Christian Domestic Discipline

[Jeff Wrangler]

"When Jeffrey Kluger was in his 20s, out of his family nest and settling into a career as a journalist in New York City, his longtime girlfriend suggested that perhaps his extreme emotional expenditure on his three brothers—with whom he spent his free time hanging out or chatting on the phone—would be best devoted elsewhere. When Kluger mentioned her comment to his brother Bruce, he received a simple, damning reply: 'Yoko.'"

Hunh? 

"Why the hard sell on siblinghood? Kluger is unabashed about the fact that his book's mission is to argue for what he calls the 'sibling ideal.' In his view, 'as long as mom and dad are able to breed and support more young, they may as well keep having them.' It's an unlikely stance for a science reporter who should know well the psychological, environmental, and financial costs of large families. And it places The Sibling Effect in an emerging canon of books, invariably written by men, arguing that women should have more children. These books tend to fall into one of three categories: 1. It's better for your kids, e.g. Kluger. 2. It's better for you, e.g. Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. 3. It's better for society, e.g. Philip Longman's The Empty Cradle.

And I bet all these authors, even any not mentioned here, are all white guys? 

[Jeff Wrangler]

We need closer oceans. 

We'll have 'em once the polar caps are melted. 

[milomorris]

And I bet all these authors, even any not mentioned here, are all white guys? 

Trust me, white ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

[Front-Ranger]

That's certainly true. There are proponents of large families among all nationalities and ethnic groups, except for Caucasians and some Asian peoples. In fact, because the white and Asian populations are shrinking or not growing very fast is one reason the white guys are writing books and exhorting. These are the two groups with the highest educational rate, too. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.

[milomorris]

Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.

That's not racism, that's tribalism. There is a big difference.

[serious crayons]

Hunh? 

Meaning, a woman whose relationship with one group member threatens the cohesiveness of an otherwise all-male group.

Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.

Wow, that seems like a huge stretch.

I'm not an advocate for big families by any means, but I think it's certainly possible to be one without racism being a factor. And vice versa.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Meaning, a woman whose relationship with one group member threatens the cohesiveness of an otherwise all-male group.

OK, thanks. I "got it" that it was reference to Yoko Ono, but not what it actually meant! 

Wow, that seems like a huge stretch.

I'm not an advocate for big families by any means, but I think it's certainly possible to be one without racism being a factor. And vice versa.

I don't think it's a big stretch at all. While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.

But please note that I didn't say it was racist to have a large family of children. I said--or I was trying to say--that I believe there is racism buried below the skin of white authors who write books advocating that white people need to have lots more children than they're presently having. And if I were a betting man, I would bet next month's condo fee that the books discussed above are not aimed at Asians or African-Americans.

Of course, having no children, I'm no help at all. ...   

Quote from Milo: That's not racism, that's tribalism. There is a big difference.

Heh. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. ...

[milomorris]

I don't think it's a big stretch at all. While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.

But please note that I didn't say it was racist to have a large family of children. I said--or I was trying to say--that I believe there is racism buried below the skin of white authors who write books advocating that white people need to have lots more children than they're presently having. And if I were a betting man, I would bet next month's condo fee that the books discussed above are not aimed at Asians or African-Americans.

Of course, having no children, I'm no help at all. ...   

Heh. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. ...

The difference is that tribalism is the promotion and prioritization of one's own tribe, and yes, that can often be to the exclusion of all others. Racism, on the other hand, is the targeting of a specific other tribe.

For example...

There is a growing racism in the black community due to the explosion of the latino population. Some are saying that the latinos are going to take what we have worked so hard for. That is a racist sentiment aimed at latinos specifically.

For one of the authors to say that whites need to have more babies to keep up, or to maintain their position in the world, that is about whites with relation to ALL other races. That is a tribalist sentiment intended to compete with everyone who is not white in general.

If you listen closely, you'll hear that one "quacks," the other "toots."

[serious crayons]

I don't think it's a big stretch at all. While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.

But please note that I didn't say it was racist to have a large family of children. I said--or I was trying to say--that I believe there is racism buried below the skin of white authors who write books advocating that white people need to have lots more children than they're presently having. And if I were a betting man, I would bet next month's condo fee that the books discussed above are not aimed at Asians or African-Americans.

I have no doubt that there are racists who urge white people to have more children in order to increase the white population's census numbers.

But it's a gigantic stretch to go from that fact to level the same accusation against authors happen to be white but who never mention race in their books, whose books could just as easily be read by anyone of any race (how on earth do you determine that a book that never mentions race or class or anything else even close is "aimed" at one race or another?? by that measure, any book written by a white person is "aimed" at white readers), who give perfectly respectable if very arguable reasons for having more kids.

Kluger is a scientist whose book is reviewed, BTW, in this week's NYT Book Review. Caplan is a respected economist. Not that prominent professionals can't be racist, but come on. There's absolutely no reason to think that they're racist, other than their sharing one part of an opinion (big families are good) with people who are. And if anybody who happens to share any opinion with a racist is therefore racist, that pretty much means that all of humanity is racist for one reason or another.