The other day Ross Douthat of the New York Times wrote a column entitled “More Babies, Please,” remarking on the news that America’s birthrate has gone into decline since the beginning of the “Great Recession.” It was full of his characteristic thoughtfulness about social trends and their consequences for public policy. Of course, therefore, it was greeted on the far left as a declaration of war on every achievement of human progress in the last millennium.
Have a gander at this piece, “Do Not Have Sex with this Man,” by Sarah Sentilles at Religion Dispatches. It did not seem to me that Douthat, a married man, was auditioning for sexual relations with anyone in particular. And other than a passing reference to “our famous religiosity” as one contributing factor in America’s healthier-than-the-rest-of-the-West birthrate, Douthat did not say a word about religion in his column. So why is it taken up at Religion Dispatches, or for that matter aggregated at RealClearReligion, where I found it? You’ll have to read to the end of Sentilles’ cri de coeur to find out. It’s because elephants are endangered by what God said to Noah in Genesis 9, or something like that. (This piece, by the way, is par for the course at Religion Dispatches, which often seems to need “Anti-” at the beginning of its name.)
For Sentilles, Douthat’s “racism and misogyny are in high relief” when he argues that it is not altogether a good thing that our birthrate should fall below replacement level. Really? But that’s the spirit of the piece. There is not one sentence in Sentilles’ essay that is written in good faith, as an attempt to understand Douthat’s argument and reply to it in kind. And the saddest part is that she simply must personalize the issue, as though Ross Douthat were making some kind of attack on her, when exactly the reverse is true. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Or pray.
December 5th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
I’ve read more than a few worthy critiques of Douthat’s column. Sentilles’ was not one of them.
December 5th, 2012 | 4:39 pm
I sometimes wonder why Douthat even bothers writing for the audience of his publication. They don’t seem to read a word of what he writes.
The are certainly things to criticize about this particular essay of Douthat’s. He is definitely ideologically biased, though he is more aware of it than most. Yet, the visceral kneejerk reactions to most of his articles by his ideological opposites are almost comical. (Read the comments on his blog at the NY times website sometime for a laugh.)
I also find it funny that “Don’t have sex with this man” is used almost like a statement of excommunication. It’s almost like sex in this case is replacing something else. I think it begins with an R…
December 5th, 2012 | 5:10 pm
does anyone know what this means?
“I have chosen not to have a biological child because I don’t want to live in a world where every animal of the earth and bird of the air experiences fear and dread at my approach.”
December 5th, 2012 | 5:44 pm
Articles like that (Sarah’s) shouldn’t see the light of this site.
December 5th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
I think one should never read the comments on opinion pieces in the mainstream press. They are as sad as any comments on the web today. I used to read them only to be amazed at how many people considered themselves omniscient.
December 5th, 2012 | 9:08 pm
After reading Sentilles’ piece and seeing the titles/headlines of other pieces on the site the meaning of the site’s name becomes clear: those responsible for it want to dispatch religion and any thought or argument that might be informed by it to the hereafter they don’t believe in. Sentilles’ piece fits right in there.
December 6th, 2012 | 1:02 am
So many people in the US are living in terrible conditions, including many children.
It’s unfortunate that many prefer to shout encouragement for adults to produce more babies and put more people in society, while they continue to comfortably neglect and turn their backs to the ones already living in dire conditions.
A bull-dozer mentality is like that.
December 6th, 2012 | 9:17 am
It’s unfortunate that many prefer to shout encouragement for adults to produce more babies and put more people in society . . .
Heather,
Douthat’s argument is that it’s selfish not to have children:
Your argument, on the other hand, is that it’s selfish to have children. You appear to be agreeing with Sarah Sentilles.
December 6th, 2012 | 9:36 am
“does anyone know what this means?
“I have chosen not to have a biological child because I don’t want to live in a world where every animal of the earth and bird of the air experiences fear and dread at my approach.””
Yes, a complete upheaval of human dominion as enjoined in the Book of Genesis.
As an aside, Mr. Douthat should pen a column “don’t marry this woman”.
December 6th, 2012 | 9:55 am
@Adam,
And an odd form of logic. If the animals and birds fear her approach, why is she punting the solution to her children?
December 6th, 2012 | 10:16 am
Heather,
I don’t think Douthat is encouraging you to do anything. I’m not sure why you and Sentilles are receiving his words as a lecture ad hominem. He simply raises the question (obviously, with an implied answer of his own): is there causation between smaller families and societal decay?
If your response to this question is “no”, then say so and give your premise (as opposed to guessing at the comfortability levels of the ubiquitous “they” of which you speak). We could perhaps benefit from your reasoning.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
David wrote: “Your argument, on the other hand, is that it’s selfish to have children.”
Funny, I didn’t write that.
“You appear to be agreeing with Sarah Sentilles.”
Quickly glancing at her article again, I find only one mention in Sarah’s article that intersects my point – the foster children issue. My point was much broader than that.
You appear to have a lot of trouble parsing a simple comment.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:25 pm
If the animals and birds fear her approach, why is she punting the solution to her children?
I agree. If her approach is so frightening and she believes rights of human existence are subordinate to the fears of the fauna, then the logically, she should not only remove progeny, but herself from the ecosphere.
Of course it’s a frivolous concern. I’m sure she wouldn’t advocate the sterilization of lions, because gazelles fear the approach of the king of the beasts (far more than some silly biped without fleet feet, claws or fangs).
I somehow think humans are more cognizant and fearful of her approach than gazelles.
December 6th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
Patrick wrote: “Douthat simply raises the question (obviously, with an implied answer of his own): is there causation between smaller families and societal decay? … We could perhaps benefit from your reasoning.”
Heather raises a simple question: is it ethical for people to produce large numbers of children if this will result in them neglecting and turning their backs to the majority of people that are in need in society (including children)? Taking into account the fact that, in this way, they will condemn these people to all degrees and manner of suffering.
Implied question that was not made explicit by question above but which is also part of my “reasoning:” Is it ethical for us to live in an international apartheid system based on “nationality?”
December 6th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
“Is it ethical for us to live in an international apartheid system based on “nationality?”
I dunno; is it ethical to eat when so many people around the world go hungry? Maybe not, but I for one do not intend to stop eating. Is it ethical to breathe when so many people in China are dying from air pollution? Again, maybe not, but I don’t intend to stop breathing either. Humanity is what it is, Heather. What alternative do you propose for our international “apartheid” that wouldn’t make things worse? You “progressives” can’t seem to wrap your heads around the law of unintended consequences. Try to change human nature and you might succeed. . . in making it worse.
December 7th, 2012 | 5:31 am
Fred wrote: “Humanity is what it is, Heather.”
In other words, many people collaborate with the Nazis, a few join the Resistance.
The choice is yours – always.
Fred wrote: What alternative do you propose for our international “apartheid” that wouldn’t make things worse?
Less of an apartheid system. You have heard they have dismantled the worse of the apartheid system in S. Africa, haven’t you? Would you like to bring back slavery to the US because that’s what “humanity is”?
It’s not because humanity is complicated that you are entitled to do evil all around, support evil all around, and make excuses for yourself on top of it.
December 7th, 2012 | 5:38 am
Matthew, you mention a “fall below replacement”. Note that in 2011 in the USA there were more births (3.95 million) than deaths (2.51 million), producing a large “natural increase”. The death rate (which has for many years stayed well below the birth rate) is relevant to considering whether a national population is “replacing” itself.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact