From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
Summary: A blast from the past.
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:32:10 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)


While answering Gordon's article I found that old gem that he 
makes a real effort to miss.  Have fun.

#################################################################





           THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
 	       (with apologies to Garrett Hardin)



A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was a pretty damn 
libertarian society: cold, cruel, Dickensian by our present standards.
People were responsible for taking care of themselves and their
children.  There was no guaranteed governmental safety net.  If you
fell upon bad times you asked for help from friends, relatives, or
private charities.  The problem here was that all these sources of aid
pretty much had an agenda, a set of rules they insisted you follow in
order to be a recipient of their (usually grudging) charity.  If you
lost your job you might be able to move in with your parents, but you
suddenly got stuck with a curfew and no loud rock music and your
girlfriend couldn't spend the night and . . . well, you know how
parents are.  If you got pregnant and couldn't support the baby
yourself and the man wouldn't help and your parents wouldn't take you 
in you could go to the Catholic home for unwed mothers.  You'd be taken 
care of, your baby would be adopted into a good home, but boy did *they* 
have an agenda.  Listening to the nuns go on about your sinful past wasn't 
half of it.  Everybody tried *real* hard not to fall upon bad times, 
and kept their insurance premiums paid up; because, while nobody much
actually starved, the alternatives sometimes didn't look all that much
better.

In this world there lived five young women who found themselves in the
unenviable position of being poor single parents.  They'd gotten there
by different routes.  Mary's husband had died without life insurance.
Joann believed a man who promised to marry her and didn't wait for
that to happen before getting pregnant.  Sue deliberately had a child
on her own and then was laid off from her high paying job.  The others
had similar stories.  Each of them had one young child, was working at
a poorly paid job, and subsisting with the aid of various charities
that supplied used clothes and food shelves.  It was not a good life.
The five met because they all lived in the same poor neighborhood and
shopped at the same grocery store.  They became friends and began
helping one another out.  At first it was just an informal babysitting
collective.  But they found themselves talking to one another about
how dreadful it was to live in this type of world.  They theorized
about societies in the past where childrearing belonged to the whole
tribe and a woman wouldn't be at a disadvantage without her own man.
They longed for a society of the future where raising the next
generation was seen as important to civilization and compensated
accordingly.  Gradually it occurred to them that, while they were
unable to create radical social changes in their whole society, they
could, together, create a microcosm of the kind of society they
dreamed of.  It was true that, even together, their resources were
limited -- but then so were those of a primitive tribe.  Together, as
a collective, as a *family* damnit, they could do better than they did
apart.  It might even mean the edge that would allow them to get a
little ahead, invest in the education and resources that would help
them climb out of poverty.

The economics of scale immediately came to their aid.  The $300 or so a
month each had been paying for a miserable cramped apartment, when
multiplied by five suddenly paid for a large, substantial house
suitable for five adults and five children and located in a better
neighborhood with better schools.  They were living in much
better style, for much the same money.  None of them had been able to
afford a car, but each of them could scrape together enough for 1/5
of a second hand car.  They couldn't all drive it to work, but they all 
now had access to a car for grocery shopping, for taking a kid to the
doctor, for weekend outings, for trips to the farmer's market where
food was cheaper than the local grocery store.  Buying groceries and
cooking for 10 people together predictably turned out to be lots
cheaper than feeding the same 10 people separately.  They bought in
bulk and one big package cost less than 5 small ones.   Many things that
broke or wore out didn't have to be replaced.  How many households
need five irons, five television sets, five washing machines?  
Clothes and shoes and toys could be handed down from bigger kids 
to smaller ones.  They all had some free time now.  They could take turns
with one person staying home with all five kids while someone took a
night class to improve her job skills, and someone took a part time
second job over the holidays to bring in some extra money, and someone
went on a date and someone went to the library, and . . .  Life was
looking up.

Then they discovered division of labor.  It suddenly occurred to them
that they money the five of them were spending on day care so they
could have jobs was greater than the amount of money most of them were
making.  So Mary volunteered to quit her job and stay home with all
the children.  The money they saved here allowed them to buy another
car.  They also found that Mary, who loved childcare and housekeeping
now had time to bake bread and sew clothes and care for a garden and
save the collective even more money.  Life was really looking up, and
they could see things getting even better in the future.  The two who
now had the time and resources to take night classes were looking
forward to better jobs.  Sue could afford to buy the clothes and take
the time to go looking for a job in the highly competitive field where
she had been laid off.  Knowing that her child was safe and happy in a
home with five playmates and Mary to look after her, Joann quit
rushing home from work as soon as possible, put in overtime when
asked, started learning more and looking more dedicated and got a
promotion.  They started to talk about the collective being able to
save a bit of money every month, building up a fund to send the
children to college when they were grown and to take care of the five
of them when they became too old to work.

In year two of the collective Mary announced that she was pregnant.
She was really looking forward to having a baby around the house
again; Mary loved children and loved being a mother.  The other four
didn't see this as a problem.  When they had lived alone, two children
instead of one would have been a disaster.  But here six children
instead of five didn't raise the childcare costs, hardly cost much
more to feed, could double up in a bedroom with one of the other
children, and there were already lots of baby clothes and toys and
stuff -- no problem.  Everybody loved Mary's baby when it arrived.

