thanks Jo for unpacking this problematic agenda. Its particularly galling for me as a queer feminist who was adopted at 30 days old and had my only child abducted for adoption when I was 15. I've just been musing on my stack ( I'm a newbie) about Opting out of Mothers Day and touched on pronatalism as the the new face of empire building, and am adding your great text as a reference.
I'm fairly new too (5 months) - welcome! And I'm so, so sorry about your child, that is genuinely terrible.
Pronatalism is indeed problematic. I quoted a few books in my piece that are based in queer/feminist theory (Edelman is queer theory, Sophie Lewis is queer & feminist theory) - about rethinking the family; they might be interesting resources for your writing also.
That’s funny Jo - from my perspective you seem very settled! I will add Edelman and Lewis to my ever growing reading list. I am sort of lazy in the sense that I pick up info from its use in texts and stacks like yours; rather than the usual academic model of deep diving into the source . Maybe not lazy - maybe as there is so much to consume and digest it’s a practical pathway. A degustation perhaps of beautifully prepared morsels to savour ???
Ah, well, I am prolific, and consistent, which probably creates the impression of being settled.
For me, the original source over interpretations are always important; plus, I genuinely do not like being on devices for extended periods of time, but that all do things a bit differently makes everyone's writing interesting and relevant :)
Thank you for your thoughtful - as always - essay, Jo. You make complex ideas very accessible - so much food for thought. It was lovely to hear about your childhood and very nurturing extended family. Hope you are gathering these columns in preparation for a book!!
Thank you for this! It is so much so in China where the force is much stronger. It is also lovely to know your story despite the difficulties. I really wish to imagine a community family and love.
Another factor is that non-parents/non-caregivers can more easily move away from a city/region/state/country & can risk rebellion in various ways that a caregiver cannot.
And immediately in my mind leaps Aldous Huxley’s novel AFTER “Brave New World” – “Island”, and the practice on Pala mutual adoption clubs MACs:
“‘We all belong,' Susila explained, 'to an MAC--a Mutual Adoption Club. Every MAC consists of anything from fifteen to twenty-five assorted couples. Newly elected brides and bride-grooms, old-timers with growing children, grandparents and great-grandparents--everybody in the club adopts everyone else. Besides our own blood relations, we all have our quota of deputy mothers, deputy fathers, deputy aunts and uncles, deputy brothers and sisters, deputy babies and toddlers and teenagers.'”
I love Island. I’ve read it at least four times. It’s a very different story from BNW. I saved this quote about the novel and Huxley’s message to humankind:
“Huxley went to great lengths to leave us this message. When a fire burned down his home in 1961, the manuscript for Island was all he rescued. He published it the following year and, in 1963, passed away from cancer.
His dying wish was for the world to take the ideas in Island seriously. He believed his vision, including widespread holistic education, is possible here and now. We can raise kids to be more than insatiable consumers, more than obedient citizens. We can raise whole humans who are authorities unto themselves, who will lead the world in a new direction.”
This is an amazing essay! So many generative ideas and references to keep the conversation going. Every time I read pieces like this, I am reminded of the need for more queer theory and feminist theory to shed light on the problem of social reproduction, as well as both natalist and antinatalist stances. This essay reminded me that, as feminists, we need to complicate the idea that an antinatalist stance is the best response to the eugenicist natalist agenda, because the eugenicist project already contains an antinatalist agenda (one directed against people of color and disabled people). I am a single mother by choice, and I find myself complicating and subsuming to the heteronorm every moment I breathe, often in ways I can’t fully make sense of. So I’m thrilled to read pieces like this.
This part of your comment particularly resonated with me - "we need to complicate the idea that an antinatalist stance is the best response to the eugenicist natalist agenda, because the eugenicist project already contains an antinatalist agenda (one directed against people of color and disabled people)"
Yes, precisely! In this essay, I wanted to gently lead readers toward that viewpoint (eg, the Nazi analogy) without expressing stating it. People of color, disabled people, queer people, the working and non-working poor...all of those groups. I usually write to make radical ideas more palatable for people unfamiliar (it seems to be working, I frequently get messages and comments to the effect that it is), as well as for people like you and me, who already have those ideas and spending some mental energy on thinking and reading about them.
