The greatest enemy of the oh-so-woke forces of Progressivism and the broader hard Left is, and always will be, the one thing that stands in the way of total dependency on the enlightened state: The family.
The Left have been waging war on the family for over a century in one form or another, and has increasingly been bold enough to claim that all parents’ children are actually just the state’s, with the state taking the role of mother and father non-gender specific parental figure.
This is no mere exaggeration, with Scotland even going so far as to consider having the state appoint a “super-parent” to act a child’s guardian with more power than mere parents. Even in the United States parents are increasingly being considered an afterthought.
Children are quickly becoming nothing more than extensions of the state’s control, with the Left increasingly being vocal about severing the ties of parent and child. Now, that almost prescient vociferous musing aims toward abolishing parenthood altogether:
“There is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the way our society raises children. In the current state of things, children are reared, fed, taught, and disciplined by adults who may or may not be good parents, and who, in nearly all cases, have a great deal of external obligations and emotional needs that take them away from the work of parenting. These adults have unequal access to key resources—such as wealth, income, time, housing, and education—which tend to be reproduced in the children under their supervision. Opportunity and success is largely decided by who your parents are, by whether or not you even have them. Growing up in this country is governed by a lottery system we call the nuclear family.
“The nuclear family is an ideology that has largely evaded public debate because it is so thoroughly embedded in our lives. Few scholars or policy experts bother to defend it, at least as an ideal way of life, because its appeal is largely taken for granted. At the same time, the nuclear family is so intrinsically particular—you can belong to only one—that every family is treated as immune to critique: ‘How dare you criticize my family! I love my family!'”
This, of course, ignores the fact that the nuclear family is not only the cornerstone of civilization, and a force of good that combines the normal sexual desire to reproduce and the need for a stable and loving environment for the children of such sexual union in a way that is beneficial to society by pairing up men and women—giving both a bond of mutual support—as well as distributing the raising of the next generation such that mores that are detrimental will become evident while those that are beneficial will evidence a just reward.
But no, rather than welcome the collective wisdom of the ages, an elite few will impose their delusional fantasties of how to raise the New New Soviet citizen…
“It doesn’t have to be this way. We could raise children collectively, by people whose full-time occupation is parenting. We could raise children in groups of ten, so that no child would be an only child or ever lack for friendship. We could give every child—regardless of disability, race, ethnicity, or gender—a safe and happy upbringing.
“To do this, we could also establish facilities far away from cities, in the wilderness, where children could be raised in peace, with enough space to do anything they want. Cities are not designed for kids, at least not under the modern parenting system: Anyone who’s ever watched a hapless parent maneuver a stroller through a subway station, or witnessed the residents of a wealthy neighborhood resist school integration, or listened to a family brag about uprooting their lives to get their children into a better city school has understood something about the fate of children in hyper-competitive metropolises. Besides, much of what makes a city great—including the sense of tolerance that develops among those raised within a diverse population—could be replicated in these groups of kids.”
This will not bring forth a utopia, but, at best, a dystopia, as “Cultural Marxism has replaced traditional Marxism, the Left doesn’t just want the poor to be poorer, they wand to destroy all social mores and traditions that lead to happiness and prosperity just because not everyone is partaking of it equally.” At worst, the new Nomenklatura will enjoy their parenting privilege while the childless serfs are forced to depend on the stingy largess of the state…
Oh, but it gets even far more totalitarian for these self-deemed intelligent designers:
“All of this would require radical changes to society. The regulation of human reproduction would entail requiring contraception for the vast majority of the population. The government would need to employ people whose full-time job is raising children. Finally, this system would need an application process for women who do want to bear children—to ensure, at the very least, the basic ability to carry to term—and the funds to pay them enough money so that they don’t have to work elsewhere.
“What exactly would this look like? For starters, we would pay women who bear children a salary commensurate with the physical and emotional toll of pregnancy and birth. So at least a hundred thousand dollars per year. Bearing children would be less of an occupation and more of a tour of duty lasting a few years, like the Peace Corps or City Year. While these women would be free to do what they want while pregnant, their salary would be designed to ensure that they felt no pressure to work for income. And, because of this income, they would be much better equipped for working or studying, during or after their tenure.”
And that entire “reproductive rights” schtick? LOL, they’ll have no use for that anymore.
“To ensure diversity, the government would have to limit the number of children any particular woman would bear. The same principle would apply to the collection of sperm samples from the male population, whose members would also have to apply to donate their sperm and be paid (albeit significantly less than women) for the trouble of doing so. The fertilization process would employ in vitro fertilization with a woman’s own eggs, a technique with a greater chance of success than intra-uterine insemination. (And there would be no point in using a different woman’s eggs.)
“This system would require compulsory—but reversible—surgical sterilization of the rest of the populace. Right now, that would mean vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women. But it may be possible, in the future, to ensure a similar degree of sterilization by adulterating the water supply with contraceptive drugs. Same for the entire process of pregnancy. Bioethicists are already exploring the implications of artificial wombs, known as biobags, that would eliminate the need for women to bear children with their own bodies.”
Yes, these lunatics are considering so separating the sexual act from the natural result of sexual reproduction that they are considering artificial wombs and mandated sterilization to the degree that not even genocidal manic Margaret Sanger would approve!