Posted on | May 23, 2014 | 79 Comments
“To live for the moment is the prevailing passion — to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity. We are fast losing the sense of historical continuity, the sense of belonging to a succession of generations originating in the past and stretching into the future. . . .
“Narcissism emerges as the typical form of character structure in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
— Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (1979)
Earlier today, I mentioned Amanda Marcotte’s revulsion toward motherhood — “this homicidal impulse, this horrifying hatred of the mere thought of having babies” — as symptomatic of the mental illness that inspires much of feminism. Meanwhile, Melissa Langsam Braunstein calls our attention to still more symptoms:
Many adults can’t stand kids. The tragic thing is that some of them are already parents.
In honor of Mother’s Day, feminist website Jezebel scoured anonymous social media site Whisper for posts from parents who regret procreating. One parent shares, “I love my kids so much . . . but I regret having them every single day.” Some Whisper mothers miss their pre-kid social lives and others bemoan their post-birth bodies. There is also this incredibly jarring admission: “I hate my son. I didn’t want a boy. I wanted a girl.”
I can’t imagine ever saying anything like that. I’m thrilled I’m having a second girl, but having experienced a miscarriage last year, I’m over the moon to simply be carrying a healthy baby. . . .
Read the whole thing. Of course, no sane person can imagine saying such things about their children, but these are feminists, eh?
The swirling vortex of modern madness that makes some people envision a future of cannibalism manifests itself in other ways. Or maybe you didn’t hear the news about the Miley Cyrus tour.
“Every time you get in your car, you’re going to hear my fucking song on the fucking radio, you piece of shit. That’s right. And then I’m gonna take all my clothes off, I’m gonna sit on a big, giant dick . . . and then I’m gonna hold the record for the most-watched music video on Vevo . . . So then — you know, you can tell a lot about a person — I think you can tell how big their dick is by how much confidence they have usually, and if I was a dude I’d probably have a really big dick, ’cause I feel really good about myself now. So I’m gonna tell those motherfuckers that broke my heart — particularly one — to suck my fat dick and to enjoy hearing this song for the rest of your life.”
— Miley Cyrus, May 10
This obscene tirade — accompanied by Miley’s use of the, uh, interesting stage prop — was widely interpreted as a denunciation of her ex-fiancé, Liam Hemsworth. But let’s face it: Miley has been having a public nervous breakdown for the past year or so, and this was just her latest psychotic episode. Although she’s getting paid quite well to indulge her exhibitionistic perversion, one must wonder if her acts of self-degradation are somehow a cry for help.
Psychologically healthy people don’t do such things, and the unraveling of Miley Cyrus’s broken mind — she apparently no longer has any sense of personal dignity — is painful to watch. But this is just popular entertainment “in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
Sex is naturally about the future.
Procreation is the biological purpose of sex, after all, and as the Contraceptive Culture encourages us to have unnatural sex — to thwart the natural purpose of sex — it also disconnects sex from love, marriage and parenthood, so that sex becomes a meaningless recreation of no more ultimate consequence than a video game.
Like the pornographic career of “Belle Knox,” the weirdly sexualized performances of Miley Cyrus in some sense express the inherent nihilism of what sex becomes when it is treated like a commercial commodity, a leisure amusement or — as with Miley’s “suck my fat dick” gesture — a competitive sport with winners and losers.
Feminism encourages and celebrates this meaningless kind of sex, telling women that motherhood is oppressive and that abortion is therefore a “right” essential to women’s “liberation.” At the pro-abortion feminist Web site RH Reality Check, Chanel Dubofsky commemorated Mother’s Day with a rant about the “childfree” lifestyle:
Mother’s Day is a great time to remind ourselves that language matters. We already know this; the difference between a “baby” and a “fetus,” between “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice,” among other terms, are vital to pro-choice politics and the movement. Corporate media outlets misfire with regard to language all the time, and this has created a deep sense of confusion between the terms “childless” and “childfree.”
Recently, in a piece for The Telegraph, writer Sarah Rainey featured actress Helen Mirren discussing her decision to not have children, and the implications of that decision for Mirren and for other women like her in a society obsessed with having children.
“Motherhood holds no interest for me,” said Mirren.
She is referred to in Rainey’s piece as “childless.”
Here’s the problem: While “childless” means the condition of being without children, it implies that everyone who does not have children would like to have them. However, being “childfree,” like Mirren — and like me — means that one does not want to have children at all. . . .
As a woman who’s childfree, I’m not experiencing reproductive challenges. I’m not waiting for the right partner, or enough money, or the perfect geographic location. I don’t feel like something is missing from my life because I don’t have children. I don’t want to have kids. . . .
The experience of not wanting children in a world where women are defined by their reproductive desire and potential — where women are expected to structure their lives around babies — is very different than being a woman who would like a baby or would like to be a parent some day. . . . A cisgender, straight woman who doesn’t want a baby is transgressive, subversive, pathological, a perpetual mystery to be solved.
Certainly, we should not encourage feminist lunatics to procreate. If Chanel Dubofsky wants to become a Darwinian dead end — to subtract herself from the future — far be it from me to attempt to dissuade her from embracing her own extinction. She thinks she’s being “transgressive” and “subversive”? Whatever. Her delusions of significance are of no consequence, but it’s important to recognize that this is just another symptom of feminism as a mental disorder.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!