant to be parents. They could then go and join a monastery or a convent and this vocation was as respectable as being a mother or a father, if not more. Partly due to this, partly to the lack of centralisation, European governments mostly stayed away from family affairs, until the 19th century, when the governments decided other people's children were everybody's business. It started with compulsory schooling laws, various welfare programs, laws restricting child labour etc etc.
Not all of these laws were bad and some were desperately needed, however, once the government went into family matters, it stayed there, thus having kids or not from a private decision, suddenly became the matter of national importance.
I do think in a certain sense, a man may have a duty to procreate, but this duty won't be to the government, but to his own family, to continue his father's bloodline, like in the movie I reviewed below. If someone is to put a pressure on him, it must be his own parents or relatives, not the church, community or the state. The problem with present-day conservatives is that they often don't have their own ideas but simply react to whatever progressives are proposing, like in progressives say people shouldn't have (many) children so everybody must go and have ten.
The truth is, the Europeans aren't in any danger of dying out soon. They may be in danger of being overrun in their own countries through unrestricted immigration, but that's entirely another matter. Most people react to incentives. Modern society actively discourages people from creating a family, subsidises all sorts of degenerate behaviour, advertises degeneracy on TV, then turns around and demands people procreate as to keep the welfare state from collapsing. It simply doesn't work this way.
However, even in traditional societies, due to the variety of reasons, not everybody got married and not everybody had children. Some people had ten. Some people had one. Some people had one and he died and they had none. There was no one-size-fits-all mentality. Most people, even nowadays, still eventually want to get married and have children. If some men (or women) decide to forgo having a family by whatever reason, it may be a matter of concern to their families but hardly to total strangers on the internet.
The state and "society", in my opinion, should stop usurping the role reserved for the family. Well, what do you all think?
P.S. I'd like to clarify that, of course, even in medieval times there were state laws pertaining to the validity of marriage, legitimacy of children and who inherited what, however, that's not what I'm talking about.
I've never thought about men having a specific duty to procreate, but it's true that most men and women need intimacy and if they choose sexuality it should be preferably in a responsible framework which marriage ensures best, in my opinion. The Scriptures are very democratic about this topic too, if you have bound yourself to a woman, don't look for celibacy, if you have chosen celibacy don't search for a woman. This is very correct, everybody should make their mind. Society would function very naturally if human behavior weren't manufactured. I mean birth control is a huge industry which encourages people to delay or avoid marriage and procreation. This is manipulation and leads to what you mentioned, the government starts to restrict freedoms because some demographic imbalances have appeared. Marriage should be protected by every government in my opinion, because this means if I want to get married and procreate, nobody has the right to make laws to make my life harder and my family life miserable. Nowadays laws aren't very well thought from the perspective of the family, due to feminism and other mechanisms which have put mothers and fathers in a very vulnerable position. Why I am supposed to feel so vulnerable if I am married and have children? This shouldn't have happened, and it is useless to mention how many difficulties families are facing due to modern laws. Nobody should be obliged to marry or procreate, this should happen naturally, due to human dignity in a free society. Family life must be protected from any factors that destroy social issues. It's a domino effect that leads to forced measures from the government, and I would like to mention one of these which makes me crazy: employed mothers are protected in a feminist manner as their employer is obliged to keep them at work at least 6 months after they finish maternity leave just because the government wants to encourage women to work and procreate simultaneously at the employer's expenses and risks. This is a typical measure that forces companies to keep women in the workforce although they are not wanted anymore and somebody else does a better job and has no children to distract their attention. I am against forcing a social category to do things in somebody's interest just because the government has made impractical laws and now things aren't working properly. women should be encouraged to stay at home if they are married and if you don't want any children or marriage you should have access to good education in order to build up a strong mentality in either direction you may choose to go: career, family, monastic life etc.
ReplyDeleteI really like this post Sanne. It's true that something good comes out of EVERY movement but there is too much interference by the government and by the community and local busy bodies into family affairs these days. Also, as I know from experience, it seems that married couples have an inability to cleave to one another and put each other first. For instance wives are often seen being too dependent on their own mothers and husbands don't do what is best for their wives and choose their own relatives and friends first even when the wife is unhappy. The second there's the least little dispute everybody wants to get involved.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I've always maintained that the husband should be head of household. When they both have equal rights and control a third party inevitably has to get involved whenever there's a dispute instead of the husband just making final decisions based on what he believes is best for his family even if his wife is unhappy about it. Of course there must be reasonable limits on his power and the wife must have some recourse if he is being abusive but outside of these issues the husband should be head of household.
As far as having kids, here in the West and in Christian civilization women have always had the right to refuse marriage and even be independent if they wanted to. Despite what we are brainwashed to believe in the post-feminist world patriarchy liberates women because it actaully creates civilization so women can actually have freedom and choices instead of living a severe existence where they do all the work (while the men beat their chests all day exclaiming how much of a man they are and push the women around while they in reality do nothing really productive) and every day is nothing but drudgery and barely surviving.
I know this post is about men having kids but men have always had that choice too. But society always focuses on women suposedly being "oppressed" and having no options but marry and have ten kids or something.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, I'd say that Western governments are busy promoting equality which, since it doesn't exist in nature, is a form of social engineering. They are also trying to abolish the (extended) family through welfare state. Conservatives mostly believe in equality too, they are just stingy and believe it can be achieved naturally, without government subsidies.
