Re: population vs. technology/consumption

I know of no man who believes women are thrilled to birth 20 children
(maybe there is one or two, I just don't know them), let alone men
generally. If it served the patriarchy to have 20 children, then we should
see such a norm established. At present it serves the leading members of
the patriarchy to reduce the number of "unwanted people" in the world
(only unwanted from their point of view and only certain people) by
controlling the reproductive capacity of women, either through chemical or
surgical sterilization or through aborting undesirable fetuses (girls).
This view is not hegemonic, of course. Many men oppose birth control and
abortion. They, too, want to control the reproductive capacity of women.
Either way, whether they advocate population control or deny women the
right of family planning, whether they work though feminist organization
or not, they control women's wombs.

I have two basic concerns:

First, that we should not be in the business of controlling women's wombs.
Women should have the right to family planning. There should be no
restrictions on this right. They should not be denied or encouraged one
way or the other. One of the major flaws in liberal feminist thinking as
it pertains to family planning is that while they are keenly aware that
the pro-life position means to control women's wombs, they are blind to
the fact that their aggressive advocacy of contraception and abortion also
means to control women's wombs, "for their own good," of course.

Second, that population control targets groups deemed to be "in surplus,"
falsely blaming their situation on their numbers. It holds an image of
third world people and poor people in the core as licentious and in need
of "enlightened" instruction from the "west." This is classic colonialist
thinking. Pregnancy is viewed as a disease among the poor and the
"colored" and the goal is to inoculate as many of these disease carriers
as possible.

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN