"The proletariat (from Latin proles, "offspring") is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons."

If you like that billboard, you are going to love Russia's idea of a "stimulus package" "

http://www.slate.com/id/2195133/

I think that the billboard is more advertising the "joys of parenting" than about trying to bolster the economy.

I agree with L. Zoel: this reads to me as less about the economy and more about children as a moral/emotional "resource." Though of course the "stimulus package" language allows it to be viewed either way. I just see it more as the attention-getting co-opting of a current popular phrase, rather than something to be understood literally in an economic sense.

They have those all over the twin cities, too. They have that one at Marshall/Snelling, as well as one on Lake street that says "Gods finest creation: A baby." I'm pretty sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. They drive me nuts for several reasons:

- If you're going to spend that much money on billboards, at least hire a decent graphic designer. Those look like they were put together in MS paint.

- Lake Street, at least the part where the billboard is, is very low-income and very international. I am talking about the section that divides Powderhorn and Phillips. Both neighborhoods have a lot of immigrants from Somalia and Mexico, as well as a large Native population. When you're driving down Lake, it really shows. Nearby, there is another billboard from a different ad campaign that has a hand over a glass of wine that says "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Cured." Now, I am not trying to promote Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but every time I see those two signs I think "Wow, there is a lot of policing of pregnant women going on around here," and it makes my skin crawl.

(Marshall/Snelling is not so low income. From there you can follow Marshall down into Mirriam Park, which is upscale, although that particular intersection is near a bunch of apartment buildings that are probably occupied mostly by college students.)

By the way, Marshall and Lake are actually the same street. It's Marshall in St. Paul and Lake in Minneapolis, and it goes all the way from the ritzy lake of the isles area in Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul. Marshall actually ends with Summit, which is notorious for its row of mansions. Although the street is capped with exorbitant wealth on either end, it sees a lot of character changes as it passes through the two cities.

There's a third one on 35 that has a picture of a baby and says "Fragile." I'll see about getting some pictures for you. :)

"Women, in this argument, have a responsibility to the nation (perhaps equivalent to military service?) that transcends their individual reproductive preferences.".

I can't see any (adult) women in this ad. But assuming it is addressing specifically women, aren't you accepting the gendered assumption that men have no role in reproduction, parenthood and the likes? That they have no reproductive preferences? Or are you merely saying that nobody cares what the potential father thinks?
Is pro-life/choice only about women? Do men have absolutely nothing to do with this debate as targets of rhetoric but only as creators of rhetoric?

Because, honestly, I can't see why this add targets solely women.

This is infuriating to me. Babies are a DRAIN on one's finances, but who cares about individuals when America needs more cogs for it's corporate and military machines?!

A couple things:

L. Zoel, the fact that the billboard refers to babies as America's greatest resource (rather than "your family's" or "a couple's") is one indication that it IS about the economy. The message is that babies are god's gift to America.

And Dubi, a question: Do men get pregnant? OF COURSE this ad is targeting women. Who else are "pro-life" orgs going to target? Women are the ones making decisions about abortion so pro-life orgs tend to aim their stupid messages at women. It wouldn't surprise me to see a pro-life org tell men "Don't let your girlfriend/wife abort your son!" (and it's always a son) but that's not what's happening here.

SarahMC - healthcare is also a drain on one's finances. It's called an investment. While hardly a pro-lifer, saying that babies are bad is not something I'm willing to agree with.

Also, I'll refer to you the next person who tells me that men should take equal part in care for children. After all, if I'm not getting pregnant, and I have no say in anything that has anything to do with this - if I'm not even consulted as part of the decision making process - then screw you, I sure as hell ain't taking care of it later.

(I should point out at this point that I'm the primary caregiver for my son, not that you would care).

What on earth are you talking about? Healthcare is something I need to keep myself alive and feeling well. A baby is not. And it's a drain on finances rather than a financial stimulus (to the individual or couple).
Where did I say "babies are bad?" Is that really what you got out of my comment? Wowzers.

Then your father's rights talking point... where to begin? You do realize that, as women are the ones who experience pregnancy, women are the ones pro-lifers are going to target with their propaganda, right? Can you acknowledge and accept that? In your other comment you express shock at the idea that forced-birthers might be targeting, y'know, THOSE WHO GIVE BIRTH. That is my point. It has nothing to do with shared parenting responsibilities, dead-beats, or whatever else you're nattering on about.

p.s. here's a cookie for being the primary caregiver for your son.

p.p.s. did you give birth to him? I didn't think so.

