Three years ago, my family resigned from membership in the non-traditional synagogue, which has been our religious home for over 40 years. Suddenly the end came after I published a controversial column in the Jewish Community Newspaper. Without prior consultation, my rabbi joined 25 other progressive rabbis and educators across Canada and publicly accused me of misogyny, homosexual disgust, and transphobia.
Therefore, I had no other choice. But by that time, my attachment to the synagogue could, in any case, be said to be a more intellectually ecumenical rabbi, “running in smoke” from previous times.
What did I write about something that was so inflamed? I pointed out that the three hottest social issues of our time, abortion, gay marriage and transgender, share a common denominator. Still, all three affirmations, and even celebrations, have become a litmus test of moral status among left-wing idealisms.
I have a unique contradiction between the ferocious productionism that chokes the Torah, the most sacred text of Judaism, and the progressive “inclusive” policy that disregards legitimate concerns about planned or predictive infertility. Insisted on a more open discussion about. Anger and immediate reliance on personally ashaming my proposal, excited among my progressive socialists, is evidence of the institutional capture of the political left of my religion, if necessary. bottom. And I know that my anecdotes tell the story of many Christians to their leaders as well.
Before the widespread use of oral contraceptives in the 1960s, Intellicia’s main concern was overpopulation. Safe, cheap and effective means of controlling the reproductive system seem to be the answer to what was considered a serious global sustainability issue, of choice and opportunity for women in all directions. Opened the outlook.
There seemed to be no downside to contraception. Similarly, apart from the basic moral problems of a small part of the population with abortion. At that time, no one expected that the individual’s power to reproduction as a private solution to a personal problem would ultimately lead to widespread acceptance of infertility as a social benefit in its own right. ..
But here it is, and it is. Try searching for “I don’t want children”. I recorded 3970,000,000 hits (your eyes don’t fool you; it’s billions, not millions). Reproductive prevention is not just an accepted position. It wins praise from the chattering class.
In 2018, Canada’s leading journalist Anne Kingston wrote a feature article on her regretted mother in the magazine of McLean, Canada’s premier type of publication. It was clear throughout that Kingston approved her dissatisfaction with the motherhood of her carefully selected subjects. Psychology Today’s 2019 article provided “Six Great Reasons to Have Children”. In conclusion, “Perhaps the only good reason to be a parent is to give them joy and feel they do the great work and responsibility that a person really grows up, enjoys teaching, and is a mother or father. I think it’s what I’m doing. It works. “
So there is nothing sacred or basic for human prosperity in family formation. It should only be done by a subset of humans with certain qualities that can guarantee happy and productive children. If such a severe stenosis had led to reproductive activity from the dawn of history, humanity would not have survived for a long time. But we live in history-an indifferent era.
The Family Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and Wheatley Foundation recently published a revelation report entitled “The Divided State of Our Union: (Post) COVID-19 Family Formation in the United States.” About two surveys conducted by YouGov. Among many other findings: The US birth rate, which was 3.5 per female in 1950, was 1.7 per female, well below the lowest level of population substitution in history. rice field. (Low in Canada, the number of births per female is 1.47.)
Cultural analyst Yuval Levin commented on Dispatch.com, noting that the report “is a mess of passiveness-a failure to launch and many Americans are on the sidelines of life.” ing. This passivity is global and far more pronounced in Asia than in the United States. The decline in Japan’s fertility rate (currently 1.36) is recognized as a national problem.
People who enjoy a “childless” life in the West are far more positive than “childless” and, at least in productive years, have failed to passively or do something about themselves. Not considered. The environmental zeitgeist is with them. They boast a lifestyle low carbon footprint. But what about their cultural traces?
Even in dictatorship countries, low birth rates seem to be one-way, and while women can have fewer children, they cannot have more. Singapore tried. While modernizing in the 1960s after independence from the UK, Singapore’s newly established Family Planning and Population Commission has launched a sign campaign to convey “Stop at Two” and “Small Families–Brighter Future.” Abortion and sterilization were encouraged at government expense. After two children, maternity leave was refused.
done. Singapore reached its exchange-level fertility target of 2.1 in 1976, plummeting 53% in 10 years. But even as the rate of girls’ education rose, it did not stop declining. The reverse strategy has been implemented. Abortion was not prohibited, but preoperative counseling was required for women with three or less children. The sign and media message has been changed to “I have 3 or more (if I can afford it)”. But there are no dice. The birth rate in Singapore in 1960 was 5.76. Today is 1.14.
In McLean’s article above, the author pays homage, but ironically, cites the 2015 book “Mother of Regret: A Study” by radical Israeli feminist Orna Donath. Ironically, maternal regret in Israel is an unusual attitude. The birth rate in Israel is 3.1 per female, the highest in the west. The highest rates are found among the ultra-Orthodox, but even secular Israelis have more children than other Western nations. Such spontaneous fertility is a sign of cultural optimism today. Israeli women as a whole show that families do not have to be a threat to feminism or women’s complete self-fulfillment.
The birth rate of unorthodox Jews in North America is declining. This should be registered as a serious cultural problem for the already numerically small slices of the western population. The urge among progressive religious leaders to avoid community members who simply question their awe about infertility-related identities rather than phobias is a nuisance. In other words, Yiddish’s great writer Sholem Aleichem’s maxim for poverty is, “Infertility is not a sin, but an honor.”
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.