Feminists Are Now Stupidly Promoting Shaming Pregnant Women to Fight Overpopulation and Climate Change

Every now and again you come across something so stupid that you have trouble gathering your thoughts about it. The stupid that I’m currently trying to wrap my brain around came in the form of an opinion article from CBC News, which openly promoted shaming HGTV’s Chip and Joanna Gaines for — and this was not a joke — selfishly having children like any married couple would.


The article was written by self-proclaimed feminist Kristen Pyszczyk, who is of the mind that while the backlash the Gaines’ got for announcing their recent pregnancy was unfortunate, it’s necessary because bringing more children into the world is irresponsible and worthy of condemnation.

Why? Because apparently we’re overpopulated and babies are bad for the environment.

There’s no way I can physically relay the stupidity Pyszczk wrote accurately, so I’m just going to quote her verbatim:

In the global West, where the environmental footprint of one person is far larger than in developing nations, it’s crucial that we begin to present all people with alternatives to the traditional nuclear family. This inevitably involves calling out people who have kids like they’re going out of style.

Shame is a powerful tool for changing behaviour: it’s how we introduce new and existing social conventions. It’s unfortunate that Chip and Joanna bore the brunt of changing attitudes, but let’s learn from the reaction and examine our own actions.

In other words, our feminist friend here says that it sucks that the Gaineses got caught up in what Pyszczk believes is a cultural shift in the western world, but it’s necessary to shame soon-to-be parents for having children because it may make other prospective parents think twice about bringing life into the world together.


But it gets better. Pyszczk suddenly becomes the morality police and declares that having a big family is not okay unless you also consider adopting kids. Also, like any good radical leftist, we’re all going to die because more people means more pollution and climate change.

It’s not OK to have five kids without once considering adoption. There are so many children in North America and beyond in need of loving homes, yet adoption rates in many areas are lagging.

I get that humankind’s theoretical demise is not enough to justify abstaining from what is for many the most meaningful experience of a lifetime. But it’s not theoretical. Climate change is getting measurably worse, populations are multiplying exponentially and economic inequality is not getting better. And to top it off, Prince is dead. Don’t bring a child into this.

Pyszczk then slathers some stupid icing on this stupid cake by declaring that creating life is a risk to public health.

Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.

Okay. Where to begin?

Firstly, I want to draw attention to the fact that our feminist friend here belongs to an ideology that likes to shout “my body, my choice” at every passerby that looks at them funny. They’re the ones who wear pink pussy hats — now deemed transphobic and racist — and tell people that the Republicans are going to bring about a real-life Handmaid’s Tale, where every aspect of women’s lives is controlled.


Then she has the gall to turn around and promote shaming women for practicing their choice to have a child. Holy wow! If you want a clue as to how insincere feminists are about how much they look after women, then here it is. They want to protect the rights of women, so long as those rights line up with exactly what they think is good. Step outside the plantation, and get ready for a whipping.

So if there actually is a social movement sweeping the west that promotes the shaming of women for being pregnant and bringing forth life — and I sincerely doubt there is one — then let it be known that feminists and the pro-abort crowd are really only supportive of the “my body, my choice” trope when that choice means terminating a life, not creating one.

Secondly, the environmental hysterics on which some of the points are based are not only inaccurate — in many cases, they’re flat out lies.

Recently, geoscientists found out that the oceans weren’t warming at the rate climate models used by alarmists said they were (due to heat eating gases) and thus the global warm-er, global cool-er, climate change we should all be terrified of isn’t anything to be terrified of. In fact, our contribution of carbon dioxide into the air is actually making the planet a greener place to be. This is likely due to the fact that trees eat carbon dioxide! It is food to them.


It also turns out that much of what we considered “settled science” from climate alarmists like Al Gore is actually propaganda pushed by people like political activist billionaire George Soros. Why? Because climate change hysteria is a great platform for leftists to screech doomsday prophecies from, and Soros is one of the biggest leftist radicals alive today.

Is the planet changing because man is causing it to? Probably? But the extent to which that’s occurring isn’t “settled science,” and too many studies point to the fact that we’re not all going to die the day after tomorrow, or this decade, or this century. By the way, “settled science” is a very unscientific phrase to utter.

All this to say that shaming people into not having children for the sake of the environment reeks of misinformed panic and/or a faux-morality driven by stubborn ignorance.

Thirdly, and I feel this is pure logic, how are we supposed to advance our understanding of science and environmental conservation if we’re not birthing forth and raising scientists who will solve these problems when the old ones die out? From what I’ve seen of the social justice movement from which feminists belong, the majority of their concern involves identity politics, man-hating, anti-white racism, and believing anything leftist activists or politicians say. All of it falls under the umbrella of willful ignorance, and none of it advances society or helps the planet. Their outlook on STEM is purely that there aren’t enough women there, and balancing the sex scales is far more important than scientific discovery.


Why would I, or anyone for that matter, trust any advice on child rearing or the propagation of our very species from a social group composed entirely of ideological clowns?

Have babies. Have a lot.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos