221. Non-Breeders Statistically and Historically - 3

Non-Breeders Statistically and Historically - 3

In entries 209 and 210 I used quotes from Wyman's lectures to point the prevalence of different methods to accomplish the refusal to raise children. The ubiquitous motherliness of all or most women is just a myth. Today people can declare openly on the web to be childfree, but there are more non-breeders around and have always been, than cultural tradition under the influence of religion want women to be aware of.

Wyman talks in his lecture about infanticide and abandonment in the past. But also in present times, once in a while the newspaper reports cases of neonaticide or infanticide, when dead bodies are found in places like garbage cans.  In one recent case, the bodies of three newborns were found in a woman's freezer. In another case, the bones of nine newborns were found in flower pots on a balcony.

There are also the cases, when living newborns are deposited in front of a hospital or house for the purpose to be found and cared for.

Statistical quotes:

"The researchers reviewed the case records of 26 courts in three regions of France, involving the death of a child within the first day of life between 1996 and 2000, "

"The official statistics put the figure of the unlawful killing of newborns at 0.39 per 100,000 births for the same regions over the same period."

"But the court data point to 2.1 per 100,000,"

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101214/Neonaticide-is-more-common-than-previously-thought.aspx

"An estimated 150 to 300 cases of neonaticide occur in the United States each year."

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=425439

Killing another human is never an acceptable solution to any problem. No woman, who lives in a society, where contraception and abortion is available, is forced to give birth, if she does not wish to do so.

According to Wyman, in lecture 23 there is no scientific reason to declare the fertilisation to be the beginning of life, it is a completely arbitrary decision. In fact, there is not one criteria scientifically valid to define any specific moment as the beginning of life.

http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/biology-and-history-of-abortion-6767/

In my personal opinion, based upon the two premises above, the child has no life of its own until it can be kept alive outside the womb.   From then on, neonaticide is no solution to be tolerated.  Until then there is not justification to deny a woman the right to decide, what to do about parts of her body.

The ubiquitous motherliness of women is a myth. Therefore it cannot be justified to consider childbearing and raising as any woman's obligation nor as the purpose of her existence.

210. Non-Breeders Statistically and Historically - 2

Non-Breeders Statistically and Historically - 2

This is the continuation of entry 209, where I mentioned the possibility, that giving birth could trigger the procreation instinct in women, which seems neither to be widespread in general nor as a result of becoming pregnant, as I got from the data on abortion in Wyman's lecture 21.   
In entry 205, I had already mentioned infanticide and abandoning children by choice including the example of Rousseau.   But when I wrote that, I was not yet aware of how widespread this was.   
Again, the lecture 7 of Wyman's course on the topic of Demographic Transition in Europe; Mortality Decline  
http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/demographic-transition-in-europe-mortality-decline-6751/
gives data, that are surprising.   They show in a very drastic way, how easily people got rid of unwanted progeny even after the birth.   The entire lecture is worth watching or reading. 

Some quotes:

"Infanticide was a very large factor in European demography and the rest of the world, [......] but in Europe it was very important. "

"In Milan, from 1840s to 1860s, one third of all children born to married parents--we're not talking about unmarried situations--were left at foundling homes and in foundling homes the death rate was near 100%. More than half of all the children born to working class parents were left in foundling homes, and almost all the illegitimate children were abandoned and the death rates--it was a form of infanticide, you just gave them to a foundling home, they were taken, basically, no care of, they died. It was out of sight."

I had mentioned Rousseau before and in this lecture, I found an original quote of his: 

"My third child was thus deposited in a foundling home just like the first two, and I did the same with the two following. I had five in all. The arrangement seemed to me so good, so sensible, so appropriate that, if I did not boast of it publicly, it was solely out of regard for their mother."

"Another mechanism was sending out children to nurse with wet nurses and the death rate of wet nurse children was enormously high. So, if parents tried to rear their children, the death rate was about one in six at this time. In eighteenth century France between a half and two-thirds of infants that were sent out to nurse died. Even at a higher death rate were the so called baby farms, in the nineteenth century Europe there were--it's like we call them puppy mills now, they were baby farms, and they took in vast numbers of children presumably to wet nurse, but almost none of them survived."

Those data show clearly, that in those days, there was no majority of dedicated breeders, as society appears to consist of today.    It is obvious, that even giving birth does not elicit automatically the procreation instinct in all women.   
I can think of two explanations, that are not mutually exclusive:   The apparent natural wish of a majority of women in our present time is just a myth and the result of brainwashing, or it is a result of massive natural selection.   If the unwanted progeny of the non-breeders by genetic disposition never reach an age to reproduce due to the high mortality, then their genetic disposition will loose prevalence in the gene pool.  Those breeders, who raise as many children as they can, allow their breeding disposition genes to survive. 

115. Unsuitable Men 2: Confounding a Partner with a Mother

Unsuitable Men 2:  Confounding a Partner with a Mother


When the man gets involved with a woman, and he has no other role model of previous interaction with a mature adult female, she is at the risk of becoming for him a mother with benefits.   

The relationship between mother and child is asymmetrical, where the mother gives services and benefits and the child perceives her as a nothing more than a source of them, owing her nothing, while she by law is obliged to care for him.   The mother gets biologically addicted to give the child unconditional love, while the child takes her for granted, as a utility to serve his needs.    A child turns to his mother, whenever he wants a need fulfilled, and he feels entitled that she is always there to serve his needs.   When the child has other interests, he pursues them and the mother fades into oblivion, until he returns and wants again something from her.    For the child, the mother's only purpose of existence is being a source of benefits for him.  

He is oblivious, that the mother has a mind, a personality, feelings, needs for herself.  
He feels subjectively being a good kid, when he does, what he is told to do, even when this is only to his own good like attending school.   To care for the mother's needs is beyond his imagination, until he reaches much more maturity.   

At some phase of development, the child goes through obstinacy, opposition and defiance towards the mother.  In this phase, as part of a power struggle, the child does the contrary of what the mother asks for.   But when a man is stuck in this phase and then starts to treat his partner like he behaved with his mother, this turns a relationship into a very toxic experience for any woman.  
Not only does he take it for granted, that he woman has to serve his needs, while she is not considered to have any needs of her own, but due to his defiance she is powerless to avoid being hurt.    If she does not tell him, what hurts her, he continues to repeat it unknowingly.   If she tells him and asks him to stop hurting her, he enjoys his defiant power to repeat on purpose, what hurts her, so it gets worse for her.   Stuck in the defiance of a toddler, it is beyond the comprehension of a bonding-disabled man, that this is a moral transgression.

A child feels entitled to run away from home, when he has the whim, but when the child decides to come back, he expects to be embraced and welcome with the onesided unconditional love of a mother.   But a partner is not a mother, and a man is not entitled to be taken back after having dumped a woman.   A man with this variety of the bonding-disability does not know the difference.   He has the delusion that a dumped woman continues to stay eternally available for him, because he confounds her bonded attachment with the unconditional love of a mother.   Intrinsic commitment is conditional, it ends, when it is not honored by reciprocity.