What the world needs now are kids, sweet kids.

I begin with a story:

I was sitting in class and our professor was discussing an author we had read for class that day. This author had mentioned that having children is generally something we see as something inherent that we all will do eventually, and that this should be thought about differently. One of my classmates, who happened to be female, made the following statement:

“I mean, I don’t get it. I have to have children. What if all of the educated women in the world didn’t have children? We have to have children.”

Well, first of all, what an extremely classist statement. It is made inferring:

1. All educated women are intelligent, therefore, we are responsible for procreating the next intelligent generation.
2. There are not enough intelligent, uneducated human beings to resupply our Earth with the proper amount of intelligent human beings.

This is based in a lot of other messed up, class-related issues like unequal access to education, as well as other resources that put you on a college-educated track. But also, that this feeling she has of a responsibility or duty to have children is one that is told to us through almost all of the institutions in social life. It should be her choice, and every other person’s choice to have or not have kids.

If you’re reading this thinking, “OH NO. Another feminist who thinks one or more of these things:

1. Having children will ultimately end the world. We will overpopulate, emit more carbon than ever before, run down all of our environmental resources and kill everything and everyone.
2. Kids enslave women. The myth that motherhood is a blissful fairy-tale should be busted, immediately.
3. Patriarchy produces children. Fin.”

You can rest assured that this feminist, does not believe any of those things. You see, I am a proponent that someday, I may decide that I am prepared to birth some kids or adopt some or acquire some by some other non-sketchy means.

What feminists today are arguing about having children is that the resources available to women are severely inadequate to support children. I’m sure some of the women across generations will agree that having a career and having children are difficult things to pursue whole-heartedly without compromising in the “opposite” area.

Is it strange to you, as it is to me, that those things are opposite? This is no inherent trait of child-bearing; that your ability to work becomes more difficult. Would it be possible to cheapen daycare, or should I say, is it possible to invest more money in daycare? Is it possible to give maternity leave for more time than twelve weeks after the child is born, perhaps even paid maternity leave, for longer than twelve weeks? Often times, women will request more leave afterwards, and will be harassed, fired or demoted by an employer.

The fear from the other side is, “well, then women would just continue to have children and gather paid leave forever and ever and ever.” WRONG. First of all, most women that I know, wouldn’t look forward to having however many kids you would have to produce every twelve weeks to get paid your entire life on maternity leave:

9 months of gestation + 3 months of maternity leave = 1 child/year

(1 child/year) (25 approximate working years) = 25 children… factor in a few sets of twins there and you’ve got what, 30 kids?

Secondly, if you can make a policy to extend or pay maternity or paternity leave, you can also make a policy preventing these 30-childed people from abusing that policy.

You see, the “system”–excuse my reified language–is set up first and foremost, to make the mother the primary caregiver in a heteronormative household. It, through economic means, also sends the message that motherhood, or childcare by a parent, is not “hard” enough work to deserve paid leave, or even cheap enough daycare for all parents to afford.

Watch this and tell me what you think!