Aside from the fact that babies are a drain on one's finances as SarahMC pointed out, I also notice that the billboard presents babies as toys and novelties, rather than humans. Notice how the babies are placed in boxes like toys given during Christmas.

Which brings me to my next point: these so-called "pro lifers" who CLAIM to "respect human life" don't seem to be doing so at all. They don't consider the fact that the embryos may sometimes be better off not being born, because they don't consider poverty, the many abused children in the world, unstable financial situations, the fact that their mother isn't even old enough to have a college degree and MOST OF ALL that the mother might not be willing to raise a child that will most likely kill her future career prospects and secure her a future of debt, (or maybe because they don't feel they are ready to have a child yet) because of a patriarchal society that says that only a WOMAN must be responsible for raising the kid.

Anti-choicers also don't consider the many, MANY children under the foster care system who usually (but not always) grow up in one home after another and with various mental health problems. They don't consider that not all children get adopted; they don't even consider that the child might not grow up to be loved or even adequately cared for after adoption. Heck, they don't even consider the feelings of the "baby" in all this; what if they grow up and regret being born? Those babies would grow up seeing their parents as selfish, ignorant, immature and inconsiderate. They would also have to grow up, knowing at an earlier age that their birth happened because "sh-- happens", not because they were brought here for some universal purpose handed down to them by some Almighty Gnome in the Sky as George Bush and Jerry Falwell likes to lie about.

This billboard truly DOES speak of their views on children and their intentions; in fact, this may be the most honest advertising that I have ever seen in my life. This billboard tells me, "Oh have some babeez, they're like fun living dolls, they're just toys for your entertainment (or your agendas), they're future drones, they're like puppies, so cute and cuddly, don't worry about stupid stuff like raising them and responsibility and CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS and that YOU MIGHT NOT BE WILLING OR ABLE TO CARE FOR THEM. Silly wimmin, calm down and stop worrying so much and squeeze it out." Yep, and people wonder why they bomb clinics and are so f-ed up.

My Two Cents,
Bill

Oh, and don't forget that birth control has failure rates and that abstinence has to be done willingly to work, otherwise it only works for about a year. And that not many people may be adequately informed on sex.

MSP choice: I know exactly the sign you're talking about. They have a picture of a baby sleeping and the word "FRAGILE." Below that, "Life begins at conception," below that, "Heartbeat at 18 days."

A week after Dr. Tiller was murdered, two of those signs went up on opposite sides of a highway entrance in my neighborhood in San Jose. At first glance (just seeing the picture and "FRAGILE"), it looked like a billboard about the importance of prenatal care, or one of those "never shake a baby" ads.

I'd like to unpack the phrase "God's stimulus package" also. It seems to imply that babies are a gift, and to choose not to have one would be like rejecting a favor bestowed on you from your god. Failed birth control resulting in unwanted pregnancies, or complications with wanted pregnancies, don't have a place in this story.

If they are implying that children stimulate the economy, I don't see how it would work. In the United States, as with all developed nations I can think of, social services are provided to all citizens and children, and population tends to rise faster than the creation of new jobs. Thus, in America, more children results in more unemployment. Considering the complaints the same side of the political spectrum has about illegal immigration, I find it hard to believe they can pitch population growth as good for America's economy.

(Yes, I know some nations have declining birth rates, like Japan and Italy, but this sign is meant for a US audience).

Sarah, get back to me when you have a family.

Dubi - Are we resorting to illogical personal attacks now? Please stay on topic.

@a westie: In agrarian, pre-industrial societies, children are indeed an asset, since they can be put to work at the farm since they are 5 or 6 years old, and they (boys, but also the odd unmarried daughter) are supposed to take care of you when you grow old. Daughters, on the other hand, can be a liability in many cultures because they go away to join their husbands' families and, sometimes, societal expectation of a dowry that wreaks the family's economy.

Thus my quip about the idea of children being considered as economical assets not being particularly novel in my first comment.

What makes you think I don't have a family? Like Bill said, my family sitch has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it's something you've brought up as a desperate, illogical diversion tactic. FAIL.

Sarah, no person with a family could seriously think that whether or not to have a child in a family situation (as opposed to a single pregnant woman) is strictly the business of the pregnant woman (this includes same sex couples). Nor would you have any delusions that giving birth is the hardest part of having children. Nor would you see children as a drain on one's financial situation any more than healthcare (which doesn't help you one iota as long as you're healthy). In fact, your response was so replete with misconceptions about the family situation that I cannot but HOPE that you don't have one.

Also, if you had a family, you would've known how insensitive was your idiotic "here's a cookie" statement was, in a society that is largely inhospitable to male primary caregivers, and you would've known also that a major part of being a feminist is also realizing that male gender roles restrict us too, and changing that is just as important as breaking down female gender roles, as the two are tied together quite strongly.

