Jake DiMare argues that for true gender equality, we need more progressive, liberal folks to create more children and raise them up with love, civility and the ability to think critically about their surroundings.
This piece is part of a special series on the End of Gender. This series includes bloggers from Role/Reboot, Good Men Project, The Huffington Post, Salon, HyperVocal, Ms. Magazine, YourTango, Psycholog
It seems to many as if gender is a binary matter. People are either male or female and should behave accordingly. Boys like to hunt, kill, and build things. Girls like to cook, clean, and raise things. If only life were still that simple.
In reality, the topic of gender is incredibly nuanced. Even the meaning of the word is highly debatable. It may appropriately refer to gender roles, gender identity, biological sex and/or all of the above.
What’s even more complex are the societal issues surrounding the topic of gender. Topics such as reproductive rights, the ways women are often treated in corporate America, and issues surrounding marital rights for the LGBTQ community are some of the most derisive and thought provoking philosophical and political debates of our time.
I’ll be honest. In a lot of ways I am not very mature. When confronted with the idea of the ‘end of gender’ the first thought my primitive, fear-driven mind races toward is my own sex life—or potential lack thereof. I am in love with a woman who is quite feminine. Luckily for me, she prefers me to look and behave decidedly masculine. What would happen to us if these traits were no longer acceptable in society? Would we ever have been attracted to one another in the first place? Would any run-of the mill heterosexual?
Most people will agree that the idea of changing societal norms associated with gender identity is an issue much higher on the agenda of progressives than conservatives. After all, conservatives tend to like things to stay the same, while progressives believe things should change. However, few might agree that completely eliminating gender norms, in the context of families, is actually dangerous for progressive people.
That’s right, I said it. In the context of families, eliminating gender is actually bad for progressives as a demographic and political whole. This statement is based on the following assumptions:
- Gender roles are good because they promote sexual attraction between men and women.
- Sexual attraction between men and women is good because it promotes making babies.
- Making babies is good, nay, imperative for progressives. (queue up Al Green)
Before all the feminist and/or LGBTQ voices tear into me, I’d like to add some other beliefs I hold dearly. I do not believe lifestyle alternatives to traditional family values are bad. I don’t even necessarily know if my ideas about families are better than those of anyone else. I do think, on the basis of millions of years of evidence, they work well.
Also, this is not an article about lifestyle choice as much as it is one about demographics and the long-term, strategic importance of raising families amongst people with like-minded ideals. If you happen to be a progressive member of the LGBTQ community and are raising children or planning on doing so, I support and applaud you.
At this point many progressives may be wondering: What’s so good about making babies and why is it so important to progressives?
I am old enough to clearly remember back in 1992 when then Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the popular, fictional television character Murphy Brown for making the decision to have a child out of wedlock. This was during the early days of the 24-hour news cycle and his comments opened a floodgate of gender and family related criticism and debate. Quayle said:
It doesn’t help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.
I was in high school at the time, and I made the foolish mistake of announcing that I agreed with Mr. Quayle. My mistake was making this declaration in the presence of many classmates who were quite liberal. Amidst the squawking flurry of insults and jeers which followed, I never got to finish my point.
What I was planning to follow up with back then, which I still think is important today, is this: It is irrelevant whether crazy, ignorant, hate-filled conservatives actually care about individual families. Espousing family values in this context is a political strategy to increase the conservative voting base and, quite literally, beat liberals the old-fashioned way. Consider the following data:
The first set of charts shows the bottom 20 and top 20 states for live births per 1,000 estimated population in each area. Colors indicate voting results in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.
Notice anything? This next set of charts are the top 20 and bottom 20 states for the percentage of people with a college degree. Again, the color overlay indicates voting record in the 2004 Presidential election.
If you are anything like me and don’t like to consider a lot of numbers while reading I will sum up what this data means in a sentence: Poorly educated people make lots of babies and vote for less progressive presidents. I discussed this article with my fiancé while writing it, and she aptly pointed out these numbers can easily be explained in a very simple, pragmatic way. Smart people are too busy pursuing education and careers to be making babies. This conclusion seems very logical to me.
