Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Why Is Juan Cole So Stupid?

Published by

Clarissa

on

And why does he have to add Russia to the list of subjects he is stupid about?

In the first decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation suffered so horribly that it lost millions in population, because people stopped having children out of apprehension for the future while others drank themselves to death out of depression.

If this faux Liberal had any respect for people’s agency, he would not see the perfectly legitimate decision not to have children for a while as “horrible suffering.” The only folks who do “suffer horribly” as a result of this completely imaginary demographic crisis that supposedly plagues Russia are the Russian racists who are terrified of the non-lily-white immigrants coming to the country.

And as for drinking, that is not something hugely new for Russia. People definitely did not start boozing themselves to death in huge numbers in 1991. This trend began a few centuries earlier. As they say, it’s the climate, stupid!

16 responses to “Why Is Juan Cole So Stupid?”

  1. el Avatar
    el

    // If this faux Liberal had any respect for people’s agency, he would not see the perfectly legitimate decision not to have children for a while as “horrible suffering.”

    It isn’t an intellectually fair statement. People did stop having children out of poverty and fear. Without this situation, they would’ve chosen to have more children, as was before. Being unable to have children because of poverty is suffering.

    Like

    Reply
    1. el Avatar
      el

      I know having much less children did happen because I saw it in my own former Ukrainian town.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
        bloggerclarissa

        Are you aware that reliable contraception only started becoming available after 1991? Before that people only had abortion to control reproduction.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Actually, while some people did, indeed, choose to get lumpenized, others started living a lot better. The first time we had enough to eat and enough to wear in my family was after 1991.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        In my family it was on the way to become the opposite, so we left.

        The decrease in children was not because of contraception becoming reliable.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Says who? In every society where the issue has been studied, the appearance of reliable contraception changes the birth rate dramatically. And if people’s reproductive choices were influenced by money concerns, the most populated countries wouldn’t be China and India. Do you know what the birth rates in ultra rich Scandinavian countries are?

          Like

          Reply
          1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
            bloggerclarissa

            Also, attempts to promote higher birth rates with financial subsidies have failed in every single country they were implemented. Rich people traditionally have very few children. It is the very poor who have a large brood.

            There is no evidence anywhere on this planet that financial security compels people to procreate. There is evidence to the contrary.

            Like

            Reply
  2. el Avatar
    el

    Contraception was reliable enough before too: condoms, UIDs and abortions were widespread. None of our neighbors had many children (three or more) before the nineties, so the methods were effective. My mother’s generation practiced contraception, as did my grandmother’s generation.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Erm, I’m sorry, you are just too young to know about this. :-). There was no contraception in the USSR. None. Only very connected people even got to see a condom.

      My parents and a group of friends once got together to gape at a condom somebody brought from a trip abroad. They all thought it was hilarious. And they all were the age I am now.

      As for UIDs, come on, seriously? There was abortion, conducted in horrifying, inhuman conditions. And that was all.

      I should know; I’m only here because there was no contraception in the USSR. 🙂 🙂

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        My grandmother lived there too, as did my mother and other relatives. Everybody saw condoms (how good their quality regarding the ability to feel was I haven’t asked) and had as many children as they wished. May be, it was different in different places. What you say sounds very strange.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          This reminded me of this old Soviet joke where a Soviet scientist is sent to a symposium in Japan. And of course the first thing he does when he gets to Tokyo is run to a pharmacy and spend his meager allowance of hard currency to buy 50 condoms.

          Then he comes back to the hotel, counts the treasured condoms, and discovers there are only 49.

          So on the next day he returns to the pharmacy and tells the pharmacist, “Look, I asked for 50 condoms and you only gave me 49.”

          “Oh sir, I’m so sorry!” the pharmacist exclaims. “This must have been the night of a lifetime and I spoiled it for you!”

          Like

          Reply
          1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
            bloggerclarissa

            The reason why Soviet people didn’t have crowds of children isn’t that contraception was available. It wasn’t. The real reason was that most people had no sex lives to speak of because:

            1. Horrible living conditions. Have you tried having sex in the same room where your parents or children sleep? I know I wouldn’t be able to perform.

            2. Very early and very numerous abortions conducted in horrible conditions messed with women’s fertility.

            3. Men developed erectile dysfunction by the age of 32 on average (there was a study done in late 1980s).

            4. Extremely low sexual culture that made many people regard sex as an unpleasant chore.

            5. Poor diet. Obviously, a man who eats good red meat 5 times a week does not perform in the same way as a man who eats Soviet sausage that’s made out of paper.

            When you have sex twice a month as opposed to twice a day, it is extremely easy to limit it to days when you are unlikely to conceive. With a broken down reproductive system, this goal becomes easier. Of course, this is still not nearly as effective as actual contraception. And here is how we get to enjoy the company of me and most of the first children of Soviet families. 🙂 🙂

            Like

            Reply
  3. el Avatar
    el

    // There is no evidence anywhere on this planet that financial security compels people to procreate.

    True. But those are two different cases:
    1. richer society with better contraception = less children
    2. economical crisis in a society with quite effective contraception = less children –> this is what I have seen in our town. Definitely not the first case.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      I can only repeat that there was no contraception at all on the USSR. Abortion is not contraception.

      Like

      Reply
  4. musteryou Avatar
    musteryou

    “If this faux Liberal had any respect for people’s agency, he would not see the perfectly legitimate decision not to have children for a while as “horrible suffering.” ”

    The current ideology of biological determinism again

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      The way people in my country treat children, not having any is far from being horrible suffering.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts