Not that I’m defending this viewpoint, of course, but it is far from meaningless. Bearing children is quite literally the value of a woman—in most societies “that do not derive from the Enlightenment”, as Eliezer would say. A barren woman is worthless and therefore not a woman at all, in the important sense—she is not a functional woman.
To a majority of all men who ever lived, and probably to most women who lived with them, “the value of a woman is in bearing children”, or “bearing children is what makes a human being a woman”, are nearly tautologies. You should not be surprised to encounter such statements. (Ugh field optional.)
Oh, I’m not surprised. It just feels so… sad and cheap to see the value of a person reduced to purely their reproductive value. Is this the “logic” behind haters of childfree people?
Not that I’m defending this viewpoint, of course, but it is far from meaningless. Bearing children is quite literally the value of a woman—in most societies “that do not derive from the Enlightenment”, as Eliezer would say. A barren woman is worthless and therefore not a woman at all, in the important sense—she is not a functional woman.
To a majority of all men who ever lived, and probably to most women who lived with them, “the value of a woman is in bearing children”, or “bearing children is what makes a human being a woman”, are nearly tautologies. You should not be surprised to encounter such statements. (Ugh field optional.)
Oh, I’m not surprised. It just feels so… sad and cheap to see the value of a person reduced to purely their reproductive value. Is this the “logic” behind haters of childfree people?