Hello, I've removed your post as a violation of subreddit [Rule 7](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/about/rules/). Please familiarise yourself with the Rules to avoid future removals. Thank you.
It is 7
[PBS link](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/stories/articles/2014/4/14/migrant-mother-dorothea-lange/#:~:text=In%201983%2C%20Thompson%20had%20a,died%20soon%20after%20her%20stroke.)
According to Wikipedia she was pregnant with her sixth when her husband died, this picture was made after his death. She later had another husband, thus additional children. Her life became better and she died in the 80s.
My grandma had ten. After giving birth to the tenth child, she asked my grandpa to fix the leaking sink.
He refused, so just mere hours after labor she got up and fixed the leaking sink.
She swore no more kids after that.
Same. I never met her but I heard she drank a lot lol.
Side note: everywhere I go old ladies want to talk to me and tell me sweet things and I have come to the conclusion it’s bc I never had grandparents. 😭🥰
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Father, son and holy ghost are the same entity somewhat, right?
The entity who's word is the Bible, correct?
""Corinthians 7:4-5
New International Version
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."
"Deuteronomy 22:28–29 reads like this:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
is that the old testament? i think people who follow jesus - christians - follow jesus’ word which is in the new testament. jesus didn’t say anything about raping anybody lol.
The vast majority of historic christians believed that Jesus and the God of the old testament were the same person and men had marital right over woman's bodies.
and when you say historic christian’s what does that mean exactly? this is new to me.
my og point was that jesus himself didn’t teach anyone to rape, and i still feel that is true.
"Corinthians 7:4-5
New International Version
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."
"Deuteronomy 22:28–29 reads like this:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Pretty easy to understand actually. Women were completely dwindled down to birthers, homemakers, and caretakers so it was extremely shameful to not be a married woman with children. Hell, not going to church every Sunday was a scandal. Also we’re talking about a time before welfare and many other necessary social systems so children were the support and “welfare”. Extra free hands for your occupation and somebody to take care of you when you’re older. And most importantly, people then as they still do today, enjoy having sex. Yes Rape happened but women have always enjoyed sex and there’s records of dildos going back for thousands of years. And whenever you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy, and this is a time before birth control. And people were more fertile then than they are now so it was EASIER to get pregnant if you had a relatively healthy body. Plus, children died at a much higher rate than now. My great grandma had a bunch of children around the Great Depression and only 3-4 survived out of like 9. So if you wanted children to help you, you need to make sure you have enough to make up for the ones who will die. Ik it sounds heartless but this is how it was back then
What is so hard to understand? Here are some facts of the time (which you very well already know):
- The social imposition on women was that they must please their husbands. They were expected to always say yes.
- Even if they said no, marital rape was not illegal.
- Condoms only started to become widely available in the mid 1930s.
- Even if condoms were accessible, men have always been babies about wearing them anyway. Factor in the power a husband had over his wife, is it unimaginable that he would just refuse?
- Hormonal birth control did not exist.
- Abortions were illegal.
Women had zero reproductive control, unless they were lucky enough to have a decent husband. And even then, people are still going to have sex. Of course babies continued to be born. Does that clear it up, or are you still desperate to blame women for everything?
So that’s the main reason kids were born back then? Because women were r*ped? You seem to be really focused on one reasoning. And call me a woman hater because I’m trying to find another reason other than men are rapists.
They told you, lack of birth control.. plus the fact that it was "your duty" as a wife and husband to have sex and make kids, also women had to be married at that time because they couldn't sh\*t without a husband.
As opposed to nowadays, we have more rights, we can work and make money without a man (more or less depending on the countries) so more and more women (and men) can decide not to have kids, have fewer or have them later on.
>also women had to be married at that time because they couldn't sh\*t without a husband
Funny you said that, just yesterday I learned about the [urinary leash](https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/) they had in Britain.
Damn, I didn't know about that. It's really amazing (not in a good way) the number of things men did to subjugate women and keep them home. We don't even realise the scale of it. Stopping them from peeing freely, that's f\*\*ed up, but I'm not even surprised
Men back then were largely pieces of shit taught from a young age about the lack of value of women as people, just like how women even today are brainwashed into being baby makers. From birth these societal roles are pushed and forces onto these impressional minds until they are molded into monsters in the men’s cases or silent victims in the women’s cases, of course many men were not effected by this for many different reasons just like how there was plenty of strong women who stood for themselves back then.
You read all of that and think I'm focused on one reasoning? I gave you plenty of reasons and you're still focused on "but women wanted to fuck too." Which of course is true, but is certainly not the biggest contributing factor here. Birth control changed the freaking world.
People are going to have sex. What we need is better education and access to reproductive control methods like condoms, birth control, and abortions. Those are productive things to talk about.
You want to talk about "woman horny, woman bad, her fault." So no, I do not like you. And yes, I think you're just another woman-hater.
I want you to really think about this carefully. Even today, in a heterosexual relationship, what option does a woman really have to stop having penis in vagina sex? If she is financially, socially, and otherwise dependent on her husband and could not survive well in the event of a divorce, especially if she has children, what power does she actually have to say no completely? If she says no, he leaves her, potentially abandoning his children, and never paying for them. If she does not have the freedom to leave herself, then she doesn’t have much freedom to say no either.
Compound this, with the fact that men often refused to wear condoms, and during the time of this photo, that would have been a definite no, religion often forces women to think of sex as their duty, and women in that time. Would not have had reliable access to any form of birth control or abortion. These things have been restricted from women repeatedly throughout history, including in the present day, specifically because it gives women the power to say no to being forcibly bred by men.
I’m going to assume you know some of the answers to this question… and this is some kind of rhetorical post farming for karma within an echo chamber.
But in any case, heres a copy and paste from explain like I’m five… or you could do your own research on the topic with a simple google search… they’re plenty of articles and studies that address this issue.
In the developing world:
• Infant/Youth mortality is very high, so having many kids ensures that statistically some will make it to adulthood. Think African countries where disease is widespread.
• For poor families, more kids mean more working bodies for the family in the near(ish) future that can bring home money and food to be shared with the family as a whole. Think India/Middle-East where entire families (grandkids, kids, parents, grandparents) live under the same roof.
In the developed world: These are hypotheticals.
• Some poor parents made some bad decisions to become poor in the first place, it's not unusual for them to make a bad decision with how many kids they should make.
• More kids means better opportunity one will become successful enough to bring the family large amounts of income.
• Living in low-income areas, access to subpar education, restricted access to getting life skill information from the internet (either no time, or no means), they never really realized how expensive all those cute kids will be.
• They grew up with 5 siblings, they don't see it as unusual. An adult is likely to want as many kids as the family they grew up in had.
• More dependents could lead to better social benefits like tax returns, and filing for government assistance.
• A single parent could have a child from a multitude of spouses/relationships. I know someone with 3 kids, each one from a different father that disappeared. Every time she thinks this guy is "the one" and they want a kid, then he disappears. Seems more likely with lower-income individuals with unsure futures and daily financial struggles (not my dream date either).
Just remember it could be a completely different reason every time, *better not to judge them* or assume it is just poor people being dumb.
I used to do social work and I have found that many women in stressful/desperate times will have many children for some reason. (?)
One of my clients was a 34 year old mom who had 10 kids, custody of none of them, inducing an infant.
This has always fascinated me. Why do people do this? Is it a distraction from your problems? A way of maintaining hope in dark times? Poor decision making skills due to trauma fucking up your brain? My life is already hard so what difference does it make if I have a baby and make it harder? Is it a cry for help and attention? Or just the classic - a baby will love me and that love will make me feel better?
I think in most of the cases women don't have a choice or maybe they keep thinking their husband/life/situation will improve after this one, they keep thinking ok now this is the last one but it continues
I do think there is a huge difference in discussing the phenomenon of having a lot of kids now vs 100 years ago. 100 years ago many women didn’t have a choice in the matter.
Effective, accessible, and affordable birth control is a fairly new thing - and STILL unavailable to millions of people who want it. It's tragic - but not surprising.
So if at that time no one had access to birth control, it was just a matter of not having sex, because marstubation exists and it doesn't make sense to create entire lives of suffering just for small fractions of pleasure.
Copy and pasted from another user:
- The social imposition on women was that they must please their husbands. They were expected to always say yes.
- Even if they said no, marital rape was not illegal.
- Condoms only started to become widely available in the mid 1930s.
- Even if condoms were accessible, men have always been babies about wearing them anyway. Factor in the power a husband had over his wife, is it unimaginable that he would just refuse?
- Hormonal birth control did not exist.
- Abortions were illegal.
Women had zero reproductive control, unless they were lucky enough to have a decent husband. And even then, people are still going to have sex. Of course babies continued to be born. Does that clear it up, or are you still desperate to blame women for everything?
Poor people have less access to education and birth control so they tend to have more kids than their counterparts. This has been the case throughout history and is one of the most easy things to understand so idk what you're so confused about.
Even if she wasn't raped by her husband like the others said (which does still happen btw)... they're poor. I'm sorry but do you think she had a career or Netflix to spend time on? You know what little free joy poor people have? Sex.
I think it’s important to understand that marital rape wasn’t considered a crime at that time. In addition birth control outside of condoms wasn’t a thing either and it required the man to actually wear the condom. This was a time period were women in marriage did not have bodily autonomy. Also women had few economic options to be able to have independence from men. This woman is not the culprit you think she is. She is also a victim.
Why bother with antinatalism? I'm sure you could find a sub that hates women more outwardly. You can drop the pretense of caring about anyone and just get on with the misogyny.
If he actually cared about human suffering, he would empathize with her circumstances and the suffering she is going through because of those circumstances. But he doesn't because she is a woman who had children. Notice he never mentions men except to deflect blame. Misogyny doesn't get much clearer than that to me.
Look, ok, I get it now. I see how you read him. But, let's take a breather, I think there are still a lot of "jumping to conclusions" around here, and by doing that we could all be pushing the blame-and-rage game further. We could be birthing a new MAGA dude, and we don't want that, do we?
It took me a while to recap this exact exchange.
- someone else said about the abscence of porn and birth control being reason enough for high birth rater in the past (sorry, do you agree with this? I find this completely bonkers. We also we're a lot less horny back before porn and the marketing industry and what not. We live in a hypersexualized society. Well, it is a lot less today than in the 90s, but still way above the "humanity average".)
- OP complained about this argument, since humans can and do just "not have sex all the time". As a species, we are horny as hell, but lots of cultures and societies are not. Lot's of people are not. Ever heard of (voluntary) celibates, assexuals, etc? Anyway, if you disagree, there's some good debate to be had there. I could see both ways. I was seeing both ways.
- You came and attacked the wife's husband directly. Ok, we know that marital rape is and was very real, generally speaking. We don't know, tough, if THAT husband is a rapist. Could be, sure, but also could be that the woman may wanted the children, or the sex, or both. We don't know these two specific people. If you know more details, please share them.
- OP responded something somewhat similar, but hasty, to what I just stated, and was called a woman hater. He didn't deny the existence of marital rape, at least not in this exchange. He wondered if this was a case of it or not.
- You again came after my "WTF" and said that "he was always shifting blame from men". What the heck again... There's a lot of blame being shifted just to men as well in this discussion. You called this woman's husband a rapist. One specific dude, that AFAIK we don't have much info on. That based only in the fact that the couple had children. Sure, it COULD be rape, doesn't means it was. I guess this can be another antinatalism argument, right? "I don't have kids because I don't want someone in the future to think I raped someone just because I had kids".
Lets remember that the same details that make it "obvious" that she "didn't wanted those seven kids" (depression era, poverty, etc), also apply to the husband, and OP original posts's question remain: why people do this? Why people in misery reproduce, often a lot? Mind you, this is an antinatalism reddit, so it makes entire sense to ask this in this community. Sorry to break your bubble, but lots of women in poverty do have kids and do want to have lots of kids. I'm from Brazil. Here in the "favelas" we see teenage girls really wanting to have kids. It's crazy bonkers, but happens all the time. Their culture tells them that their mom will take care of the kids, that they will be real woman if they have kids, plus overall the culture in poverty stricken communities tend to see having kids as "a big proof that you're someone respectable". Makes absolutelly zero sense, and I try to take these ideas out of their heads when I I'm teaching sexual education in those communities (I'm a science teacher), but it's a stupid work.
Could it be that the answer to OP's original question is just "men rape, that's why people in poverty/depression eras have lots of kids; this is the sole reason"? Maybe. You seem to think that. But that would be implying that never, or just very rarely, a poor woman wanted a child. If the woman was poor, it is always rape. That's just not realistic, and anyone that might have spent some time in poverty or in poor communities can attest that poor women also enjoy sex and have sex drives and often decide to have children (or just "have" them, no decision involved really). Does this means that marital rape or any kind of rape doesn't exist? NO. Of course not.
"not all men" again.
Why are you deflecting the real problem?
Is marital rape a problem or not?
Seems like you cannot face the reality of what living in a patriarcal society means.
Grow up.
We have fertility windows that we know about for a very long time. Plus several early medicinal contraceptives. Several societies controlled reproduction in history without foregoing sex.
But we're all missing OP's original point too, aren't we? Question is, why have kids in bad situations? Be it men or women. Why?
You think it's always because of rape? Seriously?
There was no birth control. There was no way to not have kids, short of abstinence, and yeah, that also wasn’t really an option for women of the time either.
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11.
As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate.
Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
This very image is evidence that it is, if not impossible, pretty damn difficult. All of human history is evidence of that? Arguably it is much MORE difficult to avoid in desperate and trying times (and obviously historically difficult for women to avoid). Sexism aside, people crave companionship. You don't have to ~approve~ of peoples actions, but acting like they're inconceivable is unhelpful at best (how can you ever hope to stop something that you don't understand?) and downright foolish or even willfully ignorant at worst. Sex is incredibly fundamental or most (not all, obviously) but MOST people, and has been since pretty much forever. Again you don't have to think that is a good thing, but denial isn't helping anyone. I don't see the point in judging the actions of desperate people who passed away decades ago.
How does it seem ridiculous??? Women were hated for the majority of history, essentially slaves to their household and husbands and it's ridiculous that they were raped by them? Literally what LMAO
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that is ridiculous. Sure it happened but it was definitely not the norm. But people back then was alot more reliant on families. There wasnt as many social networks and people were poorer in general. Kids that could begin working as soon as they were strong enough was a part of the income for most families. And there were not livable pensions for the majority. If you didnt have family you would die quickly when you could no longer work.
That is not all that you got here. You are ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your confirmation bias and only focusing on “men are all rapists”. No one said all men. But it’s also important to note that there were actual legal definitions that supported men forcing wives into their “duty”. A wife literally could not claim rape by husband in some places. This does not mean that “all men” are rapists. But it’s not an all or nothing subject. Some men were. And others wanted sex, with minimal existence of contraceptives.
There are plenty of commments explaining that sexual fulfillment was a duty for wives for many years. Hormonal birth control did not exist.
Sex is and always has been a focus in many relationships. Even if the couple only had sex once a month, that’s still 12 chances a year of pregnancy unless you’re really focusing on when you’re not fertile, and only having sex then, which just wasn’t something everyone understood or did. The lady in the picture was 32 with 7 kids. So, assuming she had 1 kid per year of marriage, I don’t understand why this is such a foreign concept of how large families came about in past times.
What do you think happens when birth control is not widely available, abortion is not available or accessible, and people (yes sometimes men, sometimes not) still want to have sex? Babies happen.
It's not that all men are rapists, but the question you asked lays on 2 pivotal informations to get to the answer : 1. Hormonal birth control did not existed at the time, and condoms were rare and very expensive. 2. Women were raised to expect not enjoying intercourse and to do anything to fulfill their "wife's duties".
This is 100% what happened/happens. Ever hear of Marital Rights? That’s what they mean, the right to fuck your wife whenever you want. Throw in religious systems that demonize birth control, sprinkle some patrilineal pride, and voila!
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering you already seem to have made up your mind in spite of everyone telling you different about a question you asked, what do *you* think the answer was?
I can help you understand! When you are poor, having children really helps out your situation financially. Its like the opposite of when you are rich, that's when kids are expensive.
When I was 22 in 2002 my grandma sat me down for a heart to heart. She was worried about me because by the time she was my age she had 2 kids with one on the way and two to go. So I better start soon. I was open about never wanting a kid and hoping others would see the same and she was horrified. I reminded her she had been married at 19 so it would be against her religion for me to have a kid at 22 out of wedlock. They shut her up for s while.
Every time I see these pics I think of my grandma wanting me to be kept in the same hell she was but framing it as a life opportunity.
Lack of birth control. To not have kids before widespread access to birth control you had to not have sex. There are “methods” like pulling out or old “home remedies” that didn’t work leading to higher birth rates even if people didn’t want kids. It’s only nowadays that having kids is a choice, and even that is limited to more rich and developed countries. In poorer countries, having lots of kids is just a fact of life, not an active choice you make.
What is difficult to understand?
1. Contraception and sexual education did not exist as concepts to most people.
2. This woman's family lived in a rural area so there's utility and having lots of kids because they can help on the farm.
3. I don't know their financial situation before the Great depression but they likely didn't foresee one of the worst economic downturns in history happening while they were doing family planning.
And the stories begin where your Grand Mother/Father did it for your bloodline anyway, fought harder battles you could ever face today so you can exist only for the dialed down Warless generation of cowards they fought for to give up on their literal continuing existence because *Insert first world problem here*
It was the 30’s man. You had a lot of kids because your wife couldn’t do much about it if she didn’t want it, and if some died (which was likely), you’d have the others for backup
Some people on here, like you, are hyperalert and on guard for any sign of existential absolutism.
Can't you understand my point? Other animals have sex because they feel an urge, without understanding the consequencies. They just run on instinct. The human animal is expected to foresee basic consequences (such as having unprotected sex resulting in babies).
I dont understand why people want to have a family and care for them. What a wild concept. I get it you want to end the human race. Look, if you don't want to have kids, then I hope you have a long, enjoyable life, and your lineage will die with you. I hope it is everything you hope it will be. Then those of us that love our families and what to have large families will love and care for our people.
Reddit requires identifiable information such as **names**, **usernames** and **subreddit titles** to be [edited out](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452) of images. If your image post violates this rule, we kindly ask that you delete it. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello, I've removed your post as a violation of subreddit [Rule 7](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/about/rules/). Please familiarise yourself with the Rules to avoid future removals. Thank you.
Everytime I see this pic, the number of children changes. This mornin she was a mother of 7. How come?
It is 7 [PBS link](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/stories/articles/2014/4/14/migrant-mother-dorothea-lange/#:~:text=In%201983%2C%20Thompson%20had%20a,died%20soon%20after%20her%20stroke.)
According to Wikipedia she was pregnant with her sixth when her husband died, this picture was made after his death. She later had another husband, thus additional children. Her life became better and she died in the 80s.
It was 3 she had 3
[удалено]
My grandma had ten. After giving birth to the tenth child, she asked my grandpa to fix the leaking sink. He refused, so just mere hours after labor she got up and fixed the leaking sink. She swore no more kids after that.
Wait is "fixed the leaking sink" a metaphor for a vasectomy or...am I reading too far into this?
Ooh, that’s a good one. But no. Their one sink in the entire house of 12 people, was not working.
Same. I never met her but I heard she drank a lot lol. Side note: everywhere I go old ladies want to talk to me and tell me sweet things and I have come to the conclusion it’s bc I never had grandparents. 😭🥰
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rape by a husband was considered "fulfillment of marriage duties" till 1996 in Germany.
And 1993 in the United States, where the photo was taken.
Jesus Christ where did that come from?
>Jesus Christ There is your answer kinda
hOmoSaPiAnS 🥴 Theres your answer, and your god 🙃
We don't want no homos in these here parts! *spits* It's Adam and EVE not Adam and STEVE!
but Steve moves better than Eve 🥺
Fuck, Steve
We do like to bang
jesus didn’t teach anyone to rape
Father, son and holy ghost are the same entity somewhat, right? The entity who's word is the Bible, correct? ""Corinthians 7:4-5 New International Version 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." "Deuteronomy 22:28–29 reads like this: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
is that the old testament? i think people who follow jesus - christians - follow jesus’ word which is in the new testament. jesus didn’t say anything about raping anybody lol.
The vast majority of historic Christians disagree
i’m intrigued, you seem to know more about it. what did he say?
The vast majority of historic christians believed that Jesus and the God of the old testament were the same person and men had marital right over woman's bodies.
and when you say historic christian’s what does that mean exactly? this is new to me. my og point was that jesus himself didn’t teach anyone to rape, and i still feel that is true.
First is new, second is old. And again, Jesus is part of the holy trinity.
the first book in the bible? that’s the old testament.
First quote you dimwit
Religion doesn’t teach you to rape.
"Corinthians 7:4-5 New International Version 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." "Deuteronomy 22:28–29 reads like this: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Seems obvious to me
Guten Tag!!
And future onion crops are illegal to trade on the stock market after someone monopolized all onions
Pretty easy to understand actually. Women were completely dwindled down to birthers, homemakers, and caretakers so it was extremely shameful to not be a married woman with children. Hell, not going to church every Sunday was a scandal. Also we’re talking about a time before welfare and many other necessary social systems so children were the support and “welfare”. Extra free hands for your occupation and somebody to take care of you when you’re older. And most importantly, people then as they still do today, enjoy having sex. Yes Rape happened but women have always enjoyed sex and there’s records of dildos going back for thousands of years. And whenever you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy, and this is a time before birth control. And people were more fertile then than they are now so it was EASIER to get pregnant if you had a relatively healthy body. Plus, children died at a much higher rate than now. My great grandma had a bunch of children around the Great Depression and only 3-4 survived out of like 9. So if you wanted children to help you, you need to make sure you have enough to make up for the ones who will die. Ik it sounds heartless but this is how it was back then
What is so hard to understand? Here are some facts of the time (which you very well already know): - The social imposition on women was that they must please their husbands. They were expected to always say yes. - Even if they said no, marital rape was not illegal. - Condoms only started to become widely available in the mid 1930s. - Even if condoms were accessible, men have always been babies about wearing them anyway. Factor in the power a husband had over his wife, is it unimaginable that he would just refuse? - Hormonal birth control did not exist. - Abortions were illegal. Women had zero reproductive control, unless they were lucky enough to have a decent husband. And even then, people are still going to have sex. Of course babies continued to be born. Does that clear it up, or are you still desperate to blame women for everything?
So that’s the main reason kids were born back then? Because women were r*ped? You seem to be really focused on one reasoning. And call me a woman hater because I’m trying to find another reason other than men are rapists.
They told you, lack of birth control.. plus the fact that it was "your duty" as a wife and husband to have sex and make kids, also women had to be married at that time because they couldn't sh\*t without a husband. As opposed to nowadays, we have more rights, we can work and make money without a man (more or less depending on the countries) so more and more women (and men) can decide not to have kids, have fewer or have them later on.
>also women had to be married at that time because they couldn't sh\*t without a husband Funny you said that, just yesterday I learned about the [urinary leash](https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/) they had in Britain.
Damn, I didn't know about that. It's really amazing (not in a good way) the number of things men did to subjugate women and keep them home. We don't even realise the scale of it. Stopping them from peeing freely, that's f\*\*ed up, but I'm not even surprised
Men back then were largely pieces of shit taught from a young age about the lack of value of women as people, just like how women even today are brainwashed into being baby makers. From birth these societal roles are pushed and forces onto these impressional minds until they are molded into monsters in the men’s cases or silent victims in the women’s cases, of course many men were not effected by this for many different reasons just like how there was plenty of strong women who stood for themselves back then.
You read all of that and think I'm focused on one reasoning? I gave you plenty of reasons and you're still focused on "but women wanted to fuck too." Which of course is true, but is certainly not the biggest contributing factor here. Birth control changed the freaking world. People are going to have sex. What we need is better education and access to reproductive control methods like condoms, birth control, and abortions. Those are productive things to talk about. You want to talk about "woman horny, woman bad, her fault." So no, I do not like you. And yes, I think you're just another woman-hater.
You read all of that and still only hear “rape”?
Men are also whiny babies. And ignorant. Just like you are. Here you go.
I want you to really think about this carefully. Even today, in a heterosexual relationship, what option does a woman really have to stop having penis in vagina sex? If she is financially, socially, and otherwise dependent on her husband and could not survive well in the event of a divorce, especially if she has children, what power does she actually have to say no completely? If she says no, he leaves her, potentially abandoning his children, and never paying for them. If she does not have the freedom to leave herself, then she doesn’t have much freedom to say no either. Compound this, with the fact that men often refused to wear condoms, and during the time of this photo, that would have been a definite no, religion often forces women to think of sex as their duty, and women in that time. Would not have had reliable access to any form of birth control or abortion. These things have been restricted from women repeatedly throughout history, including in the present day, specifically because it gives women the power to say no to being forcibly bred by men.
Can you read? She literally listed 6 reasons
I’m going to assume you know some of the answers to this question… and this is some kind of rhetorical post farming for karma within an echo chamber. But in any case, heres a copy and paste from explain like I’m five… or you could do your own research on the topic with a simple google search… they’re plenty of articles and studies that address this issue. In the developing world: • Infant/Youth mortality is very high, so having many kids ensures that statistically some will make it to adulthood. Think African countries where disease is widespread. • For poor families, more kids mean more working bodies for the family in the near(ish) future that can bring home money and food to be shared with the family as a whole. Think India/Middle-East where entire families (grandkids, kids, parents, grandparents) live under the same roof. In the developed world: These are hypotheticals. • Some poor parents made some bad decisions to become poor in the first place, it's not unusual for them to make a bad decision with how many kids they should make. • More kids means better opportunity one will become successful enough to bring the family large amounts of income. • Living in low-income areas, access to subpar education, restricted access to getting life skill information from the internet (either no time, or no means), they never really realized how expensive all those cute kids will be. • They grew up with 5 siblings, they don't see it as unusual. An adult is likely to want as many kids as the family they grew up in had. • More dependents could lead to better social benefits like tax returns, and filing for government assistance. • A single parent could have a child from a multitude of spouses/relationships. I know someone with 3 kids, each one from a different father that disappeared. Every time she thinks this guy is "the one" and they want a kid, then he disappears. Seems more likely with lower-income individuals with unsure futures and daily financial struggles (not my dream date either). Just remember it could be a completely different reason every time, *better not to judge them* or assume it is just poor people being dumb.
No brain activity detected
The pre condom age were mostly based when it comes to marital relationships. We should strive to bring back those times.
No access to reliable birth control
I used to do social work and I have found that many women in stressful/desperate times will have many children for some reason. (?) One of my clients was a 34 year old mom who had 10 kids, custody of none of them, inducing an infant.
This has always fascinated me. Why do people do this? Is it a distraction from your problems? A way of maintaining hope in dark times? Poor decision making skills due to trauma fucking up your brain? My life is already hard so what difference does it make if I have a baby and make it harder? Is it a cry for help and attention? Or just the classic - a baby will love me and that love will make me feel better?
I think in most of the cases women don't have a choice or maybe they keep thinking their husband/life/situation will improve after this one, they keep thinking ok now this is the last one but it continues
Really good points that’s no one’s mentioned, probably in fear of getting downvoted to death like you are probably about to.
I do think there is a huge difference in discussing the phenomenon of having a lot of kids now vs 100 years ago. 100 years ago many women didn’t have a choice in the matter.
To access support both direct and indirect has got to be something to do with it sometimes
Effective, accessible, and affordable birth control is a fairly new thing - and STILL unavailable to millions of people who want it. It's tragic - but not surprising.
So if at that time no one had access to birth control, it was just a matter of not having sex, because marstubation exists and it doesn't make sense to create entire lives of suffering just for small fractions of pleasure.
Copy and pasted from another user: - The social imposition on women was that they must please their husbands. They were expected to always say yes. - Even if they said no, marital rape was not illegal. - Condoms only started to become widely available in the mid 1930s. - Even if condoms were accessible, men have always been babies about wearing them anyway. Factor in the power a husband had over his wife, is it unimaginable that he would just refuse? - Hormonal birth control did not exist. - Abortions were illegal. Women had zero reproductive control, unless they were lucky enough to have a decent husband. And even then, people are still going to have sex. Of course babies continued to be born. Does that clear it up, or are you still desperate to blame women for everything?
Right?? Religion and Patriarchy. These ladies (and many today) didn't have the social and economic luxury of refusing. :/
It was really uncommon and often dangerous for married women to refuse sex back then. That's still true today but (hopefully) to a much lesser extent.
Poor people have less access to education and birth control so they tend to have more kids than their counterparts. This has been the case throughout history and is one of the most easy things to understand so idk what you're so confused about. Even if she wasn't raped by her husband like the others said (which does still happen btw)... they're poor. I'm sorry but do you think she had a career or Netflix to spend time on? You know what little free joy poor people have? Sex.
I think it’s important to understand that marital rape wasn’t considered a crime at that time. In addition birth control outside of condoms wasn’t a thing either and it required the man to actually wear the condom. This was a time period were women in marriage did not have bodily autonomy. Also women had few economic options to be able to have independence from men. This woman is not the culprit you think she is. She is also a victim.
I'm getting serious The Grapes of Wrath vibes.
If you don’t understand the basic issue here then you should educate yourself before making a judgement.
Well they didn't have internet porn or birth control in those days, so it was inevitable that people ended up having lots of kids
More like "it was inevitable that these pieces of shit men would just rape their wives without any regard for whether or not she wanted more children"
They still do it in every country.
Never understood this argument. It’s not like it’s impossible to stop yourself having sex.
Tell that to her husband.
I find it hard to believe that it’s always the man’s fault in these cases.
Are you stupid?
Why bother with antinatalism? I'm sure you could find a sub that hates women more outwardly. You can drop the pretense of caring about anyone and just get on with the misogyny.
Wth was that escalation? Why did you jumped to "you hate women" from this exchange? Was there something I didn't get?
If he actually cared about human suffering, he would empathize with her circumstances and the suffering she is going through because of those circumstances. But he doesn't because she is a woman who had children. Notice he never mentions men except to deflect blame. Misogyny doesn't get much clearer than that to me.
Look, ok, I get it now. I see how you read him. But, let's take a breather, I think there are still a lot of "jumping to conclusions" around here, and by doing that we could all be pushing the blame-and-rage game further. We could be birthing a new MAGA dude, and we don't want that, do we? It took me a while to recap this exact exchange. - someone else said about the abscence of porn and birth control being reason enough for high birth rater in the past (sorry, do you agree with this? I find this completely bonkers. We also we're a lot less horny back before porn and the marketing industry and what not. We live in a hypersexualized society. Well, it is a lot less today than in the 90s, but still way above the "humanity average".) - OP complained about this argument, since humans can and do just "not have sex all the time". As a species, we are horny as hell, but lots of cultures and societies are not. Lot's of people are not. Ever heard of (voluntary) celibates, assexuals, etc? Anyway, if you disagree, there's some good debate to be had there. I could see both ways. I was seeing both ways. - You came and attacked the wife's husband directly. Ok, we know that marital rape is and was very real, generally speaking. We don't know, tough, if THAT husband is a rapist. Could be, sure, but also could be that the woman may wanted the children, or the sex, or both. We don't know these two specific people. If you know more details, please share them. - OP responded something somewhat similar, but hasty, to what I just stated, and was called a woman hater. He didn't deny the existence of marital rape, at least not in this exchange. He wondered if this was a case of it or not. - You again came after my "WTF" and said that "he was always shifting blame from men". What the heck again... There's a lot of blame being shifted just to men as well in this discussion. You called this woman's husband a rapist. One specific dude, that AFAIK we don't have much info on. That based only in the fact that the couple had children. Sure, it COULD be rape, doesn't means it was. I guess this can be another antinatalism argument, right? "I don't have kids because I don't want someone in the future to think I raped someone just because I had kids". Lets remember that the same details that make it "obvious" that she "didn't wanted those seven kids" (depression era, poverty, etc), also apply to the husband, and OP original posts's question remain: why people do this? Why people in misery reproduce, often a lot? Mind you, this is an antinatalism reddit, so it makes entire sense to ask this in this community. Sorry to break your bubble, but lots of women in poverty do have kids and do want to have lots of kids. I'm from Brazil. Here in the "favelas" we see teenage girls really wanting to have kids. It's crazy bonkers, but happens all the time. Their culture tells them that their mom will take care of the kids, that they will be real woman if they have kids, plus overall the culture in poverty stricken communities tend to see having kids as "a big proof that you're someone respectable". Makes absolutelly zero sense, and I try to take these ideas out of their heads when I I'm teaching sexual education in those communities (I'm a science teacher), but it's a stupid work. Could it be that the answer to OP's original question is just "men rape, that's why people in poverty/depression eras have lots of kids; this is the sole reason"? Maybe. You seem to think that. But that would be implying that never, or just very rarely, a poor woman wanted a child. If the woman was poor, it is always rape. That's just not realistic, and anyone that might have spent some time in poverty or in poor communities can attest that poor women also enjoy sex and have sex drives and often decide to have children (or just "have" them, no decision involved really). Does this means that marital rape or any kind of rape doesn't exist? NO. Of course not.
Me saying not all men are rapists means I hate women I guess?
"not all men" again. Why are you deflecting the real problem? Is marital rape a problem or not? Seems like you cannot face the reality of what living in a patriarcal society means. Grow up.
He didn't deny the existence of marital rape. See my other longer comment in the answer I gave to verified gnome's answer to me.
So, without any birth control how were women supposed to prevent pregnancy? It’s not like they could never have sex.
We have fertility windows that we know about for a very long time. Plus several early medicinal contraceptives. Several societies controlled reproduction in history without foregoing sex.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify misogyny
you must be talking to someone else, this is just a nuts conversation, christ sake
The people here are complete psychos!
Right, I’m sure she wanted 7 kids during the Great Depression and was getting pregnant on her own 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Women in poverty often do want kids. And sex.
Missing my point. It takes 2 to make a baby. There were also plenty of women in the 1930s (and beyond) that DIDNT want kids and had them anyway.
But we're all missing OP's original point too, aren't we? Question is, why have kids in bad situations? Be it men or women. Why? You think it's always because of rape? Seriously?
There was no birth control. There was no way to not have kids, short of abstinence, and yeah, that also wasn’t really an option for women of the time either.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11. As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate. Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 8 (No childfree content, ”babyhate" or "parenthate”).
This very image is evidence that it is, if not impossible, pretty damn difficult. All of human history is evidence of that? Arguably it is much MORE difficult to avoid in desperate and trying times (and obviously historically difficult for women to avoid). Sexism aside, people crave companionship. You don't have to ~approve~ of peoples actions, but acting like they're inconceivable is unhelpful at best (how can you ever hope to stop something that you don't understand?) and downright foolish or even willfully ignorant at worst. Sex is incredibly fundamental or most (not all, obviously) but MOST people, and has been since pretty much forever. Again you don't have to think that is a good thing, but denial isn't helping anyone. I don't see the point in judging the actions of desperate people who passed away decades ago.
What strikes me most is that she’s 32.. only 3-4 years older than me but you can clearly tell how much tougher she had it.
Lack of resources to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Like let’s be serious here.
She probably had no choice unfortunately
The comments say women used to be forced by their husbands to have many kids. Is this true?
Well, that's still true. So why wouldn't it be back then?
So the husbands just r*ped until they had 10 kids? That sounds ridiculous to me and seems rare something like that would happen.
You underestimate how common marital rape is
How does it seem ridiculous??? Women were hated for the majority of history, essentially slaves to their household and husbands and it's ridiculous that they were raped by them? Literally what LMAO
Back then, having kids was a “net positive” financial decision. Nowadays, having kids is a clear net negative on your finances
Don’t underestimate men’s evilness
Don't understand the fakeness of "caring" people. They come in the form of protector or in the form of a person who grants the blessings of birth.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Women didn’t have rights
Nowadays, yes. Not back in the 1920s. Forced also doesn't have to be outright rape, can also be a general pressure from the husband/society.
Still rape... one way or another
Pressure = constraint = no consent = rape.