As Phillip Longman, senior fellow at the New America Foundation, said:
When secular-minded Americans decide to have few, or no, children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide.
So what’s a thoughtful, intelligent person to do? Well, if you envision a future where education and healthcare are more important than bombs and corporate profits, you might consider it a worthy undertaking to raise a few children. Perhaps, in the long run, making babies is as important if not more important than a career?
If you think you agree, here’s where the conversation comes back to gender. Truthfully, like most evolved men I know, I have no problem with men staying at home and doing the baby raising. In fact, one of my closest buddies is a stay-at-home dad. His kid is happy, healthy, and well-behaved. My friend’s a happy guy, and frankly, he gets much more time on the Xbox than I do.
But regardless of who does the raising, more progressive men and women are going to have to be willing to make babies. Which means women need to carry them. And, if I may be so bold, it would help to start making them younger. Waiting until forty may be great for the career and fitting into skinny jeans, but the risks to both mother and child increase, while the possibility of multiple children decreases when women wait until later in life.
So, get out there and make some babies. Raise them up with love, civility and the ability to think critically about their surroundings. Teach them your values, whatever they may be. As is always the case, the longest journey starts with the first step. Fortunately the first step on this adventure is an easy one to take. Light some candles, poor some wine and drop the needle on that Al Green track. Let’s get it on.
Here’s why this sort-of-progressive woman isn’t having kids–not not and not ever: A big part of my liberal streak comes from refusing to settle for anything less than the same kind of free and self-sufficient life that men take for granted. I need to earn my own paycheck (in a technical field no less), buy my own drinks, solve my own problems, defend my loved ones, and keep my sex life 100% drama-free. This is what it takes for me to face the chick in the mirror each morning. It’s a sad biological fact that I CAN’T breed without becoming… Read more »
To be honest I don’t agree that simply having more liberals have children in the manner you are suggesting is anything close to a solution to the problems of gender equality. Regardless of how many kids you have, you have to face the fact that because the opposite exist there will always be inequality. The work in my opinion that needs to be happening, is getting people to actually see the problem as it really is and admitting… “Ok this is wrong and we need to do something about it.”
Neither do I agree my suggestion is a total solution to the problem of gender equality (or Republicans). But if there is going to be any hope of a future where compassionate, critical thinkers are calling the shots, we need more reproduction on our team immediately.
It has nothing to do with fitting into skinny jeans. As Livy already mentioned we delay because we cannot find a loving environment for future babies. Educated liberal men are raised in a culture that encourages them to sleep around. With men delaying committed relationships it makes it difficult to find an educated and progressive man who is single and would like to settle down while you can still have kids. As an over educated liberal woman in her 30s I can tell you that we know we can’t wait til 40. No one wants to wait that long but… Read more »
While I do agree that men do have a biological clock I think a bigger problem is that our society is a bad environment for kids in general. I find that most men are either to busy with their own lives that they don’t typically care about having a family because they have enough trouble as it is with whatever they are already dealing with in life. The men who do choose to go through with it may find that their situation simply doesn’t allow for the right environment at home anyways. Speaking for myself, it’s not so much that… Read more »
That sounds frustrating to be certain. If my article wasn’t clear, I am making a call to progressives, regardless of gender, to make choices which will lead to more babies.
As long as the milk is free, there is no urgency to buy the cow.
Preaching sex as a mere biological imperative, only ensuring that condoms are used creates little reason for men to move toward marriage and family until later in life, when they can always find a younger uterus to reproduce with.
Until that situation changes, babies will continue to be scarce.
Speaking of critical thinking.
Eric,
DC is an absolute outcast and is essentially the laughing stock of the world. The education system there is horrid, the gap between the rich and the poor is disastrous. People from other countries who visit DC hate it for these reasons. I think Americans sometimes struggle to see parts of ourselves for what they are. We are totally Ameri-centric elitists.
~Cameron
My point exactly . You’ve picked up o the fallacy of his argument that we need more cities (states) that operate and think like DC.
Your theory tested doesn’t work. DC is far and away at the top of the education list and also near the top in live births.