ReplyDeleteRadical, I agree with every man's house is his castle doctrine. I guess the point I''m trying to make is that conservatives keep promoting "family values" as a reaction to certain progressive policies, but shouldn't some things be left to the family to decide? I mean specifically shaming men into marriage, which simply doesn't work and creates the opposite effect. There always has been certain pressure on the young people to marry, but it was chiefly done by relatives, not by strangers.
Here in Finland women aren blamed that they do not want to have children and that is why the dependency ratio is negative. And it is ALL women's fault. Because women should be able to bear at least 3 children AND work full time all the time, even though there is not enough work to everybody... And those women who have more than 2 children get blamed because they are lazy and want to live on society's money... (mothers and children get rather good benefits here.)
ReplyDeleteHere people seem to think that children are something women do by their own and men have very little to do with that process. It seems to me that men are allowed to say "yes, my dear" when woman says that "my biological clock is ticking and I want to have kids NOW". People think that men have no will of their own; when we decided not to have children, other women blamed me because I was so evil that I didn't want to bear children to my husband - they assumed that he would have wanted them, but the decision was mine only. Which wasn't the case, since I do not make decision fot my husband. (I konw it is little contradictory to be some sort of traditionalist and willingly childfree.)
I personally think that if man for example inherits family farm that has been in the family for a long time, he does have a duty to father a heir. Otherwise I think it is personal decision; if person doesn't really want childresn there is no point pushing him/her to it, since he will hardly make a good father/mother.
I use to think I was a hypocrite by being traditional and not having a bunch of children. But I certainly don't think that any more after being educated about history, feminism, etc... Don't worry. I'm a traditionalist woman today yet I refuse to have any more kids. My husband doesn't want anymore either but even if he did I would have to tell him "no." It may sound wrong but without knowing he had to support me and without the security women used to have before feminism I simply could never give him more children even if he did want them.
DeleteAnd to take care of the mother-in-law who always wants more grandchildren problem? Just look at her when she says you should have more kids and say "Why? So I can be fat, ugly and divorced like you?" That usually does the trick...
Housewife, American feminism is unique as in blaming men for the things they usually blame women for, in European countries:) Of course, it's ridiculous to expect women to continue working full time while having 3+ kids. Personally I think that blaming women has more sense than blaming men as women have this way of getting things they wish out of men,like marriage and children.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, it's women who want kids and it's men who don't want more than a certain amount, since in our society, a child is often a ticket out of the workforce for a woman, while the man is expected to provide.
As for pushing, most parents desire grandchildren at a certain age, so, of course, they will push, it's only natural. However, I don't think it's something which should be discussed out of the family, since it's simply rude for strangers to interfere in private affairs of other people. It also depends on the situation, if a man has three sons, two of which are married and also have sons, his bloodline is more or less assured so that he can cut the third one some slack:)
The absurdity of the whole thing is that most children have their FATHER'S name. This means that women today are expected to go out and be equally responsible to support children that don't even carry their names! Used to it was the primary obligaton of fathers for the support of children but these days women even go out in the workforce and are supporting men oftentimes even when they themselves carry the husband's name! How absurd is that?
ReplyDeleteAt least in matriarchies where women do all the work the family line is inherited through the mother's line and not the father's. People also don't realize that in those societies like the American Indian the women did all the work but they also owned all the property and some of the tribes were matrilineal. Women are primary breadwinners increasingly these days yet we are still patrilineal in many ways. Feminism is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI think Holland is more traditional in this respect, since here we have widow pensions for housewives and the expectation is strong that the father will provide. That's why, usually, it's the husband who doesn't want too many kids.
ReplyDelete(American) feminism combines tradition and matriarchy in the strangest sort of ways:)
BTW, this discussion is a good illustration of the differences between the European countries and the Anglosphere. Europe may lean too socialist for the American taste, but it's still more traditional and less individualistic in many ways.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is very interesting how different western countries can be. Even the differences inside Europe can be very big -and Europe is rather small geographically. For example here in Finland it is pathetic if person over 20 lives with her/his parents. I have understood that f.e in Germany it is quite common. Here in Finland we must be independent from our family and spouse, but we can be very dependent on goverment and benefits. I recall that that is what they tried to do in USSR; breal the family bonds and make people totally dependent on the goverment.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I think it is a good thing that there are benefits since there isn't enough work for everyone anymore. But it is silly that people think that some sort of economical dependence is more independent than other.
To Radical One: I have always thought that if lived on the 50's, I wouldn't mind bearing children. But life nowadays - I can hardly cope with it on my own. I think it was easier to bring up 5 children at 50's than bringing up one nowaydays. Since they all need (at least here) so much attention, hobbies, entertaiment... Back in the 80's when I was kid we got food and clothes and discipline and were happy. Parents didn't drive us everywhere like they do now.
I am getting really offtopic again...
Yes, in Germany it's quite common to live with one's parents, especially in the villages since they normally have huge houses. A family we stayed with for vacation in South Germany, the daughter and the son with his family lived in the houses next door, so it was like a small tribe. Here people are quite clannish, too, and due to lack of cheap rentals and high house prices, young people stay with their parents longer. I don't think it's always bad, though. Every country is different.
ReplyDeleteAs for children, it's entirely up to parents how to raise them, you can make it, so to say, as crazy as you wish.