Smarter women who dont want children are selfish?

[davidn3600]

It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies. Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter. In an ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices, but instead it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who don't have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers but dumb ones as well.

Satoshi Kanazawa, the LSE psychologist behind the research, discussed the findings that maternal urges drop by 25% with every extra 15 IQ points in his book The Intelligence Paradox. In the opening paragraph of the chapter titled "Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life", he makes his feelings about voluntary childlessness very clear:

If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.

That said then, Kanazawa finds it paradoxical that intelligent women apparently don't possess the desire to pursue what should be the ultimate goal of their biological existence, (hence the loser reference). He says that it's not yet known why intelligent women are having less babies but says it's not the reason most people assume, that women with higher IQs are more likely to go to college and have demanding careers. Basically he seems to come to the paradoxical conclusion that intelligent women just aren't all that wise.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/smart-women-not-having-kids?

[AverageJoe90]

1. Always thought that it was the other way around, if anything.....n/t

(at least mostly so.)

[Orrex]

2. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3413300

[niyad]

7. it really is okay for articles to be posted more than once. not all of us see everything.

[Orrex]

17. Well, it's like this

In my time at DU I've inadvertently posted so many duplicate links that I can't help point it out when someone else does it.


KICK!

[kestrel91316]

3. Society has proved itself too dumb and downright evil to deserve my genes, so

it can't have them. Once I'm gone, that's it.

[niyad]

4. let me understand this-- as a woman smart enough to realize I would make a lousy parent, I am

SELFISH for not inflicting my lack of parenting skills on a helpless offspring? REALLLLY????? and here, all this time, I thought this was the right thing to do.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. not getting sucked into another one of these idiotic threads. If you want to have children, have

children. I did and have never regretted it. If you don't want to have children, don't have children. There is no reason for either side to feel superior to the other and no reason to insult someone just because they make different choices than you.

[Common Sense Party]

15. These threads where those of us who have children are considered less intelligent

get pretty tiresome.

Yes, the insinuation is there. It's tedious.

[Drale]

6. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

The Smart people have a small number of kids or no kids while the stupid red necks breed out of control. I'm not saying smart people need to have more kids, I'm saying we need rules saying no body can have more than 3 kids and 1 to 2 is the ideal number.

[love_katz]

11. ^^^^^This^^^^^

I am not merely a life support system for a womb, nor only worthy if I am an incubator for some man's sperm.

And, like, intelligence is adopting the breeding dynamics of mosquitoes and fleas?!!?

[HappyMe]

8. If you want kids - have them.

If you don't want kids - then don't have them.

I seriously don't see the problem with any body's choice.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Or intelligent women are more wise than Mr Kanazawa is giving them credit for

there are too many people. The sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is about 2 billion. Having fewer, or no, children is not perhaps the most evolutionarily sound strategy from the viewpoint of the survival of one's own genes, but from the viewpoint of the overall survival of the species it's perfectly sensible.

[Quantess]

10. His premise is WAY off!

He thinks not having children is unwise. Are you kidding me?
It's the other way around, in our modern society. Children are very expensive, extremely time consuming, and the rewards are subjective. Not having children is actually a "wiser" choice, in terms of being practical.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. I was always told a woman not having children is like winning the lottery!

My grandmother told me..."not everyone is cut out to be a Fireman or an Astronaut.....not everyone is cut out to be parents either...and far too many that shouldn't do anyway. I decided a long time ago...the way to end nearly all the ills in the world....requires just 2 things. Educate woman and give them easy access to birth control. Educated women just naturally have fewer children. And educated women are going to be in a better financial position to raise the children she does have.

[LWolf]

12. I've heard that before.

Funny, every time I've heard it, it's from a fundie/conservative source that fears women escaping the place they've been kept in.

I don't know if Satoshi Kanazawa is a fundie or conservative, but his attitude toward women is clearly suspect. This article does say this about him:

(I should probably note that Kanazawa's judgement has been called into question in the past, regarding a study in which he found that black women are less attractive).

The source:

The controversial Japanese academic, an evolutionary psychologist, concluded this is because African women have higher levels of testosterone than other races and therefore have more masculine features.

And from the same article:

In 2006 he published a paper suggesting the poor health of some sub-Saharan Africans is the result of low IQ, not poverty.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388313/LSE-psychologist-Satoshi-Kanazawa-claims-black-women-attractive.html#ixzz2bKSpI9au
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Misery doesn't just love company, it demands it. n/t

[Moonwalk]

14. His thesis is wrong. He asserts that anti-maternailism is against evolution. By that logic....

...gays and old people who no longer can produce babies are against evolution.

But evolution isn't just about making babies. It's being able to stay alive to reproduce. Thus, the intelligent individual with little maternal drive may have a different, but equally important, evolutionary function--just like those attracted to their own sex, or old women past child bearing age.

Putting it another way, what helps keep the species making babies is part of evolution. The intelligent woman who, in times past, may have become a vestal virgin or nun (no babies), was not burdened by pregnancy or children, nor at risk from death by childbirth, and, thus, may have been able to do things a maternal woman could not--and do them for a long time. Such as caring for the sick, being a midwife, looking after orphans. All of which helps the species to survive and make babies.

Hence, she is neither a loser, personally, nor a loser for the species. She just functions differently for evolution than those with stronger maternal instincts.

This guy is really a bad scientist--especially when it comes to knowledge of evolution, etc. as well as a chauvinist who lets his own biases drive his research and conclusions. I wish they'd stop publishing him.

[Quantess]

19. He IS a chauvinist.

He's thinking in terms of "the woman's gotta take one for the team" and have offspring for the good of the species' gene pool, or something. He has zero appreciation of the actual work, time, money involved in raising those gems of the gene pool.

Anybody who is that myopic and can't think of alternative explanations is probably a lousy scientist.

[Moonwalk]

20. Well,his thesis also fails in regards to not defining it's terms. If maternal only means...

...producing babies, then it's in even deeper trouble. As you say, it's easy enough to make a baby, but it's not so easy to raise one. Many women want babies and have them. But if they fail to care for them and they die, then they've failed the species as much as the "non-maternal" woman who had none. We're not, after all, fish who just lay a ton of eggs and leave it to statistics to make sure enough survive to continue the species. We have to care for our kids for a long time.

Again, the intelligent woman who hasn't the kids and, thus, can do other things (gather food for example) might well allow for those who do have kids to spend more time with them and, thus, ensure their survival.

[Renew Deal]

18. This is like the prequel to Idiocracy

[PowerToThePeople]

21. I do not think it is just women.

With medical advances ensuring that many more humans are able to stay alive long enough to reproduce (regardless of ability) we will be seeing a de-evolutionary process in the human race as a whole. More of the weaker genes will continue to propagate through the generations. Now if less intelligent people are having more children, we end up with a race unable to survive without the technologies keeping them alive but not bright enough to maintain or improve on those technologies. That is going to suck.