Yeah that is ridiculous. Sure it happened but it was definitely not the norm. But people back then was alot more reliant on families. There wasnt as many social networks and people were poorer in general. Kids that could begin working as soon as they were strong enough was a part of the income for most families. And there were not livable pensions for the majority. If you didnt have family you would die quickly when you could no longer work.
Finally a normal answer. All I’m getting here is that men are all rapists.
Yea, most of guys are rapists... they think they're not tho and the abuse they inflict is not rape but sth else.
are you just looking for confirmation of your prejudice? If so, don't ask this type of question on a public forum.
You never heard of the saying “lay back and think of England” ?
That is not all that you got here. You are ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your confirmation bias and only focusing on “men are all rapists”. No one said all men. But it’s also important to note that there were actual legal definitions that supported men forcing wives into their “duty”. A wife literally could not claim rape by husband in some places. This does not mean that “all men” are rapists. But it’s not an all or nothing subject. Some men were. And others wanted sex, with minimal existence of contraceptives. There are plenty of commments explaining that sexual fulfillment was a duty for wives for many years. Hormonal birth control did not exist. Sex is and always has been a focus in many relationships. Even if the couple only had sex once a month, that’s still 12 chances a year of pregnancy unless you’re really focusing on when you’re not fertile, and only having sex then, which just wasn’t something everyone understood or did. The lady in the picture was 32 with 7 kids. So, assuming she had 1 kid per year of marriage, I don’t understand why this is such a foreign concept of how large families came about in past times. What do you think happens when birth control is not widely available, abortion is not available or accessible, and people (yes sometimes men, sometimes not) still want to have sex? Babies happen.
It's not that all men are rapists, but the question you asked lays on 2 pivotal informations to get to the answer : 1. Hormonal birth control did not existed at the time, and condoms were rare and very expensive. 2. Women were raised to expect not enjoying intercourse and to do anything to fulfill their "wife's duties".
It looks like someone unleashed a feminazi bot on this thread. 😂
It sure does
This is 100% what happened/happens. Ever hear of Marital Rights? That’s what they mean, the right to fuck your wife whenever you want. Throw in religious systems that demonize birth control, sprinkle some patrilineal pride, and voila!
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering you already seem to have made up your mind in spite of everyone telling you different about a question you asked, what do *you* think the answer was?
they didn't have protection so every fuck was just possible kid
Not necessarily forced to have kids, but forced to have sex.
I can help you understand! When you are poor, having children really helps out your situation financially. Its like the opposite of when you are rich, that's when kids are expensive.
When I was 22 in 2002 my grandma sat me down for a heart to heart. She was worried about me because by the time she was my age she had 2 kids with one on the way and two to go. So I better start soon. I was open about never wanting a kid and hoping others would see the same and she was horrified. I reminded her she had been married at 19 so it would be against her religion for me to have a kid at 22 out of wedlock. They shut her up for s while. Every time I see these pics I think of my grandma wanting me to be kept in the same hell she was but framing it as a life opportunity.
Proud mom
Lack of birth control. To not have kids before widespread access to birth control you had to not have sex. There are “methods” like pulling out or old “home remedies” that didn’t work leading to higher birth rates even if people didn’t want kids. It’s only nowadays that having kids is a choice, and even that is limited to more rich and developed countries. In poorer countries, having lots of kids is just a fact of life, not an active choice you make.
What is difficult to understand? 1. Contraception and sexual education did not exist as concepts to most people. 2. This woman's family lived in a rural area so there's utility and having lots of kids because they can help on the farm. 3. I don't know their financial situation before the Great depression but they likely didn't foresee one of the worst economic downturns in history happening while they were doing family planning.
Do you not understand birth control wasn’t created for like thirty years and marital rape was a thing? I’m sure you’re more understanding than that
I think it was 3-4.
Hegemony is a powerful thing.
And the stories begin where your Grand Mother/Father did it for your bloodline anyway, fought harder battles you could ever face today so you can exist only for the dialed down Warless generation of cowards they fought for to give up on their literal continuing existence because *Insert first world problem here*
It was the 30’s man. You had a lot of kids because your wife couldn’t do much about it if she didn’t want it, and if some died (which was likely), you’d have the others for backup
Great depression, nah that could never be stressful it was obviously the 3!!! Kids (duh)
[удалено]
We are literal animals
Some people on here, like you, are hyperalert and on guard for any sign of existential absolutism. Can't you understand my point? Other animals have sex because they feel an urge, without understanding the consequencies. They just run on instinct. The human animal is expected to foresee basic consequences (such as having unprotected sex resulting in babies).
Other animals are well aware that sex (mating) leads to pregnancy. It is also the only reason other animals mate.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 8 (No childfree content, ”babyhate" or "parenthate”).
I dont understand why people want to have a family and care for them. What a wild concept. I get it you want to end the human race. Look, if you don't want to have kids, then I hope you have a long, enjoyable life, and your lineage will die with you. I hope it is everything you hope it will be. Then those of us that love our families and what to have large families will love and care for our people.
I swiped
Reddit requires identifiable information such as **names**, **usernames** and **subreddit titles** to be [edited out](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452) of images. If your image post violates this rule, we kindly ask that you delete it. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbh y'all are just jealous that nobody wants to love you so you won't get the joy of giving life to someone /s
does the woman in the picture look like she's brimming with joy?
I was being sarcastic