The original posting of this essay on the Government of Louise’s web site is no longer available, so I am reposting it here. I’m tired of the ineffective, sputtering outrage of progressives in government; we need to tirelessly call out this bullshit, and challenge the Unity from Conformity Party’s ideology whenever there is a “mask off” moment like this. In a nutshell, this essay was anti-feminist/anti-diversity at best, and pro-fascist at worst, but 100% prescribing to the religious doctrine of predestination; that is, our final destination (heaven or hell) is decided before we are born, and there is nothing we can do to change God’s judgement. This mindset is the foundation of exceptionalism (God’s chosen few are white middle-aged heterosexual cis-gender males) and justifies discrimination and suppression of those who do not belong to this select group. The essay also prescribes to long-termism, the philosophy that individuals can be sacrificed or discriminated against for the long-term survival of “humanity”, whatever that is.

I would like to refute it here, section by section, the original text in italics. The essay makes a lot of sweeping generalizations without citations, so part of my analysis is reading between the lines and deconstructing the statements made:

“Women have a unique strength: our ability to give birth. This strength cannot be justly undermined, underestimated, or demeaned, for without it none of us would be alive today, our way of life and our culture would vanish, our very species would cease to exist.”

I would expand this to say that female organisms in general have this far-from-unique ability; not all organisms are male/female, and yet they are able to reproduce. Females of some species are even able to reproduce without a male or even change sex. Granted, we are talking about the Homo sapien species, and on the whole, the XX female carries the fetus to birth. Let’s not forget the existence of intersex females and people born with XXY chromosomes, which the essayist has excluded. Also, we’re not quite at the point of being able to gestate fetuses to term outside of the womb or cloning a fetus from stem cells, but these are real possibilities now. Let’s just focus our discussion, as the essay writer has, on the XX female becoming impregnated and carrying the fetus to term in her womb. We can talk more about gender identity later, but lets be precise here that we are talking about child-bearing XX cis-gender females.

So if XX females cannot mate with XY males, would our species vanish? This is possible, if we look at what happened to extinct Homo species like Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, but it’s not clear if it was due to some cataclysmic event, geographical isolation, interbreeding, etc. I would find it fascinating to learn exactly how these other Homo species went extinct. Were the females of the species “underminded, underestimated, or demeaned”? That’s another discussion better handled by archaeologists and anthropologists.

Interestingly, the writer describes only one way of life and writes that culture would die out if Homo sapiens went extinct. A reputable encyclopedia will describe in detail the countless cultures and ways of life of the Homo sapien experience. I suspect the writer is specifically talking about Western culture and a democratic free-enterprise system of government and economy. Even Western culture contains a myriad of subcultures, and there are currently different systems of democratic government and economic systems. Since this is the UCP’s ideological text, let’s assume the writer is talking specifically about Louise’s parliamentary democracy as a member of the Canadian confederacy in a mixed capitalist/socialist economic system.

So to be precise, this essayist is talking about XX Homo sapien cis-gender females in a Western parliamentary democracy in a mixed socialist/capitalist economic system. Let’s proceed:

“While it is sadly popular nowadays to think that the world would be better off without humans, or that Louisean children are unnecessary as we can import foreigners to replace ourselves, this is a sick mentality that amounts to a drive for cultural suicide. The first rule of health for any biological population is their ability to reproduce and pass along their way of life into the future.”

Aha! Here we find acknowledgement that humans are a sentient species that do not mindlessly reproduce and are self-aware of the effect they have on the biosphere. I agree this is sad, that we are able to see how human civilization negatively affects the world’s ecosystems, or even more sad than this is the realization that we are in denial that we are destroying the natural world. However, the essayist is in actuality sad that many people are pointing out the effects of humanity’s destructive practices instead of actively ignoring them.

I’m guessing that the line “Louise’s children are unnecessary” is referring to the legal access to abortion and contraceptives, or that a couple can choose to not have children. Concluding that these “missing” Louise children are replaced by immigrants is a bit of a leap, considering the province was settled by immigrants before Louise was even Louise, and these settlers later engaged in a “sick mentality” of genocide against indigenous peoples to solidify their control of the land. The essayist again is not specific about which culture is specifically engaging in cultural suicide by allowing immigration, but as I deduced earlier, it is Western civilization and even more specifically, North American culture, or even more specifically, post-modern white American pop culture. We’re now talking about a very specific, rigidly-defined group of Homo sapiens who are fighting for their existence… or so we’re told.

