My Response to Steven Sailer’s Natalist Article
I promised him that I would respond. (Not that he cares.)
I am a “modern woman.” When I see a natalist position being heralded on the Internet, I pay attention and feel it necessary to expound my theory on the issues of reproduction, or lack thereof.
It is also important to note that I have deep respect for Steven Sailer’s work in the Dissident Right (DR) movement. I approach his contributions with a sense of gravity and admiration that I cannot say I do similarly with other figureheads in the DR.
That being said, his recent Substack article has captured my interest. It tackles the pertinent issue of total fertility rate (TFR) and the greater question of Natalism. (The ‘NQ’ if you will.)
“How to keep the human race from dying out” promotes a Natalist comprehension of the present social and cultural mores associated with reproductive agency. On the one hand, the cultural discourse is markedly shifting our attention away from the communitarian and sex-based milieu of third-worldism towards the protection and preservation of female agency in the public world; one removed from the confines of domestic life and its perceived trivialities. It allows the female to become an active agent in the material world, giving her ample assessment and viability to manipulate the external world and develop her agency in the same way a man can.
On the other hand, the frivolity of “female agency” is understood as non-essential to the greater cause of developing a functioning and capable nation. The younger generation is being lied to by a greater cultural narrative that is placing undue emphasis on individualism and personal pleasure over the good of the collective. It coddles Millenials and Generation Z into living in a perpetual state of adolescence.
Following an accurate referral to abortion rate statistics, Sailer’s opening attempts to harp on the emotional heartstrings tethered to the image of a vulnerable infant.
“I don’t write about abortion much, but it’s basically grotesque to think about. So it’s a lot more heartwarming to wrap up the plot with a baby’s first cry.”
“I don’t know what has happened statistically since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs’ decision a couple of years ago, but definitely the prestige press has been trying hard lately to make abortion more fashionable. That’s a challenge when you stop to think about what goes into aborting an unborn child, but they’re working on it.”
Sailer continues beyond this unnecessary detail and buttresses his main point by relying on an op-ed from the New York Times written by two liberal female professors. The article does offer salient critiques of the modern female interpretation of reproduction without even needing to source low national replacement rates. It offers key insight into the perspective of female agency and takes into account that this is an unavoidable feature of the low TFR issue. However, the article does run into a few problems with the narrative it is proffering.
“Women who want kids often come to that realization belatedly, at some point in their early 30s — the so-called panic years. …
How many children they have, and even whether they have them at all, is increasingly a decision made for them by circumstance and cultural convention. …
… our fellow progressives need to stop thinking of having children as a conservative hobbyhorse and reclaim it for what it is: a fundamental human concern.”
Yes, there has indeed been a cultural upswing toward accepting childless unions, but it is not articulated in the way this article suggests. In fact, younger generations are becoming more accepting of having children. One survey indicates that only 25% of Generation Z youths don’t want kids; a significant decline from 55% of Millennials. (It is important to accurately deliniate between the actual age of Gen Z from Millennials, which the latter survey did not do by aggregating Gen Z in the 18-34 category.) Although the progressive portrayal of childlessness is largely positive, it is not accurate to suggest that their view is that not having children is a virtue – merely that is understood as an acceptable way of living. It is yet another attempt at being inclusive; being open to the demographic that does not prefer to reproduce.
The trap that conservatives often fall into is vilifying the Left as knowingly advancing an antinatalist message out of its inert hatred for children. This is not the case. Antinatalism is a natural byproduct of the ethics that Leftists appraise, but it is not a conscious message they seek to promote. For instance, the rise of the LGBTQ++ has a greater bearing on low TFR rates than we may realize or care to accept.
“That choice is not uncommon. In a recent study, 34 percent of women ages 18 to 39 reported that they or someone they know had “decided not to get pregnant due to concerns about managing pregnancy-related medical emergencies.” That might sound like a worry about abortion access, but the study suggested that Dobbs intensified ambivalence about having children more generally. Indeed, of the women who said they were forgoing having children because of the Dobbs ruling, about half lived in states where abortion rights were still protected.”
It is not difficult to sympathize with this growing ambivalence given the conservative response to the dissolution of Roe v. Wade. There has been a greater push by GOP policy-crafters to limit female (sexual) agency via attacking contraceptive access. For example, GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception. While the writer may assert that this ambivalence is merely a progressively paranoid reaction to the limited access to abortion, it is bad faith to assert that their fears are not somewhat confirmed given the fixation conservatives have mustered nationally on the female reproductive system, even going to so far as to attack contraceptive, let alone terminating a pregnancy.
“To be sure, having children is not the only way to address this question. But having children remains the most basic and accessible way for most of us to affirm the value of our lives and that of others.”
Indeed. Having children is not the only way to address this growing issue. There are more systematic and appropriate avenues in which we can adequately respond to, and even fix, low TFR.
Sailer attempts to offer his vision, or one aspect of it, of solution in the following paragraphs of his article and settles on a topic most germane: Education.
The Education Problem
Sailer addresses the issue of female educators postponing births in the second section of the article, stating:
“Well, one thing we can do is that older professionals, such as tenured college professors, can cut back on exploiting their underlings so hard that their fertility window is shut by the time they have tenure.”
He refers to another article written by economist John Cochrane struck by a tweet concerning egg freezing:
“The current standard career track then goes on to 1-2 years as a postdoc, 6-10 years assistant/associate professor, often with “delay the clock” visits to other institutions or “restart the clock” lateral moves. And the current ethic strongly pressures women to delay child-bearing until tenure. It’s also hard to have children when your job lasts 1-2 years so you know you will have to move. That all adds up to a lot closer to 40 than early 30s. And freezing eggs is not magic. Fertility treatment is not guaranteed. Many women who counted on technology discover in their late 30s that biology will not cooperate.”
Sailer is correct to assume that the postponement of giving birth is an aspect of the female pursuit of higher education. It is perhaps, in my estimation, one of the leading causes of low TFR in the United States.
As I have stated in a previous article, one of the main reasons why heritage Americans are not having kids is because women defer this activity until after they lay claim to a professional degree.
Sailer is correct to bring the attention of the second half of his article towards education. Higher education degrees are considered requisite for a comfortable lifestyle; this needs to be eradicated as an idea and as a truth in the professional world.
A first, practical step, to solving the low TFR problem is devorcing ourselves from the idea that everyone, especially women, is universally capable of attaining higher education degrees. Diluting the value of the higher education degree is largely what is causing the collective postponement of replacement birth rates.
Of course, exceptions exist (even among women!) but altering societal requirements for the exception, not the rule, is a grave mistake. It has been reflected even more so with Affirmative Action policy.
Identifying the initial signs of individualized talents and passions (which can be recognized at a fairly early age within positive conditions) and tailoring the student’s education to those talents, is a viable resolution to low TFR, given that we maintain caregiving and homemaking as valuable outcomes.
This education system requires a pedagogy that is largely individualistic and informed and upheld by capable teachers — something our nation greatly desires, yet lacks.
Sailer’s articles are a wealth of information and bring to light the social ills preventing our great nation from realizing its full potential. However, it is still important to make comments when it is necessary.
Another great article Daniella. Keep up the good work!
I've yet to see any of these pro-natalists explain *why* exactly it is so important for humanity to reproduce. If they're not religious or ethnonationalist, what reason do they have for being so concerned about the future of peoples? For one, there are metaphysical reasons, for the other, racial preservation. For secularist types, I wonder: why do you care about a future you won't be alive to see?
I don't take any of their complaints seriously until they can answer that first question: why is it so important?