Deluded and Immature

When I lived in New York, I knew two very talented and driven artists who had abandoned their children. One had left her son with her parents so she could move to NYC and pursue visual arts. The other had simply ditched his kid with his ex-wife, to devote his life to stage performance. Both told me separately (they didn’t know each other) that, had they stayed to raise their offspring, they would have killed themselves.

I always took the prospect of parenthood very seriously. I believed anyone who had a child needed to prioritize them, and if that meant giving up their so-called dreams, they were obligated to do so. I felt ambivalence admiring my friends’ works, when I learned they had abandoned children to create them. I believed their explanations were honest, that they may indeed have committed suicide if trapped in the parental role, which would have left their families even worse off. I judged them for not thinking this through before they had made innocent new humans to suffer their bad decisions. They were both young when got pregnant and impregnated, respectively, caught up in emotions and hormones and romance and a sense of fulfilling biological and social imperatives. Neither child was “accidental”.

Jordan Peterson recently said not wanting children is “either deluded or immature.” He is speaking primarily to young men, and maybe he’s right about them. He also asserts that many (most?) women are happier as mothers than in high-powered careers. He may be right. Most people seem to desire children, enjoy children, are attracted (maternally and paternally) to children, like being around children, and find children delightful and inspiring. Most parents discover a deep sense of meaning in their children, something they never experienced prior, to the point they see their lives before children as comparatively meaningless and empty. This is their main point of reference: a childfree adult is like a younger version of them that never grew up, because when they grew up they had children.

Not wanting children is socially difficult and alienating. Years ago, on the online forum alt.support.childfree, a woman asserted that only women are truly childfree. Men may not want children, but only women understand deeply what they are rejecting. 

My fertile years were marked by constant awareness of my difference. Not only did I have no desire to have a baby, I felt pronounced revulsion to the idea, and to babies themselves. I had no ill will toward them, but no maternal attraction either, and preferred to stay as far away from them as possible. I was acutely aware I was supposed to feel and behave a certain way around babies, as relentlessly demonstrated in media: to coo, stare adoringly, ask to hold it, and wistfully long to have my own. My real feelings were perverse and would horrify anyone around me. I internalized much of their hatred. Deluded or immature. What kind of monster would be repulsed by babies?

A woman, first of all. A man with a calling doesn’t need to experience that revulsion; he won’t lose all his energetic resources to reproduction, he doesn’t gestate, give birth, breast feed, or otherwise surrender to children as a woman must. If a woman has a calling – to use her full energies to reproduce culturally, rather than biologically – then whatever culture destined to come through her benefits from her psycho-reproductive resources. Any emotional inclination toward biological children is a threat to whatever Art wants to be made instead. A female artist is at much higher risk of abandoning or starving her creative potential for a child than a male is. And if she abandons her child instead, as my NYC artist friend did, the consequences are devastating and maladaptive.

Only women can be truly childfree.

My own choice to never have children was realistic and mature. First, I clearly had no orientation toward them. It was possible – probable, even – that if I’d had my own, my revulsion would have evaporated and I would have loved them deeply, sacrificing my creative pursuits. Would this have been a net benefit to society? Because I was realistic and mature, I understood children need committed love and sacrifice. Because I was realistic and mature, I condemned the abandonment of children. Because I was realistic and mature, I took my ingrained and unwanted revulsion of children seriously. Most available men desired children; my aversion vastly reduced my relationship prospects. I have never wanted children, but I have wanted men who wanted children. I have also wanted social acceptance and a sense of belonging. My revulsion of babies and parenthood denied me this. But I was realistic and mature enough to understand that however much I wanted the benefits of fitting in, suppressing my feelings (revulsion), my true orientation to parenthood (against it), and my calling (Art), would be dishonest and commit me and any potential family to misery.

I had a calling. Much as parents wonder how anyone can not want children, I marveled how others lived their lives without making Art. How could you have any sense of meaning without creating something beautiful and significant? How dull and empty the lives of non-artists must be. I eventually concluded that the meaning and order Art brought to my life, largely came from children in theirs. Which is how I came up with the idea of a psycho-reproductive system. Our biological reproductive systems are evident; we are shown diagrams of them in sex ed; but our psyches participate as well. 

Don’t forget the brains!