P.S. Screw you.

We'll chat after you take a reading comprehension course, Dubi. I don't even know where to begin with that mess of a comment. Nor do I know how you function in your day-to-day life.

Dubi, just stop digging. It's so obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you're just trying to make this billboard all about you. Grow the fuck up.

I very much agree with Bill, and I'll just riff off what he said for a minute...pro-lifers are so infantile and emotional in their logic that it's hard to trust that they're actually concerned with human welfare at all. It's obvious in all their tactics; it's all about squeamishness and playing up the cutesy and doll-like attributes of babies - except for when they're outright lying, of course, like when they say abortion causes cancer. It's like they don't live in a world where people have to act like adults and occasionally make unpleasant decisions.

I agree with a westie. My first impressions was that children are perhaps a rediculous investment for the US in a time of economic downturn as they strain poor families' resources further (thought they may increase family spending). Further, when the children grow up thye will be competing for the limited jobs out there.

MORE IMPORTANTLY
The intersections of nation, race, and class here are interesting. On the one hand, the ad is taking a conservative agenda of restricting the reporductive control/agency of women by promoting more (US-born) children entering the economy. Yet on the other hand, the very same people who'd agree with this billboard are often very much opposed to undocumented im/migrants entering the country and having children. This puts the audience in an intersting dillemma of explaining why illegal immigration harms the economy while more US children help it. Eventually their children wil be competing with the older generations for jobs. It seems unlikely that white Americans will even complain about their children "taking" their jobs.

I'll do you one better, Sarah, I'll just quit reading this blog. The comments here give a bad image to sociology.

(hint: sociology is a field of study with various approach, it is not, contrary to what some people here thing, an ideology).

Late to the party, but wanted to comment on Dubi's initial coment that seems to have stirred Sarah Mc & Bill so. Dubi brings up a valid point , only to be set upon by two humorless drones. Dubi's later remark that Sarah Mc is most likely childless spot on and IS germane to the topic b/c it establishes context for her remarks. Like Dubi said, I cannot buy hope that she DOESN't have a child/family. Poor Dubi, he has sinned against the orthodoxy and is now a heretic. And Sarah & Bill? Over-educ ated (damn the self-esteem movement-times were that someone would've told them they were stooopid and that they would've stopped thinking that every excresence that plops from their fevered brows is a gold nugget) lotus-eaters.

Why does this blog and its commenting fall apart when it gets to feminist posts? It's like all the critical capacity goes out the window.

Dude, re-read the thread. Dubi made a valid point, SarahMC voiced a contrary opinion, and Dubi's immediate response was "screw you." No matter which of them you agree with, that's not being heterodox, it's just being a jerk. There should be room in sociology for reasoned and reasonable debate even among people who disagree.

Original Will: Here's Dubi's response "After all, if I’m not getting pregnant, and I have no say in anything that has anything to do with this - if I’m not even consulted as part of the decision making process - then screw you, I sure as hell ain’t taking care of it later." I believe Dubi was speaking in hypothetical response (as a father) to a woman who would keep a man out of the process, as Sarah implies when she seeks to discredit his role ("p.p.s. did you give birth to him? I didn’t think so."). I believe Dubi's comments were much more respectful in tone than sarah's ("p.s. here’s a cookie for being the primary caregiver for your son", We’ll chat after you take a reading comprehension course). Whereas Dubi is engaged in discourse, sarah appears to simply have an ax to grind. Dubi nails it when he says "sociology is a field of study with various approach, it is not, contrary to what some people here thing, an ideology."

Neilitist: Fair enough, I'll concede that I misread the "screw you." In the event that Dubi reads these comments, I apologize for saying that he acted like a jerk.

However, I have the impression and recollection (and I concede that I haven't read every comment on every post) that Dubi and SarahMC in particular have disagreed vehemently in the past and may both be grinding axes. Of course I should stress that I don't speak for anyone but myself! That's just my impression.

I agree that we need to consider and respect various approaches.

Oh, that's intelligent! Encourage people to crap out more babies that they can't afford.

More babies= a drain of resources of the natural, social and economic variety. Each extra baby born takes food, water, shelter, space etc. from another person who already exists.

In bad economic times, one of the worst and most selfish, irresponsible things anyone can do is have more babies. Babies don't fix recessions- they create them! Creating more little consumers is only going to make the process repeat. The population can only grow so big until it becomes unsustainable, and it looks like we're on that path.

These billboards make me sick.