Mollie Hemingway’s interesting article at The Federalist gets it almost right. There is a fear of fertility, but it’s contextual.
There are bad kinds of fertility and good kinds of fertility. Nobody denounces the welfare single mother who’s getting her fifth kid by a different father. No one except hateful conservatives.
It’s traditional large families that are the enemy.
Hemingway’s own piece lays out the contrast.
“It’s only weird for an NFL player to have seven kids with his one wife.
“Take former Charger and current New York Jet Antonio Cromartie. He’s fathered at least 12 children with eight different women. In fact, when the Jets picked the cornerback up from the Chargers, they provided him with a $500,000 advance so he could make outstanding child support payments. (You can watch him struggle to name some of his children here.)
“Or what about Travis Henry, a former running back who last played for the Denver Broncos? He’s fathered at least eleven children to ten different women. But yes. Philip Rivers is the weirdo.”
But of course there’s nothing wrong with that.
The new liberal model is it takes a village to raise a child. And by village, we mean the whole village of bureaucrats, social workers, teachers and assorted other taxpayer-funded government employees.
If Rivers adopted a dozen children with another man, he would be a hero. If he were raising six children alone after his wife left him. He would be a hero. He’s weird because he has a large two-parent family.
It’s not really fecundophobia. It’s familyphobia.
There are two reasons for it and they’re both obvious.
1. The left is at war with traditional values because it seeks to replace the family as an independent social unit. It wants absolute control of the individual by the state. So wipe out the tribalism of the family and replace it with the glorious technocracy of government.
2. Demographics. The left has few children. It’s quite aware of the Idiocracy paradigm. It’s afraid of being “outbred”. It compensates by controlling education and pop culture, reproducing through influence rather than genetics, the DNA of ideas, and importing large numbers of dependent groups who will vote reliably for them along with their many children (also not weird or a problem). But it still seeks to lower the birth rate for those it considers its enemies.
The media has become a big influence on people’s lives. Researchers have linked birth rates to the number of children depicted as the norm on entertainment programs like soap operas and sitcoms. There are actually signs of this taking effect in Latin America.
That means the media has to stamp out any potential role models with large two-parent traditional families. It may seem strange, but people name their children after celebrities and they also have children because of celebrities.
Famous people with large two parent families are therefore a threat because they potentially influence birth rates and family styles within the population.