Everybody loved Mary's next baby when it arrived a year after that one.  
It was her third child, the second born since the creation of the 
collective.

When Mary's third child was 18 months old she told the collective she 
was expecting again.  It still didn't look like too much of a problem, 
and after all, wasn't this sort of joyful motherhood and happy children
the thing their collective was designed to make possible?  They all 
loved Mary's fourth child when it arrived.

Two years later Mary again announced impending motherhood.  This time
her sisters in the collective were less than pleased -- this was
beginning to look like a pattern.  They all sat down and talked about
it together, suggesting to Mary that the collective would now have
four more children than it started with and that this was beginning to
seriously impact economics.  You can't feed nine children almost as
cheaply as five.  There's a limit to how many times clothes can be
handed down.  Doctor bills were skyrocketing, both pregnancy costs and
child health.  Besides, while they still had a decent life style, they
just weren't getting ahead they way they had expected.  The other
women suddenly realized that they had sort of unconsciously been
counting on the time when the youngest child reached school age and
Mary could go back to work as their next economic improvement.  But
the very concept of 'youngest child' was beginning to look like a pipe
dream, at least for the forseeable future.  The combined
college/old-age fund had very little in it and would probably have to
be raided just to keep their life style the same after the next baby.
If Mary had another baby after that there was no way they could keep
from going backwards.  

Sue suggested to Mary that it was time to stop after this one, time to 
get her tubes tied or use some other form of birth control.  Fran chimed 
in by saying, "Yeah, it's time to give some of the rest of us a chance 
to have another baby."  Mary replied that she hadn't mentioned it
before, religion being a private matter, but her particular religious
sect believed that the Goddess forbade all forms of birth control, up
to and most emphatically including abortion -- but *she* certainly
wasn't keeping Fran or any of the rest of them from having more
babies; she thought that would be a great idea.  At this point Alice
said they might as well end the discussion.  It would certainly be
unreasonable of them to even ask Mary to go against her religious
beliefs, and besides, Mary *wasn't* keeping Fran from having more
children.  Fran was very angry at this point.  "The rest of you
understand, don't you?"  she cried.  "None of you have had more
children either -- because no matter how bad we might want them,
we made the mistake once of bringing a child into the world when we
couldn't properly support it; and we don't want to do that again."

"But that's silly," Mary said.  "We have plenty of money; none of our
children are going to starve."  

"We may have enough money to take care of their physical needs now,"
said Sue, "but we've already gone backwards to the point where it
looks like we won't be able to send them to college -- and how well
will we be able to care for even their physical needs after you have
your next four or five?  By the way, how many babies *do* you think
you're likely to burden us with before you're so old you can't?"
"That's terrible," said Alice, "children aren't a burden!"  "And
besides," said Mary, "how can college for your children be more
important than life itself for mine?  You're betraying everything this
collective means."  At this point the argument broke up.  Sue and Fran
were still angry, hardly speaking to Mary during the months of her
pregnancy.  But after the baby was born even they had to admit she was
as wonderful and loveable as all the other children.  Things went back
to more or less normal.

A little less than two years later Mary was pregnant with her sixth
child, the fifth since the collective's formation.  Sue came to talk
to Joann one night, saying "I thought you ought to know; I've decided
to leave."  

"Oh Goddess, I was afraid of this.  You *can't* leave.  Think of what
it will do to the family.  You'd be taking over a fourth of our family
income with you."

"And only two fifteenths of it's dependents.  Yeah, well it gets
worse; Fran's leaving too."

"But that's impossible!  It would leave only Alice and me . . ."

"To support Mary and her ever growing hoard of children?"

"But, it's unfair to put it that way.  I *love* those children; I've
watched them grow up.  They are part of my family.  Don't you love  
them too?  How can you think of making innocent children suffer
because their mother won't live the way you want?  And it's not as
though Mary doesn't work hard and contribute to the collective."

"Look, I love those children too.  This is an incredibly difficult
decision.  I love Mary's existing children -- but I hate her potential
children, because of what they will surely do to you and me and our
children *and Mary's present children*.  Right now, if I leave, with a 
little belt tightening, I can still afford to send my child to college.
She's 15; I have to start saving now to make it possible.  Right now, if 
Mary quit having children and we all tightened belt we could at least
help all of our children *and Mary's* with college expenses. Fifteen 
years from now, after Mary's had another ten children we'll all be 
living in worse poverty than we were before the collective.  And then
we'll look back and say, 'Why didn't we stop this before there were so 
many to suffer?  So Fran and I are stopping it now -- we should have done 
it three babies ago.  And it simply doesn't *matter* how hard Mary works 
or how good a person she is if we can't stop her from presenting us with 
more and more children to support."

"Oh Goddess, lets all get together and talk.  Surely there's *some*
solution."

But it was worse when the five of them talked.  

Mary:  How can you even *think* about doing this to my children?  