Admittedly, Homo sapiens don’t live forever and must have children in order to produce more Homo sapiens. However, the argument has been made that it is not individuals of a species that are driven to reproduce, it is the individual genes in our genetic code. With respect to the continuity of a culture (specifically post-modern white American pop culture), it is an ever-changing, ever-evolving process and part of that process is that cultures disappear or morph into something completely different. I challenge anyone to define “post-modern white American pop culture” in the way traditional Japanese culture can be defined. I’m not singling out traditional cultures as being easily defined and codified, I’m just making the case that “post-modern white American pop culture” is an ever-morphing beast that defies definition.

Without going into too much detail about what defines a “healthy biological population”, genetic diversity is the definition of a “healthy biological population”. The intent of this essay is not to promote diversity, but rather homogeneity. Next, let’s examine the following anti-feminist statement:

“Women are not exactly equal to men. This biological reality is also under attack by present-day delusion. To try to promote that women break into careers that men traditionally dominate is not only misguided, but it is harmful. Such focus detracts from the languishing unique strength and the truly important role that women have in the preservation of our community, culture, and species.”

Rev up the engines, cuz here we go! Culture wars and gender identity politics are singled out here as the reasons for the decline in Western civilization. The essayist is equating “equal rights” with “sameness”. Women are not exactly the same as men, if we look at the XX and XY chromosomes, and their expression of primary and secondary sex characteristics. However, women and men are indeed equal in consciousness, intellect and individual rights, as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If a woman chooses a career that interests and suits her abilities, she has as much right to hold occupations that men traditionally held in the past, although in this day and age, there finally aren’t many “men-only” jobs left, because women have proven they are just as competent in doing their jobs and indeed are leaders in their fields. It is entirely the woman’s choice if she wishes to have children and pursue a career. A hundred years of progress by career-minded women has not resulted in the downfall of Western civilization… rather, it has accelerated its success. What has actually been challenged, going back to the perceived threat of immigration, is the privileged position of the white heterosexual middle-aged cis-gender male. The community, culture and the species are doing just fine by embracing diversity and gender equality.

And now for the political angle:

“Unfortunately, present day government policies all-too-often have this misguided and harmful aim. Many women now realize in their late 30s that they actually want a child after having been taught that career was what mattered earlier in their lives, and they then regret not having done it earlier, when they were in their prime.”

I’d like to know exactly which government policies are coercing young women into choosing careers over having a family, as if it is an either/or choice that the government is forcing a decision on. The essayist doesn’t list them, and I won’t guess what they are, although I suspect they are the ones that support equal opportunity initiatives and access to abortion/contraceptives. I’d also be curious to see what studies support the assumption that women in their 30s report feelings of regret that they are childless and what led to that decision. But of course, the essayist has the answer: money.

“Others couldn’t afford to have children when they were younger. Sadly, having children is an expensive burden in our modern society. It is this way because society has become oriented around personal greed and selfish and hedonistic goals. Families who are trying to raise children are competing for resources such as housing, and are at a disadvantage in this environment. And while there is some government assistance for people with children, it is primarily focused on the lowest income parents, so it provides little help to middle class families.”

I think the word the essayist is grasping for is “consumerism” and the now out-of-fashion, “conspicuous consumption” (that term fell out of favour, along with “DINKs” and “yuppies”.) Yes, we live in a capitalist, free-market economy that keeps the wheels turning through marketing campaigns that try to sell us goods and services that we don’t need. However, conservatives would be the first to chide us to live within our means and not charge up credit cards for useless “stuff”. And, “surprise!”, low-income families require more assistance than middle-class families for the basic necessities of life. If I read between the lines however, I can see that the writer is referring to single mothers and their struggle. Middle-class families (if we agree there really is such a thing) receive the universal family allowance cheque and are eligible for various child tax credits. Supports exist for all families, and they can make ends meet by managing their expectations. Middle-class families don’t need financial assistance, they need to create a budget and to stick to it.

