November 14, 2012
EMBOLDENED supposedly by Romney’s loss among women, liberal Democrats and Tories are scrambling for new ways to make motherhood obsolete, The Daily Mail reports. It all boils down to more of the same old socialist plans for subsidized childcare, parental leave and affirmative action, which all boil down to making motherhood more unappealing.
Despite an unwed motherhood rate of over 50 percent and disastrously low fertility among natives, the British clamor to demonize and collectivize motherhood even more. Instead of devoting resources to making it possible for women to be mothers, the British steadfastly marginalize motherhood.
The average age of first-time mothers in Britain is now 30, the most advanced age of first mothers in the developed world and possibly all of history. Animals don’t reproduce much when they are raised in zoos; human beings don’t reproduce much when they live in the closed-off pens of social engineers. Women who lived in peasant villages with one water pump and no indoor plumbing, no refrigerators, no gas stoves, no antibiotics, no hospitals, no day care centers routinely managed to raise hordes of healthy children while the native British eke out so few children they are not replacing themselves.
They should get it over with and make it illegal to have children. Then women would be totally equal to men.
—– Comments —–
Kevin M. writes:
The sheer insanity of it is mind-boggling. For thousands of years, in cultures embracing any number of religions and economic/political systems, the family remained civilization’s brick, its principle building block. When family suffers, society retreats. Today we have “gender is a social construct” and thousands of years of human civilization is suddenly irrelevant. I remember reading Why Men Rule by Steven Goldberg. I had never before read an argument, not for why patriarchy is a good idea or better than matriarchy, but why it is a biological imperative. Patriarchy is biologically mandated.
Small wonder all the world’s great religions follow that model. It’s the only one that can possibly survive. If the Brits continue down this path, they will be gone in less than 100 years.
Last night the conversation here at home turned (again!) to politics, and of course, the recent election. It doesn’t take long for religion to be brought into the picture, either; the overlap is more often than not very great. My husband read to me something from the Old Testament, that discussed the Israelites’ exile in Babylon. Here it is, from the 29th chapter of Jeremiah, starting with verse 4, ending with verse 7:
“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the ciry where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”
The Israelites were in a place they didn’t want to be, and God had them stay there for seventy years. I imagine those years were no picnic, and Babylon was understood to be a temporary residence. But God instructed the Israelites to get on with living anyway, building places to live, growing their food, and, above all, having lots of babies. As Kevin stated in his comment, all the great religions of the world followed the model of being fruitful.
I don’t understand how the British people can participate so willingly in their own destruction…but really, is America much different? Anyway, I’m sure the Muslim immigrants to the U.K. aren’t using birth control or abortion to decrease their numbers!
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized