Single cat ladies…
Cats, it seems, have been politically representative for a long time. I suppose one could argue that from when the Egyptians deified cats, they have played a part in defining certain cultural affiliations. The association between cats and women who drew the disapproval of surrounding communities can be dated to when witchcraft dominated the fears of European populations.
Absurd, of course, but not the first absurdity to come with dire consequences for marginalized people.
Of course, this is part and parcel of the Right’s urgent attempt to return women to what might be termed the Domestic Sphere. Globally, there are a number of governments currently quite concerned about population growth. Rather, the lack of. Births per capita in many places have been declining for some time. States concerned with their ability to compete are worried that they’re running out of potential new workers.
While this is a problem of economic organization more than one of sheer numbers, the impetus to see it that way is, as usual, much resisted by those at the top who like where they are. Of course, these same people, on average, themselves have fewer children…and always have.
Stripping away all the Chicken Little panic attendant upon this, we should keep in mind that the only way to reverse the trend decried is to force women to breed. Which means stripping them of rights. Which means taking away choice. Which means reducing them to chattel.
Why?
Men are too much involved in their co-operative and competitive relations to act as a public for one another. Woman is outside the fray: her whole situation destines her to play the role of concerned spectator. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
Culturally, historically, socially, women have been made the audience. The current struggle underscores this, because all these males trying to make laws to control them seem clearly designed to secure for themselves their expected audience. Women who step onto the stage with them cannot be an audience. It confuses the insecure male. There are, obviously, degrees of the required condition, but the more women, in any period, have rejected the role, the more authoritarian the response from men, including the arbitrary reduction of women to stateless, propertyless, indeed identityless ciphers with no power.
But only poor women. Or lower middle class women. Of any woman lacking the financial means to circumvent the rules the majority live by. Nothing new there. Lest we forget, the whole abortion debate has never been about whether women can obtain one but about which women will obtain one. People with money have never lacked for…options.
I find all these warnings about shrinking populations darkly amusing. Sixty years ago we were generally concerned that we were on some Malthusian roller coaster and in danger of over populating. Insofar as people rose to meet that challenge, we are now faced with a different fear, that of an aging population with a shrinking rate of replacement. It never seems to occur to certain people that the real problem is inequity.
But really, my visceral reaction to this is a categorical rejection of the proposed solutions. Mandating, essentially, that women have children instead of careers. Or, perhaps, to put it more bluntly, preventing women choosing to live lives they wish to live rather than the ones their communities want them to. There ought not be a conflict here, but according to certain people there is.
Where are all the tirades about men who remain childless? I mean, I am, by choice. I would make a most unwilling parent and I knew this decades ago. This choice can certainly be described, if you wish, as selfish, but on the other hand taking myself out of the pool can also be described as refusing to inflict indifferent parenting on an innocent child. In either case, of course, the weight of the argument is heaped on women? Why? Well, because they get pregnant, they have to take measures to secure themselves from unwanted outcomes in ways men do not, they are the ones who end up shouldering the responsibilities. In general, the attack is aimed at those most vulnerable. You can complain about males not willingly impregnating females all you want, but in the end it’s an absurd argument if the woman is not also willing.
Unless you intend stripping her of her ability to decide for herself. Spin it any way you like, that’s a kind of rape.
Why is it, in a culture that celebrates the Individual, so many people are so ready to jettison that ideal when it comes to women?
Rhetorical question, really, but I think it should be forcefully put more often. Make these people admit that they do not regard women as equals, indeed, as fully human. All this talk about the obligation to the species is just misdirection.
There are so many problems which can be laid at the doorstep of population growth that we are now, some of us, willing to disregard in the name of dominance. The difficulties raised are primarily economic with certain attendant technological and infrastructure aspects, not a question of sheer numbers. A closer look and the resistance to such solutions can be seen as privilege trying to maintain itself at the expense of those who lack the means to defend themselves and their rights.
Single cat ladies a danger to civilization my ass. Males who aren’t sure they can compete is more likely. The super wealthy who don’t want to see sensible changes in economic policy and a readjustment in wealth distribution, certainly. (And before you think I condemn all the rich, no. I’m sure there are many who do not agree with a program they regard as unethical and possibly immoral. But it doesn’t require them to be a monolith. It should be obvious by now that it does not require a majority to impair, derail, and thwart such things. You only need a handful of adversaries to bollocks up anything. At least for a while.)
Anyway, that’s my opinion. Carry on.
