Even the most self-confident women fall into a stupor at the question of why they still do not have children. Discrimination is thriving, despite the fact that it is the XNUMXst century and in many issues that only yesterday caused an unequivocal negative assessment from society, we have begun to respect those who are somehow different from the majority. But in matters of motherhood, the world is still very conservative.
Published in the spring of 2019, Verena Brunschweiger’s book “Freedom from children instead of childlessness” still causes heated debate not only in Germany. The author’s manifesto (that’s what she herself calls her book) divided readers and those who “did not read, but condemns” into ardent opponents of the German teacher’s declaration and equally ardent supporters.
Magazines, newspapers, television seized on the hype topic, and now, everywhere, outraged parents are talking from TV screens and smartphones about what happiness it is to be a mother, and how can one not understand this, because “this is the main meaning of a woman’s life.” The fathers also pulled themselves up: “We can’t imagine how silence will be in our house.” On social networks, words of support were fired at Verena like a machine gun (“Finally, someone announced this openly!”) And sharp, poisonous and simply murderous comments (“It’s good that you decided not to give birth – don’t produce moral monsters”).
Opponents place particular emphasis on the fact that the author of the book is a teacher: “How can she teach children if she hates them?” But the parents of her students immediately came to the defense of Verena, declaring that she is the best teacher in the world.
What is Verena Brunschweiger writing about so seditious?
She proposes to separate the concepts of “freedom from children” and “childlessness”. There are couples who dream of having a child, but for various reasons they cannot have one. “I’m talking about those who consciously make a choice, understanding that the birth of children is not their desire, but a social program, an attitude that it’s necessary, it’s accepted. These people are often not ready to be parents and suffer from the life that parenthood brings them,” the author explains.
Children also suffer, who inevitably face problems, troubles and hardships throughout their lives. By giving birth to offspring, we doom them to suffering – no one has yet managed to avoid illness, decrepitude, wars and cataclysms … And, in fact, in this Verena Brunschweiger demonstrates adherence to the philosophy of anti-natalism, to which Schopenhauer belonged.
If the last thing is taken away from a woman – her right to “Yazhemat” – what meanings of life will she be left with?
The anti-natalist position sees birth as an immoral act that harms children – the “suffering of life.” So this in no way contradicts my profession as a teacher,” explains Verena.
“Culturally, we have been driven for years by the stereotype that reproductive activity is seen as something positive. Anyone who dares to criticize this approach will shake the holy foundation of our world society, right? — writes the author. – And here is the best illustration: if a person who does not have children says that he does not want them, those around him will surely be surprised: “What ?! Why not?”
If, on the other hand, you announce that you are pregnant, it will immediately rain congratulations. But what’s so special and festive about someone “creating” what every animal has been creating since time immemorial? Why is this simple aspect of biology so celebrated?”
The South African philosopher and writer, University of Cape Town professor David Benatar, who is quoted by Verena, describes the reproductive instinct as extremely primitive and calls conscious “non-reproduction”, that is, the decision to live without children, as a new and higher level of evolution. In addition to the moral and ethical aspect, Verena also affects the ecological one. If we want to live on this planet, there must be fewer of us. Each unborn child will save 58 tons of carbon dioxide. There are too many of us on Earth, Brunschweiger is convinced. Her husband also supports her in this.
This story and the reaction to the book showed again that even a civilized European society, which declares tolerance in rather piquant issues, is nevertheless still conservative and intolerant of opinions that encroach on basic values. Who knows why the Germans reacted so violently to the freedom from children manifesto – perhaps because it is one of the last moral, ethical, social and cultural bastions in an era of flourishing feminism and a gender “thaw”.
If the last thing is taken away from a woman – her right to “Yazhemat” – what meanings of life will she be left with? What will be left for women from their centuries-old social role triad – Kinder, Küche, Kirche (“children, kitchen, church”)?