Re: heteronormativity and SMBC - I can imagine.
And thank you so much for your thoughtful, well-stated comment!
This was a great read, Jo! I've been thinking a lot about the interplay between communal raising of kids and social reproduction theory, as it rises to the forefront of feminist theory. If you are not familiar, social reproduction theory talks about how the labor of raising children is moving from the mother to the working class as more women enter the workforce, and how we can liberate everyone involved. It is notable that this framework applies largely to nuclear families and we don't have to be radical to break that model (collectivist cultures like how you grew up are often painted as traditional rather than radical). I will probably explain myself better in an upcoming essay, but all this to say that this rather "simple" framework of reimagining care can do so much more than the models we are working within. Would also love to hear your thoughts on social reproduction theory if you have any! Thanks for the read!!
The book that part of this essay is built off - Sophie Lewis' Full Surrogacy Now - gets into social reproduction theory. She goes a step beyond the shifting to the working class (it's that, too), and into how gestational work (surrogacy) is also shifting to the global majority/global south - though there are specific laws in some Western countries against this. I thought about addressing that in this essay, but felt it would take away from the central point.
I brought up the traditional collectivist culture intentionally - because I thought it would be more persuasive than a radically collectivist model, though I also am a big advocate for that. I believed in the idea before I knew the theory/terminology for it.
Glad you enjoyed this piece! And thank you so much for the thoughtful comment - yours is exactly the type of comment I appreciate the most. I'll keep an eye out for your upcoming essay as well!
I think in every interview with JD Vance, reporters should ask when he and his wife will be expecting their next child. Lead by example. Why isn’t Karoline Leavitt having a baby? She is young and married. They should ask. I
thanks Jo for unpacking this problematic agenda. Its particularly galling for me as a queer feminist who was adopted at 30 days old and had my only child abducted for adoption when I was 15. I've just been musing on my stack ( I'm a newbie) about Opting out of Mothers Day and touched on pronatalism as the the new face of empire building, and am adding your great text as a reference.
I'm fairly new too (5 months) - welcome! And I'm so, so sorry about your child, that is genuinely terrible.
Pronatalism is indeed problematic. I quoted a few books in my piece that are based in queer/feminist theory (Edelman is queer theory, Sophie Lewis is queer & feminist theory) - about rethinking the family; they might be interesting resources for your writing also.
That’s funny Jo - from my perspective you seem very settled! I will add Edelman and Lewis to my ever growing reading list. I am sort of lazy in the sense that I pick up info from its use in texts and stacks like yours; rather than the usual academic model of deep diving into the source . Maybe not lazy - maybe as there is so much to consume and digest it’s a practical pathway. A degustation perhaps of beautifully prepared morsels to savour ???
Ah, well, I am prolific, and consistent, which probably creates the impression of being settled.
For me, the original source over interpretations are always important; plus, I genuinely do not like being on devices for extended periods of time, but that all do things a bit differently makes everyone's writing interesting and relevant :)
Thank you for your thoughtful - as always - essay, Jo. You make complex ideas very accessible - so much food for thought. It was lovely to hear about your childhood and very nurturing extended family. Hope you are gathering these columns in preparation for a book!!
Hopefully, a book deal one day! And thank you for reading & the lovely comment :)
Great essay, Jo!
Thanks!
Thank you for this! It is so much so in China where the force is much stronger. It is also lovely to know your story despite the difficulties. I really wish to imagine a community family and love.
Oh, I can imagine! Thank you for the kind comment
Another factor is that non-parents/non-caregivers can more easily move away from a city/region/state/country & can risk rebellion in various ways that a caregiver cannot.
“We all deserve more mothers,”
And immediately in my mind leaps Aldous Huxley’s novel AFTER “Brave New World” – “Island”, and the practice on Pala mutual adoption clubs MACs:
“‘We all belong,' Susila explained, 'to an MAC--a Mutual Adoption Club. Every MAC consists of anything from fifteen to twenty-five assorted couples. Newly elected brides and bride-grooms, old-timers with growing children, grandparents and great-grandparents--everybody in the club adopts everyone else. Besides our own blood relations, we all have our quota of deputy mothers, deputy fathers, deputy aunts and uncles, deputy brothers and sisters, deputy babies and toddlers and teenagers.'”
I’ve read Brave New World and some of his non-fiction, but haven’t read Islands (yet).
MACs sound like what various collectives and collectivist groups tried to do on the decades since - very cool. Thank you for sharing that with me.
I love Island. I’ve read it at least four times. It’s a very different story from BNW. I saved this quote about the novel and Huxley’s message to humankind:
“Huxley went to great lengths to leave us this message. When a fire burned down his home in 1961, the manuscript for Island was all he rescued. He published it the following year and, in 1963, passed away from cancer.
His dying wish was for the world to take the ideas in Island seriously. He believed his vision, including widespread holistic education, is possible here and now. We can raise kids to be more than insatiable consumers, more than obedient citizens. We can raise whole humans who are authorities unto themselves, who will lead the world in a new direction.”
* Drew Hanson
This is an amazing essay! So many generative ideas and references to keep the conversation going. Every time I read pieces like this, I am reminded of the need for more queer theory and feminist theory to shed light on the problem of social reproduction, as well as both natalist and antinatalist stances. This essay reminded me that, as feminists, we need to complicate the idea that an antinatalist stance is the best response to the eugenicist natalist agenda, because the eugenicist project already contains an antinatalist agenda (one directed against people of color and disabled people). I am a single mother by choice, and I find myself complicating and subsuming to the heteronorm every moment I breathe, often in ways I can’t fully make sense of. So I’m thrilled to read pieces like this.
This part of your comment particularly resonated with me - "we need to complicate the idea that an antinatalist stance is the best response to the eugenicist natalist agenda, because the eugenicist project already contains an antinatalist agenda (one directed against people of color and disabled people)"
Yes, precisely! In this essay, I wanted to gently lead readers toward that viewpoint (eg, the Nazi analogy) without expressing stating it. People of color, disabled people, queer people, the working and non-working poor...all of those groups. I usually write to make radical ideas more palatable for people unfamiliar (it seems to be working, I frequently get messages and comments to the effect that it is), as well as for people like you and me, who already have those ideas and spending some mental energy on thinking and reading about them.
Re: heteronormativity and SMBC - I can imagine.
And thank you so much for your thoughtful, well-stated comment!
This was a great read, Jo! I've been thinking a lot about the interplay between communal raising of kids and social reproduction theory, as it rises to the forefront of feminist theory. If you are not familiar, social reproduction theory talks about how the labor of raising children is moving from the mother to the working class as more women enter the workforce, and how we can liberate everyone involved. It is notable that this framework applies largely to nuclear families and we don't have to be radical to break that model (collectivist cultures like how you grew up are often painted as traditional rather than radical). I will probably explain myself better in an upcoming essay, but all this to say that this rather "simple" framework of reimagining care can do so much more than the models we are working within. Would also love to hear your thoughts on social reproduction theory if you have any! Thanks for the read!!
The book that part of this essay is built off - Sophie Lewis' Full Surrogacy Now - gets into social reproduction theory. She goes a step beyond the shifting to the working class (it's that, too), and into how gestational work (surrogacy) is also shifting to the global majority/global south - though there are specific laws in some Western countries against this. I thought about addressing that in this essay, but felt it would take away from the central point.
I brought up the traditional collectivist culture intentionally - because I thought it would be more persuasive than a radically collectivist model, though I also am a big advocate for that. I believed in the idea before I knew the theory/terminology for it.
Glad you enjoyed this piece! And thank you so much for the thoughtful comment - yours is exactly the type of comment I appreciate the most. I'll keep an eye out for your upcoming essay as well!
I think in every interview with JD Vance, reporters should ask when he and his wife will be expecting their next child. Lead by example. Why isn’t Karoline Leavitt having a baby? She is young and married. They should ask. I
The playbook of Project 2025 is heavily similar to Nazi Germany. Conservatives have been pushing women back into domestic bondage for decades.