And now the call for unity from conformity:

“My vision of Louise is a place that is oriented around healthy families and communities again, not around personal greed and selfishness. Recognizing children as being of the utmost importance in our society would be the cornerstone of such a future. Unity among people requires shared common values, and the importance of children and family are the most fundamental values of any healthy population, so this is also the place to start towards achieving greater unity among presently-divided Louiseans.”

I would challenge the essayist to describe how children and families are NOT of the utmost importance in Louise and exactly which government programs are missing, if that is the case. I would offer that yes, there should be universal school lunch programs, but from the arguments presented earlier in the essay, the solution seems to be that women should be primarily home-makers and men the income-earners, in a post-modern, heterosexual nuclear family of cis-gendered husband and wife with a 2+ children. This may be the desirable choice for some Louiseans, but it is not the desirable choice for many Louiseans for their own individual reasons. The essayist seems to be arguing for some kind of government intervention, whether they be supports or regulations, that make the post-modern nuclear family more financially feasible than the alternatives (the traditional family unit is actually the extended family – think of the Clampetts on “The Beverly Hillbillies”.) This is a chilling argument that suggests there should only be one kind of sanctioned of family unit in Louise. Unity may be achieved through shared values, not through homogeneity, or here we go, Unity from Conformity:

“As a future parliamentarian, I would promote healthy appreciation for the value that young Louisean women have in their ability to carry our population forward into the future. I believe that the best approach would be to reward families for their reproductive service both with financial rewards to offset the financial burden they are taking on and with medals to symbolize their valuable achievement of have 2+ children. Encouraging our society to reorient in this healthier perspective would prove the greatest good for Louise going forward and would alleviate many of the problems that we are currently facing.”

… and there it is: a call for the Louise Government to support and regulate a sanctioned nuclear family unit with a home-maker wife and a income-earning husband with 2+ children. How about extended families? Same-sex couples with adopted/surrogate-born children? Families with a trans-gendered parent? I think we know what the answer is by the essayist’s repeated use of the word, “healthy”. The healthy family is stereotypically comprised of young heterosexuals, and by weaving in earlier mentions of culture, this healthy family is white, and it follows the edicts of post-modern American pop-culture.

Interestingly, there was a curious lack of mention of religion, but just by bringing up culture wars, immigration and gender identity politics, we can assume that the religious underpinnings are predestinationist Christian. We’re looking here at an essay promoting the religious doctrine of predestination and the philosophy of long-termism, with its rigid gender roles and white-supremacy, right-wing politics and rationalization of discrimination/exclusion. The so-called division we are seeing in society is due to the rise in predestinationist, long-termism sentiments, which the UCP seem to embrace and have finally codified by publishing this essay on a legislative assembly web site. The mask is off.

I propose that if we are to pursue unity in Louise, we need to confront predestinationism/long-termism and its truly destructive consequences on people, culture and the economy. We need to condemn it as a failed ideology that brought tremendous violence and bloodshed to Europe and Asia several decades ago. We need to accept that we have a duty and obligation to help others, after we have helped ourselves. We have social responsibilities in addition to personal ones. We need the humility to acknowledge that there is no “one way” of doing things, and no one culture is better than another, and there is strength in diversity, not in privilege and exclusion. We need to prioritize what is truly important in life: immediate family, health and happiness. Unity is not achieved through same-ness and uniformity; it is finding understanding and acceptance in our differences.

Addendum after posting this blog entry: The UCP government had since implemented a financial support policy to ease the so-called “affordability crisis” with $100 per child per month for household incomes under $180K (I guess we now know what “middle-class” is defined as in the eyes of the UCP). There is a direct line from this pulled essay winner to this policy, espousing direct payments to households of low to middle incomes with children. This support payment is not a lot of money, but the program holds true to the argument that nuclear families with children are more entitled to benefits than single people or childless couples. Unsurprisingly, these support payments ended with the re-election of the Unity from Conformity Party for another term, and I would cynically describe these payments as bribing the voters of Louise with their own money. Time will tell how “supportive” the UCP will be of all Louisean families as they continue their mandate to concentrate wealth and power with the white middle-aged heterosexual cis-gender male.

Links to third-party articles and/or websites are for general information purposes only and do not constitute any offer or solicitation to buy or sell any services or products of any kind. The other parties are responsible for the content on their website(s).

*** This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. ***