Non-Reproduction and Wealth Dynamics

[Jarhyn]

I some other threads, I've discussed this, but I think it bears closer examination.

To this extent this thread is NOT about how someone accomplishes being "non-reproductive". It is not about how or why people end up "trans" or whether or not they need treatment of any kind for it.

For the purposes of this thread, all of the LGBT community that is statistically or structurally unlikely to produce children are 'counted' among the "non-reproductive" set.

That said, the hypothesis goes something like this:
People who don't have kids have more money with which to amass more money, and less on the line when taking risks, and so such individuals provide benefits to their family which scale to the extent of their familial acceptance.

Wealthy people within a society maintain power largely through momentum provided by having more money already, a moment that can only generally be matched by having fewer expenses.

Therefore, there is a direct natural incentive for those who have power to divide non-reproducers from their families and prevent social support for such individuals as who would provide "dynamic wealth" in their families.

Throughout political discourse, we have seen a longstanding, consistent, and otherwise inexplicable disdain for certain groups.

At this point I think it's more than an enemy of convenience for the anti-social right and instead constitutes an actual threat to entrenched power and THIS is why entrenched powers tend to attack those groups.

 

[Jarhyn]

And the very first response is an attempted derail:

This is not a thread to discuss the origin or particular composition of the class, merely the strategic position wealthy people have with respect to its existence.

 

[Toni]

I some other threads, I've discussed this, but I think it bears closer examination.

To this extent this thread is NOT about how someone accomplishes being "non-reproductive". It is not about how or why people end up "trans" or whether or not they need treatment of any kind for it.

For the purposes of this thread, all of the LGBT community that is statistically or structurally unlikely to produce children are 'counted' among the "non-reproductive" set.

That said, the hypothesis goes something like this:
People who don't have kids have more money with which to amass more money, and less on the line when taking risks, and so such individuals provide benefits to their family which scale to the extent of their familial acceptance.

Wealthy people within a society maintain power largely through momentum provided by having more money already, a moment that can only generally be matched by having fewer expenses.

Therefore, there is a direct natural incentive for those who have power to divide non-reproducers from their families and prevent social support for such individuals as who would provide "dynamic wealth" in their families.

Throughout political discourse, we have seen a longstanding, consistent, and otherwise inexplicable disdain for certain groups.

At this point I think it's more an enemy of convenience for the anti-social right and instead constitutes an actual threat to entrenched power and THIS is why entrenched powers tend to attack those groups.

I had not thought of it that way. I’ve always thought of anti-LGBTQIA bigotry as being both fear based and ignorance based. In some societies or certain strata of some societies, there have always been bachelor uncles and maiden aunts, or simply childless aunt and uncle married couples who were sometimes the source of inherited wealth. It is obvious today that at least some of those childless people were LGBTQIA. Indeed, every society has had unmarried adults who otherwise than contributing children did contribute to the material and social welfare of the family/social group/society. Direct economic contributions yes, and also by passing along their wealth to second born sons, forestalling a time when the family wealth must be divided or second or third sons be left to ‘make their own way’ in the world.

OTOH, those in the upper strata of society, there was a much more narrow range of behaviors, dress, professions and hobbies that one was allowed ‘properly’ engage in without risk of falling from grace and their high station in life. And it still goes on. Some years ago I ran into an acquaintance at the grocery store. Heaven knows what I had been cleaning that day before making my way off to purchase he weeks provisions on one of my previous day off but there’s a 50/50 chance I had neither showered nor put on a fresh shirt that day. My friend, whom I had not seen since our kids who were friends had graduated, was embarrassed to be seen by me because she hadn’t been to the hairdresser and did not have a full face of make up. In a small town grocery store. Plus, she’s quite beautiful without all of that so it was startling to me that she was insecure to be seen by a poorly dressed vet average looking person who had not showered yet that day. I suppose a different person would have felt insecure herself whereas I felt startled at her embarrassment and a bit sorry for her. Such are the trials and tribulations of being a multi-millionaire. Or ask Kate Middleton who must publicly disclose her cancer diagnosis and must only release perfect photos and how dare she photoshop anything to improve the personal photo!

I do not mean to trivialize the issue. I’m just pointing out that those with the most wealth and power have the most reasons to preserve the outward appearances of perfection/ some idealized version of reality. Which plays in nicely with anti-LGBTQIA bigotry. And all bigotry, for that matter. See Megan Markel for an example. And by plays nicely, I mean it’s even uglier and more senseless as despicable.

 

[Jarhyn]

I some other threads, I've discussed this, but I think it bears closer examination.