Definitely an outlier. Heavily weighted with outside talent on the education side but with the overwhelming majority of native residents being absolutely destitute with poverty.
So? It still defeats your argument. Also, the abject poverty runs counter to your argument unless abject poverty is what you are aiming for? You’ve oversimplified your position but also overcomplicated the problem. For the oversimplification: Some of your target states carry the worst debt problems, and have been riddled with government corruption in recent years. So, to say that we want more like them is to ask for even worse financial problems and even more government corruption. You see these come in package deals. Also, regarding complicating something that is simple: what you don’t get is that this notion… Read more »
Your reasoning from your statistics is weak and going to get you in trouble. 1. States with more live births tend to vote Republican doesn’t prove that Republicans are having bigger families. You don’t know which people in the state are voting. This is particularly relevant in Republican-voting states with large immigrant populations; immigrants tend to have bigger families but may not be voting Republican. In Democratic-voting Florida, the birth rate may be affected by the age of the voters. 2. The gap between the bottom of the top 20 birthrate and the bottom 20 isn’t that big. Democratic-voting MD… Read more »
I don’t think there’s a necessary connection between gender roles and having babies. There’s a big leap between wanting to be sure people are free to behave in a traditionally masculine or feminine manner and thinking those roles are what make people fall in love or have sex. You’re also assuming that people who vote more conservatively are less educated and less professional. If your argument is that liberal women should begin childbearing at a younger age so that they can have large families and raise liberals, a traditional family isn’t necessary. Two parents are needed, but the work and… Read more »
I agree with a lot of what you say except child care. There is no way one person can monitor and engage more than one or two growing infants or toddlers in a way that maximizes their health, safety and development.
My guess is that you don’t actually know any conservatives personally, and that what you think you know about ‘conservatism’ you learned by watching Saturday Night Live.
Much to the contrary, I used to be a ‘Conservative’. I’ll also add that a very close family member, whom I have always admired as one of the smartest men I know, is General Counsel to a high ranking, highly visible Republican politician on the national scene. My family is a rather strange mix of liberals and conservatives and to be honest, I fall somewhere in the middle.
Some of my closest friends are also conservatives. What’s your point? My piece is about numbers and strategy.
“…..ignorant, crazy, hate-filled conservatives…”
Does that describe your relatives and friends, or is that just red meat for the left-leaners here at GMP?
Socially, I don’t think it’s any more valid to stereotype conservatives than it is to stereotype liberals. Both terms include a LOT of different Americans living in a lot of different communities. The whole ‘progressives are smarter’ thing is just hubris. Just my opinion.
Typically I don’t bother engaging this far with someone too frightened to comment with a real identity. What are you afraid of?
So, you are taking that statement as a whole. I’m sure there are ignorant, crazy, hate filled progressives too. I just haven’t met any yet.
“I’m sure there are ignorant, crazy, hate filled progressives too. I just haven’t met any yet.”
And with that you just lost all creditibilty. Not to mention the fact that Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico were Obama states in 2008. That means they should be blue, not red. Now, what’s that about ignorance? 🙂
This is always my counter argument to the suggestion that people need to choose not to have babies to save the environment! I do totally agree.
However, I think the problem is that a lot of people who would like to have children younger don’t find the loving environment in which to raise them until a lot later. Certainly, if my partner and I broke up now, I would struggle to have babies in the time frame I would prefer.
I think you raise a really good point. Do you have ideas on why it takes longer in life to create that loving environment?
Thanks for your comments.
-Jake
Very nice article – I hadn’t thought it about exactly that way. It reminded me of the movie Idiocracy by Mike Judge (great concept, poorly executed), that basically shows where things are headed if the educated don’t start contributing offspring to the population.
Thanks! I’ll have to check that movie out.
Not bad Jake. Not bad at all. I don’t know if people who are getting an education don’t have time to make babys I’d guess that if a baby is made while in college chances of them continuing on to earn a degree probably decreases. I dont know if we need to make more babies, but having them younger than 40 and making sure they grow up in a loving environment, sounds like a good step in the right direction.