I first learned about how Cuckoo birds reproduce in Richard Dawkins’ The Extended Phenotype. Cuckoos don’t raise their own chicks; they hijack the psycho-reproductive systems of other birds, who find Cuckoo hatchlings so irresistibly attractive they feed and nurture them to the detriment of their own offspring. Dawkins points out the behavior of the unrelated birds, hijacked into the parental role, is an expression of the Cuckoos’ genes, which evolved and adapted to do exactly that. Hijacking an organism’s psycho-reproductive system can be a winning evolutionary strategy. I thought about my cats, whom I love with the maternal affection I’m supposed to devote to human babies. Clever cats! Clearly I possess a psycho-reproductive system; I’m not fundamentally devoid of maternal instinct. Mine has simply been hijacked by other species, which have evolved to do exactly that: cats are cute for a reason. I have no regrets.

Culture is also a living and evolving thing. Humans are not human without it. Our brains are made for language (a subset of Culture), and language is made for our brains. Humans raised in isolation, without communication through language and other culture, grow into sick stunted animals, if they survive at all, which they don’t. Culture is insufficiently studied as a life form; it’s commonly considered a product or creation of humanity, rather than a symbiote.

Culture hijacked my psycho-reproductive system — for which I’m glad, don’t get me wrong! I’m part of a proud tradition of humans who have devoted their lives to Culture, although it’s more frequently called God in this context. Jesus Christ was notably childfree, at least in myth. Beloved saints were childfree. In many sects, if one is called to the Church, they must remain childless (celibacy being the means to achieve this). Many social and cultural specialties demand energies otherwise reserved for child-rearing. For some, giving up children to pursue a calling is a sacrifice. For others, the calling – Culture – does what any clever living thing would adapt to do, and hijacks its host’s psycho-reproductive system for its own life support. Not having children was no sacrifice for me. Making Art – cultural reproduction – was a joy. It did not feel like a choice. 

The desire to reproduce, or not, is no expression of delusionality or maturity. Reproduction is a primal drive inherited from the dawn of Life. Humans live in symbiosis with Culture which, although relatively newer and not well understood, is alive, reproducing, evolving and adapting. In humans, biological reproduction entails sacrifice, especially of the mother: an enormous devotion of energy and time, and giving up competing dreams and desires. Cultural reproduction – Art – also entails sacrifice of energy and time and, in my case, of societal approval and a sense of belonging that would have been a great comfort. I will in some sense always suffer alienation from the majority of my species, as I do not share the basic, meaningful human experience of parenthood. Yet, I still seek ways to connect with and understand parents.

Most don’t return the favor. Maybe they’re deluded or immature.

Share

I made some Uterus Money Belts, but you can make your own

I have 9 prototypes to sell; if there’s demand, I can make more, but sewing fussy little felt bags isn’t really my vocation. Made overseas they’d be cheaper, but I’d rather support local production, which means higher labor costs.

But you can make your own! (Our laser-cut felt looks cleaner than what you’ll get cutting by hand, but it’ll still look fine and be a fun craft.)

You will need:

  • 1 sheet light pink or peach felt
  • 2 sheets dark pink or red felt
  • 1 smaller piece white or cream felt
  • elastic band
  • Printer and paper
  • Pins or a stapler
  • A sewing machine, or a needle and thread

Instructions:

1. Download the pattern images below. Size them on your printer to MAXIMIZE FELT AREA.  If that means the printer cuts off a bit of pattern at the edges of the largest piece, the backing, so be it. You can intuit where the cut curve is. On my printer I size them all at 33%. Make sure each pattern is sized by the same %age (if you size the backing at 33%, the uterus and ovaries patterns should also be sized at 33%.)

“Uterus” pattern

2. Pin or staple this to the sheet of light pink felt and cut out the paper and felt at the same time. Then remove pins or staples.

“Backing” pattern. This is the largest of the lot, and your printer might cut off the edges, but you can eyeball how to cut it there.

3. Pin or staple this to the TWO sheets of dark pink/red felt and cut them out together.

“Ovaries” pattern. You only need 2 of these for a money belt, but I ganged ’em up here if you want to efficiently make more.

4. You only need two of the little ovary shapes above, but I arranged 6 sets of them in case you want to make several at once. At minimum, pin or staple the small piece of off-white felt to cover one pair of these, and cut them out.

5. Arrange the ovaries and uterus felt shapes on one piece of backing, and stitch them down like so. You can use pins or small dabs of clue to secure them before sewing.

6. Cut your elastic band to a size that will fit comfortable but securely around your waist with the uterus on it. Sandwich the ends of the elastic between your sewn uterus piece and the second backing, and stitch around the edge. Leave a large opening in the top so you can get your money/phone/IDs/whatever in and out.