To this extent this thread is NOT about how someone accomplishes being "non-reproductive". It is not about how or why people end up "trans" or whether or not they need treatment of any kind for it.

For the purposes of this thread, all of the LGBT community that is statistically or structurally unlikely to produce children are 'counted' among the "non-reproductive" set.

That said, the hypothesis goes something like this:
People who don't have kids have more money with which to amass more money, and less on the line when taking risks, and so such individuals provide benefits to their family which scale to the extent of their familial acceptance.

Wealthy people within a society maintain power largely through momentum provided by having more money already, a moment that can only generally be matched by having fewer expenses.

Therefore, there is a direct natural incentive for those who have power to divide non-reproducers from their families and prevent social support for such individuals as who would provide "dynamic wealth" in their families.

Throughout political discourse, we have seen a longstanding, consistent, and otherwise inexplicable disdain for certain groups.

At this point I think it's more an enemy of convenience for the anti-social right and instead constitutes an actual threat to entrenched power and THIS is why entrenched powers tend to attack those groups.

I had not thought of it that way. I’ve always thought of anti-LGBTQIA bigotry as being both fear based and ignorance based. In some societies or certain strata of some societies, there have always been bachelor uncles and maiden aunts, or simply childless aunt and uncle married couples who were sometimes the source of inherited wealth. It is obvious today that at least some of those childless people were LGBTQIA. Indeed, every society has had unmarried adults who otherwise than contributing children did contribute to the material and social welfare of the family/social group/society. Direct economic contributions yes, and also by passing along their wealth to second born sons, forestalling a time when the family wealth must be divided or second or third sons be left to ‘make their own way’ in the world.

OTOH, those in the upper strata of society, there was a much more narrow range of behaviors, dress, professions and hobbies that one was allowed ‘properly’ engage in without risk of falling from grace and their high station in life. And it still goes on. Some years ago I ran into an acquaintance at the grocery store. Heaven knows what I had been cleaning that day before making my way off to purchase he weeks provisions on one of my previous day off but there’s a 50/50 chance I had neither showered nor put on a fresh shirt that day. My friend, whom I had not seen since our kids who were friends had graduated, was embarrassed to be seen by me because she hadn’t been to the hairdresser and did not have a full face of make up. In a small town grocery store. Plus, she’s quite beautiful without all of that so it was startling to me that she was insecure to be seen by a poorly dressed vet average looking person who had not showered yet that day. I suppose a different person would have felt insecure herself whereas I felt startled at her embarrassment and a bit sorry for her. Such are the trials and tribulations of being a multi-millionaire. Or ask Kate Middleton who must publicly disclose her cancer diagnosis and must only release perfect photos and how dare she photoshop anything to improve the personal photo!

I do not mean to trivialize the issue. I’m just pointing out that those with the most wealth and power have the most reasons to preserve the outward appearances of perfection/ some idealized version of reality. Which plays in nicely with anti-LGBTQIA bigotry. And all bigotry, for that matter. See Megan Markel for an example. And by plays nicely, I mean it’s even uglier and more senseless as despicable.

Well, something tells me that there may be some aspect of natural human cognition that supports this. It may simply be a common trait that the more powerful some indicudual has, the more they disdain "the class".

The things people often use to justify actions to themselves are often different, but still supportive, of the thing that their behavior exists essentially to accomplish, after all.

Naturally, this idea came to me as a function of considering my own legacy, and the realization that I have five siblings, all of which have kids, and my biological father told me of all things he was planning on including ME is his will when he has two biological grandkids, and two biological kids who all need a house and a pile of tools WAY more than I will*. When I'm done with my run, I will have all the materials to add "jeweler" to our list of family-passed tool professions... And that is a VERY expensive hobby to bring into a family structure due to cost.

When posed against the clear zero-sum tendencies of the wealthy, that whole situation seems to be something anyone with disdain for social mobility would hate.

*Technically 3 and 3, but he's not giving one red cent to any MAGAt

 

[rousseau]

I figure a lot of how people behave comes down to moving toward what makes us feel comfortable, and away from what makes us feel uncomfortable. Except for some, there is no cognizance of this process, and the process sub-consciously turns into a belief system. Black, LGBT don't just make me feel uncomfortable, they make me uncomfortable so I actively dislike them.

Then people who both dislike them group together, and so on, and suddenly the dislike becomes institutionalized and takes on a life of its own.

These days I often hesitate to attribute many peoples beliefs to any type of deliberate decision making, a lot of the homophobic or transphobic probably don't even know why they believe what they do. But they certainly wouldn't hesitate to oppress minority communities.