Childless by Choice - Ruby Warrington | Maiden Mother Matriarch 52

fair play for hosting the conversation but she's only crossing the aisle to you so she can hawk her book, her talking points are all boilerplate feminist guardianista cope

there is no viable society that does not prioritize fertile women and their reproductive engagement. the childless are just going to have to cope with being less important.

Feminists constantly pound the table on women not needing men. They do not understand the concept of mutual benefit, win-win situations. That is what a marriage can and should be. Even a win-win-win situation when you include the children too. But feminists will never mention what is best for the children.

I'm a counselor and Christian, trying VERY HARD to help men get with the program. I can only effect change with them, and don't give "us" men a pass

Human biology has been sabotaged by technology. Thank God most women’s genes will not be passed on such as this guest.

Love Louis. This guest, however… no thanks. I wonder if she is even aware of her bias and hubris. And if so, shame on her. She just sounds like an old woman who, over the years, has been able to craft a message that helps her cope in the world.

Unrelated, but the guests bookshelf collor gradient is very pleasing.

In my opinion why there is much more stigma on women not having children is the fact that women are the bottleneck on our reproductive capacity, so maximising this has an evolutionary advantage. For any man that choses not to reproduce there will be a hundred of them standing in line to do the job. Every woman that decides not to reproduce literally cant be replaced and hurts the entire tribe. In human history there were tribes that didn't bully women into having kids, they were simply displaced by those who did, no matter if they did so for genetic, epigenetic or memetic reasons. We are the decendants of those who did stigmatise women who didn't have children and that's why wo do so, too.

I was raised in a fairly seriously religious Christian family & community & I really don't recognise this sidelining & stigma of childless women from that - though I don't doubt it is the default attitude, or that there are more good reasons than bad for that being so, (otherwise it wouldn't be).

The problem as I see it is that feminism is decidedly anti organised religion & tradition, so they just disregard figures such as Julian of Norich, Hildegard von Bingen, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Thérèse of Lisieux & many many more.

It is amazing to hear the mental gymnastics that people will perform in order to validate themselves.

It is also fairly obvious to say but, statistics and their interpretation are not this lady’s strong point.

I would love to see a date between this guest and Erica Komisar. I’m very skeptical of what this guest blelieves against what Erica Komisar says.

I have some unrelated thoughts that this subject brings up in my mind. The first observation I have is that feminism as a movement is predisposed to communalism to the point were they have problems dealing with what are inevitably individual decisions. Women don't seem to be able to deal with a question like: "Do you, or don't you, want to be the president of Apple?" Feminists, and all women for matter never actually answer a question like that, but the vibe they give off--at least to me--is: "I want women everywhere to be the president of Apple."

The individualist, patriarchy is likely to take the attitude that the communal approach will never work like that. I'm admittedly biased, but I can't imagine any scenario where the individualist, patriarchy doesn't win this argument.

The second subject that comes to my mind is a thought that no one is discussing yet, but we probably should in the near future: the rights, and responsibilities, of eccentrics. The first right of an eccentric is to exist unmolested, they often do things that move society along. The first responsibility of an eccentric is to acknowledge that most people are not like them, will never be like them, and are under no obligation to become like them. Indeed, it is very probably a good thing that most people are not like them, and those people should be left alone to not be like them.

I often wonder to what extent the problem of feminism is that feminists can't be happy with just the first part of the above thesis: "It isn't enough that I be left unmolested, it is essential that everyone (or, in this case, every woman) have exactly the same mindset that I have."

"Childless by circumstance" is problematic.

First and foremost, it's denying agency, as if they "had no choice in not having children," and "life just worked out that way." I.e., "it's not their fault!"

True agency is realized with personal responsibility, ownership of your decisions. When you blame others for the results of your own decisions you give up your agency; when you relieve someone of their responsibility, your victimize them by denying their agency.

We will never have "gender equality" until feminists hold women accountable the same way they drive men accountable. Until then, it'll always be someone else's fault, and an easy excuse to women not improving themselves.

The other problem is that it creates cover for misandrists. You wouldn't say of red-pillers, black-pillers, MGTOW, etc. that "they're single by circumstance." No! No one wants to be with them because the way they see, and treat women. Why would you provide space for "men are trash" "we don't need no men" chauvinists? What sane person want children with someone who hates them?

------

"...these middle aged, white male demographers who..." Listen to the distain in her voice. It's not about the demographers hating or oppressing them, it's about her hating men, especially white men.

I've been in a vulnerable state before, and I distinctly recall seeing everything as being aimed at me, things I now recognize as having nothing to do with me. This is clearly what your guest is doing here, perceiving the work of demographers as directed against women while being completely unaware that her own words and views are incredibly sexist.

It seems we have come to a great equality in our society, but instead of us looking upon each other with equal admiration, we look upon each other with equal distain. This will continue as long as we tolerate hate from the extremes from both sides.

Found this a very interesting discussion, thank you both. I disagree with you both regarding men's lack of interest in children historically though. Men have always wanted an heir, to be able to pass down their property or business or trade. You can call that a selfish reason, but it's still a reason that men have wanted children. Before the industrial revolution, children would work alongside their parents from a young age, and boys often learnt their father's trade and would inherit the father's business when they came of age. The industrial revolution gradually broke the idea that you'd follow in your father's footsteps, and thus broke the idea of legacy. I do not think men are as interested today in becoming fathers, but I think historically they were. The only place we still see that today imo is in farming. Farmers expect to pass their farm wholesale down to one or more of their children. I grew up in a farming community in the south West and it's still the case that children work on the farm, particularly as teens, and that one of them shall inherit the farm. Pretty much all farmers I know married and had a reasonable number of children. Food for thought.

Women are complaining there are no good men and men are complaining there are no good women - Hmmm.
How many of those 'deadbeat' men just feel unwanted/not-needed I see them just giving up - the co-dependence IS THE important thing about relationships if you try to make women independent you are making those men redundent and if they feel not needed they lose their main motivation to be good involved fathers. I disagree about poor people, I think being poor means human relationships are MORE important part of your life and were you get all of your meaning.
As I understand it women are more likely to have that maternal instinct before having children and men are more likely to only have their parental instinct kick in after they have their own kids. This makes sense as men have two ways of having kids !) involved father who does everything to help their wife and kids survive or 2) get as any woman pregnant as possible and leave without doing any of the care giving and hope the odd one survives
I guess one good thing is we might be selecting for more broodieness
Motherhood is about creativity so I get the idea of putting that into books
Bringing up babies is NOT WORK it is a labour of love, seeing it as 'work' would corrupt the whole thing and leave bitter children that feel unloved and abandoned (maybe this is want we are seeing with the high child estrangement rates?)
The 'ideal normal' is the only one that makes any evolutionary sense (apart from men 'sowing their wild oats' which benefits that one man but causes chaos for the rest of us) AND YES evolution in not at all 'inclusive' (of people who don't have kids) it is all about weeding out the unsuccesful

As long as there are babies in the world, those babies are going to inspire baby-fever in women (I think men can expereince something similar when they see older children.) Although our culture has stereotypes about women and motherhood, those stereotypes are largely based on biology.

She hasn't expressed one single authentic thought. It's a catalogue of leftist woke tropes mixed with status-seeking victim complex.

The Hugh number of childless by circumstance are the ramification of feminism particularly women entering the workforce in mass lowering the family wage leaving men economically unattractive.The two states women said was oppressive was a mother and wife.

I am child-free by choice and really appreciate these women talking. I looking forward to reading Ruby's book.

I definitely could never have children even if I wanted to -- women won't even look at me. This goes for probably north of 50% of men these days.

