
The childlessness debate (aka Philip Longman and his social contract and “empty cradle”) is imputed by a couple of columns in the
Washington Times Sunday Read today (Sept. 6). The main entry appears on p 14, by Cheryl Wetzstein, “Generation X’s rough childhood”, link
here She talks about a trend that started perhaps in the late 60s, a “societywide hostility toward children”, with the “Stop at One” and “None Is Fun” slogans. There would follow the simple things like “adult living” garden apartments, and a gradual mentality that marrying and having kids was entirely an optional, private choice outside the prevue of others.
In the post 9/11 world, that has swung back, ironically, in some part, because of the Internet and social networking, and partly because the media has made the uncontrollable problems of some families so evident (as in the health care debate). Add to this the eldercare issue: as there are fewer children and elders living much longer, sometimes in disability, people will not get out of taking care of others.
On p. 17, Roland C. Warren has his column, “Interruptions part of being a father”. He says at one point “… what makes you a dad is that you have kids. Otherwise you’re just a guy.” He’s accidentally quote a critical line from the black-and-white indie film “
In Search of a Midnight Kiss”. But that at least means that I’m just a guy, a gay guy. “Conservative writer” George Gilder, author of “
Men and Marriage” in the 1980s, once said, “intercourse remorselessly sets the limits of androgyny.” The trouble with all this thinking is that once people have to be “numbered” or “measured”, by logic I now become a second class citizen.
I had an email exchange with Wetzstein a few months back, and she wrote to me "Reproduction rules, but what changes is the "rules of engagement"; the latter phrase would become a major label on my main blog.
Update: Tuesday, Sept. 8Wetzstein has a similar
column (title: "Better Ways to Boost Families") today on the Culture Page, A16, of
The Washington Times, and starts out with a discussion of the "welfare cap", and moves to the broader "values" problem of hyper-individualism v. the family. She mentions the 2007 book "
The Natural Family: A Manifesto", by Allan Carlson and Paul Mero, with website here -- and right now the free PDF download gets an Internal Server error. (You can read the summary, and you can order used from Amazon). I guess any book with the title "Manifesto" raises a red flag with some people. She also mentions the remarks of University of Tennessee history professor Wilfred McClay, who scorns "widespread elective childlessness" and writes "It is only within the family's deep web of duties and obligations that our achievements can matter and that our freedom can be authentic." Those duties don't necessarily wait for one's own sexual intercourse. The McClay "endorsement" review link is
here. McClay is critical of "vocationalism" as if to say something like this: Maybe Works without faith is dead, but Works without a specific "family" to support is also a dead end (or comes from a "dead wire"). I'm not one of the conjugal, connected beings that the Manifesto talks about.
Of course, that puts people like me, who didn't compete very well with others of my gender for reproductive legacy, in a position of having one's commitments and duties assigned by others. Station in life ultimately matters.
By the way, I see also that Mr. Carlson is author of "
Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis" New Brunswick, N.J./Oxford UK: Transactions Books, 1988. In that book, Carlson spoke of the "
family wage" as an antidote to the "logical consequences of radical individualism."