Your version won’t have a buckle (unless you add your own) but if the elastic band is sized right, you can slip the whole thing over your head, or step into it, and voila.

The patterns above are Free, ’cause that’s how I roll. Feel free to send me a donation if you’re into that. Paypal link is on the upper right sidebar of this blog. Thanks!

Share

Cowardice Calls to Cowardice Everywhere

Back when I was originally TERFened, I shared “If A Person Has A Penis He’s A Man” by Connie Bryson. I did not write those lyrics, and never claimed I did, but outrage compromises reading comprehension, so it’s been incorrectly attributed to me. Including by the man who wrote the letter below, whose identity I have concealed.

On yesterday’s International Gaslight Women Day, I was inspired to courage by JK Rowling to share this story on fecebook, and after the uncountable outraged responses urging me to cowardice, including from the author of the advice below, I decided to finally share it with the world.

If you stand up for anything, ever, expect this type of “support” from friends, family and  loved ones. (Of course this is why few people stand up for anything.)

Nov 7, 2018

Nina–

I saw your post on Facebook this morning regarding whether you should post certain material that might feel risky, especially in light of the trans stuff.  I’m not an artist and therefore I don’t–I can’t–have the same passion for needing to present art that you do.  I can’t relate to that.  But I think I understand something that I think got you to this place.

As an artist, you surely know that once you put your art out there, you can’t control how it is interpreted.  When you wrote the poem with “If a person has a penis, it’s a man,” I don’t think you had any understanding of how it would be received. (Raedacted) and I had the same reaction to it: “What’s the point of this?  Does she not understand that it looks like she is taunting a community of people?  Why is she doing this?”  Whether you were correct or not isn’t the point.  What your intent was isn’t the point.  The point is that the form which you chose in order to make your point made you look like a bully to a lot of people.  It looked like taunting.

Since the poem was posted, you have been mistreated.  I find the way you have been treated to be appalling.  Deplatforming is beyond ugly.  So, what to do?

I’ve asked myself what advice I could give you.  I’ve felt like my advice wouldn’t matter to you.  I thought about that when I was in (Redacted) this summer and I came to the conclusion that you wouldn’t listen to me or tell me I was wrong so I left it alone.  The way you were choosing to express yourself made me feel like all I could do is upset you further.  It may be that this email will indeed upset you further, but now I feel like I really should write given the level of despair you have been expressing publicly.

What I think would have helped after initial complaints about your poem would have been to write a post in every social media outlet you use, including your blog, including Facebok, saying something like:

“I realize that the poem I wrote came across in a very poor way.  I did not mean to write something that offended so many.  I meant to engage in a constructive discussion, but I now understand that it came across as mean-spirited and taunting.  While that was not my intention, I apologize to those who were offended.  It is never my intent to cause pain with my words.” 

Leave it at that.  Explaining yourself further may pour salt in wounds.  An unconditional apology even if you are right is sometimes the best way to ameliorate pain.

A quick analogy… Consider the racist politician who panders by saying, “I have lots of black friends.”  A black person may interpret that as, “We have been insulted and now I am told that we shouldn’t be insulted because that person knows a small number of us?  What kind of person does that?  That person has no idea what I live with.  That person does not understand my world.”

Instead of apologizing for the poem, you doubled down, tripled down, and much more, by insisting that what you wrote wasn’t wrong, implying it shouldn’t offend people.  It may have been made even worse by saying, “I have lots of trans friends.”  I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that there are trans people who feel that you continue to pour salt into their wounds.

It was not your intent.  But you now have a significant perception problem.

I don’t read every one of your blog entries or see every one of your Facebook posts.  Maybe you have apologized for the poem in an unconditional manner.  Maybe you no longer try to justify your poem.  If so, that is probably the best you can do.  It may be that, near-term, you are going to be stuck with the backlash.  Even with an unconditional apology, there will be people who say, “She’s only saying that because we hurt her and she wants her film to do better.”  I wouldn’t expect overnight improvement in perception.  It’s going to take a while.

Again, there is no excuse for how you have been treated.  It’s horrifying.  That said, my advice, which you can discard if you disagree with me, is to stop doubling down on the poem, to issue that sincere apology, and do not tie that apology to any expected behavior by others.  After that be very, very careful about how people may interpret your future words.  It may be best simply not to engage the trans group even if you want to.  Just ask the question, “What’s the upside?”

Love,

(Redacted)

Share