Men are not having children because women don't want to be with them. Not men's fault, women won't accept the majority of men anymore.

Enjoyed this back and forth conversation and the spirit in which it was had 😊
I’ve taken a lot of flak over the years for not wanting kids so it’s really nice to see the childfree community develop of late. It is beautiful to me that so many women have a choice now, that’s all it’s about really ❤
I’ve never been anti-mother (although a few have been very rude about my choice), I just knew it was never a path for me and there’s nothing wrong with that. Best part about aging is that people have stopped asking me about it!

I am childless and I have a discerned vocation of celibacy (in the regular, secular state of life). I'm active in my local church. Although most people are naturally called to marriage, it's not that only way a life can be purposeful.

Interestingly, I used to have periods in my life, particularly around my early 30s, when I felt a sort of a desire to have a child.
Not in any specific way and not enough to want to pursue it in any way - I would consider a child only within a loving relationship/marriage, and that necessities the need to have that kind of relationship first; the child being a natural fruit of that relationship.
(as a side note: I can't relate to some women who may willfully decide to have a child outside of a relationship, it seems unnatural to me and a nightmare scenario. Obviously, tragedies or other complicated life situations unfortunately happen, but it's not something one should take as an natural and normalized order of things.)
Also, it is was just an abstract feeling, I suppose just some biological maternal instincts, a very natural drive. I don't have that anymore, and I am also much more clear about the direction of my own vocation.
As of now, I don't have any desire to have my own biological children whatsoever.

One thing I need to add, one can also be a spiritual mother figure, not necessarily having own biological kids.
This, in fact is also a part of my religious vocation. The spiritual life is very fruitful, in some ways more than the natural/biological one.

I think it's a natural tendency of women to want to nurture and provide a kind of care of others. An emotionally mature woman is a mother figure, just like an emotionally mature man is a father figure.

Motherhood is, in a spiritual sense, is a fulfilment of a woman, in the sense that it's being oriented towards the care of others and not just satisfying one's selfish wants.
Basically, it's about giving live and living for someone else apart from just for yourself. We became more wholly through our relationships with others.
Again, that doesn't mean it has to always be the natural biological motherhood. There's many other ways these qualities can be expressed in other forms of social relationships. (Same could also be said about men and fatherhood - giving his life's energy for the provision of the others).

The same can of course be also applied to couples who can't have biological children. They can still mature in these qualities in other ways, within their broader community. A healthy loving relationship isn't hermetically closed off on itself - that's when a relationship is dying - but as it takes its force and energy from its intimate connection, it naturally wants to share and radiate their love to others.

I don't want to be a mother. I would hate to bring bullies, murderers, thieves, narcisstists, drunk drivers, religious people into the world. I do not want pregnancy, chikdbirth, breast-feeding. I dont want my kids to go to a christian school. I love my freedom. I am proudly childfree by choice at 58. I have lots of hobbies. I am not lonely

I cringed when Ruby started talking about "the ideal normal" and "the values of 1950's". The topic of motherhood (to be or not to be) is so universal to women now, it seemed like a missed opportunity. Heterosexuality and motherhood are normal for the vast majority of us. It's how our species survives. Not having children when your culture deeply values large families, tradition, multiple generations living together, lineage, etc- it seems far easier to be single or woman without children in many parts of the west vs. the rest of the world. The "ideal normal" for most of us will be our communities, our own families.

Great conversation but Ruby seems very biased in her opinions. Everything about having babies isn't doom and gloom, also having baby is a lifelong decision - yes, but so is not having a baby, so weighing up whether you want family or not isn't just a choice between a lifelong sacrifice and a lifelong freedom, but I felt she was trying to paint it that way.

With respect, I reckon the word 'a-re-productive" is like trying to juggle three eggs with one arm tied behind your back. What about 'non-maternal' ?

Your voice puts me to sleep, thank you

The life of the mind? What does this mean?