Sue:  *You* are doing this to your children.  If you agree right now
      to have your tubes tied after *this* baby, Fran and I will stay
      and your children won't have to suffer at all.

Alice: But how can you do that to *her*?  You're trying to force her
       to go against her religious beliefs.  

Joann: How can you do it to *us*?  You would be leaving Alice and me
       with a nearly impossible financial burden.

Fran:  Look, we don't want to hurt you and Alice.  If Mary won't stop 
       having children then make *her* leave and we'll stay.

Alice: We couldn't do that, even to save ourselves.  Even if what Mary
       is doing is wrong, her children are part of our family.  We 
       can't make them suffer for what she does.

Sue:  Then let her leave and her present children can stay --
      anything, just so there aren't any more.

Mary: Separate me from my babies?  Oh you people are monsters!  Look 
      at all the horrible things you have proposed to do to me.  You
      want to force me to go against my religious beliefs.  You want
      to throw me out to starve.  You want to separate me from my
      children.  You are cruel and horrible women -- *you* deserve
      to suffer, not me and my babies.

Fran: Look, Mary, we don't want to do anything to you; we just want
      you to limit your children to the number we can support.  We're
      not asking any more self denial of you than we have of ourselves
      -- we're asking less.  Just agree not to have any more children
     and nothing bad will happen to anybody.  We just want a chance to
     live decent lives.  We don't want our children's chances in life
     sacrificed to your endless reproduction.  

Mary: Joann, you can't let this happen; you've got to *make* them stay
      you've got to *make* them support my children.

Joann: But how can I make them?  I can't stop them from leaving if they
       want to.

Mary: Yes you can.  There's a way to force them -- a contract -- the
      courts will enforce a contract.  We'll make them sign a contract
      that they're responsible for the support of all the collective's
      children.

Joann: But Mary, we can't *make* them sign.  The courts won't enforce
       a forced contract.

Mary:  Look, I'm fighting for my children's lives, my religious
       freedom -- legal niceties mean nothing.  We draw up a contract,
       you sign, I sign, Alice signs -- I know she supports me.  And
       then we fake their signatures if necessary.  If they go to
       court there are three of us and only two of them.  We three
       swear we all five signed ten years ago and they're trying to 
       get out of it.  Three of us, two of them -- the court will have
       to believe us.

Fran:  See, Joann -- this is what it comes to.  Fraud and force.  She
       wants to put us in a worse position than we put her.  We're
       leaving her a way out -- just have no more children.  She
       doesn't want to leave us a way out at all.  Yes, Alice will 
       support Mary, because she thinks religious freedom means you
       shouldn't have to bear the logical consequences of your 
       religious beliefs.  But how about you?  If you won't sign and
       lie in court it's three against two the other way.  It's all
       up to you.    




OK Kenn, and all you other people who tell us what a cruel world it
would be if women didn't have the option to force others to support
all the children they wanted to have -- here it is on a personal level.
No nasty men who want to get off and then get off.  No impersonal 
taxpayers.  Individual people whose individual rights are in conflict.
Fix it.  Tell Joann what to do.  Tell her how to do what is best
for the children and fair to all her sisters in the collective.  
Please try to do it *without*

	1. Forcing Mary to go against her religious beliefs.
	2. Letting Mary and her children starve or live in abject poverty.
	3. Separating Mary from her children.
	4. Forcing the other members of the collective into indentured
           servitude for the rest of their lives.
	5. Forcing the existing children of the collective to live
           in increasing poverty and give up all chance for an 
           education and a good start in life.

If you can't fix it within all these constraints which one will you
sacrifice, and why?

I know you will say this is grossly exaggerated as an analogy to our
present situation -- and you will be right.  I think at this point
Mary's on her third or fourth child -- the other members of the
collective are just beginning to feel the pinch.  But the trend is
obvious for those who will see.  Many of you have pointed out that
the fastest growing segment of the poor are children in single parent
households.  This segment is growing for a reason, and only a small
part of that reason consists of divorced fathers who abandon their 
children.  The largest and fastest growing part consists of women
(often girls, many of them having the first child that starts the
poverty cycle or traps them in the poverty cycle their mothers or their
grandmothers started, in their teens) who choose to bear and raise
their children at other's expense without the other's agreement.  It
doesn't matter very much, except in a fairness sense, whether the 'other'
is a reluctantly trapped biological father or an anonymous taxpayer.
As soon as the people who have the power to create and control something
are no longer responsible for the consequences of that creation and
control, the society is in deep trouble.  The situation is not self
limiting, and has not been self limiting since it became possible for 
a 16 year old girl to suddenly become an autonomous head of household
9 months later just by getting pregnant.  The trend started slowly, but
it is accelerating with alarming speed.  The second derivative is positive.
And finally, lest you bring up the often used arguments that this
complaint is racist, classist, and sexist, let me say that the fastest
growing segment of that fastest growing segment that I personally have 
seen has been middle class girls in predominantly white communities.
Let me also say I firmly believe an equal percentage of boys and men
would be this irresponsible if society gave them the option -- thank-
fully we don't.




					Carole Ashmore

#################################################################