Every arg ruby is making ultimately comes down to whether her career has more worth than having formed a family. I’ve never truly met someone that I truly admire for their career achievements. But I’ve met plenty of good parents that I admire for being parents and showing how much they care for their kids.

You can’t impress me by writing 6 books. But you can impress me if you’ve raised 6 children

I say this not out of pity for the guest in any way, but more as a self-reflective realization - As a mother of 3, who came to motherhood late due to a mix of misguided 'feminist' ideology and lingering fertility challenges, this interview made me so sad. And it made me want to hug Ruby. Perhaps out of my own love for motherhood and children, but also out of the sheer knowledge that we can't know what we don't know. Again, this is more visceral than cerebral, I understand Ruby's reasoning, I support her choice because its informed and feels right for her. And yet, the human female in me aches for her and for women who won't know motherhood. I too am extremely concerned about the falling birth rates, about the schism forming between women who have and do not have children, and yet, my pain for women who won't or don't have children comes from a primal place. We just can't know what we don't yet know.

after you reach 40 and after a certain number of men that you knew have taken their lives . You know the rest of that one.

Well after all that i have become less able to quietly ignore what your guest is saying

People who don't have children are completely irrelevent within 1 generation LOL! Have no children to your own sweet demise, the world keeps on ticking

Self correcting problem. With women that have lots of children, those children will have lots of children etc. The rest of the gene pool that does not have children will die off. Survival goes to the species needing the least resources to reproduce. Natural selection is a wonderful thing. We tried to control natural selection through arranged pairing for hundreds of years.

@46.11 what was that quote? I cannot catch it.

Interesting..💜

Her body, Her choice!
Her choice, Her responsibility!
The responsibility to with the choices she, and only she, gets to make!
Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood , for women. How about men?
Is any consent to parenthood required from him before she decides to give birth?
Her reproductive rights are all about her consent to parenthood - no consent, no parenthood.
Femunism, the movement of equal rights, 'forgot' to include men in their equality!

I relate so much to the perspective of not being self-centred and feeling the benefits of being childless but more just a case of it never coming into question (until someone else questions it)!

Thyroid glands n all... some people dont have the HOREMOANS FOR IT!!!!

Werent into beer aur footy!!!

Survival brings us together

I am so happy I was blessed to have a child. I never realized what I would have lost had I not been so blessed. As one of 5 kids where only I had a kid and then I only had one I can't say enough how much of a positive impact it has had on my life. I didn't realize it so I know how lucky I am to have lived as a mom.

I could take or leave motherhood. I'm the youngest of four and I have many siblings and now many nephews. I do like caring for children from the ages of 6 and up but have never been interested in babies. I'll take care of one of course - just like I would anything vulnerable. But I'm not moved by babies and have never had baby fever.

For me, I actually worry about any future pregnancy triggering an autoimmune condition. Shortening your telomeres is one thing but some studies have now said that it can trigger dormant autoimmune conditions or make them worse. And I think that pregnancy did worsen my mother's ankylosing spondylitis. The pain now limits her physically. She hasn't even retired yet but worries about her not being able to travel and hike by the time she retires. I hate seeing her like in pain like that. Pregnancy and childbirth is a sacrifice. And it's not one every woman is going to be willing to make if it doesn't benefit or enrich their life. I see nothing wrong with that. I think women have to weigh things out and come to a decision based on their own circumstances.

Why is a person who is incapable of doing something as basic and simple and essential as shopping for and cooking a meal not laughed out of the studie?

Why would you think the idea that nunneries are sites of intellectual activity is an idea to be laughed at?

I've met so many miserable, embittered parents. Not to mention their screwed-up kids. I really value the greater freedom of choice to have or not have kids. I think it's ultimately good for human happiness if people aren't steamrollered into clearly unsuitable parenthood. When you educate girls and they gain greater access to contraception, a significant minority choose not to have children, living perfectly fulfilled lives.

Let individuals be individuals.