Antinatalism has a point but it upsets me

Well the antinatalists I'm talking about are, or were, radical feminists. Maybe taking the step into antinatalism means you're no longer a radical feminist, I don't know. Antinatalism is the logical progression of thought . A step further than separatism, I guess.

Well that certainly seems like the final puzzle piece that explains the point of this bizarre thread.

Lets all stop being radical feminists and go home!

(Claiming that the anti-natalists are widely accepted as feminists in feminist circles in response to a load of FWR regulars going ‘uhhh, what?’ was a particularly dissonant highlight )

Antinatalists cannot be feminists. Feminists, by definition, do not despise women and the biological functions related to being female

The writer in the link Sakura posted is an equal opportunity despiser (?) She hates and despises everyone.

She is apparently an attorney, although there's no indication what her field is. I can't imagine how she interacts with clients or fellow attorneys given the intense loathing she seems to have for all humanity.

Yeah. I've always seen antinatalism as a reaction against motherhood. Mainly from men. But more generally I think feminism hasn't been so great about including motherhood. It should center motherhood rather than have it as a lifestyle choice.

For example, equal pay for equal work is fine for women without kids or caring responsibilities. But why should women work so hard and end up so poor? Why are mothers so isolated and excluded from community decision making? Why isn't feminism centering all that?

I think you are missing the point OP. The vast majority of antinatalists do not consider themselves to be feminists.

Sure but why do that through bullying women about babies?

Some lots of men hate that women can make new people and they can't.

Antinatalists cannot be feminists. Feminists, by definition, do not despise women and the biological functions related to being female. That would include "breeding".

Funny how women are always the ones pejoratively called "breeders", not men. As though men have nothing to do with it. Until it's time to add a surname, then they're omnipresent in the process. Hey ho.

Sorry, cross post. My reply is to Sakura.

Sure but why do that through bullying women about babies? Why not go crazy with a gun or a truck in a crowded place? I don’t understand the focus on pregnancy.

Interesting stuff though - I’d never heard of it. The quick reading I’ve done doesn’t seem to be much to do with feminism though. Do you have a link to a feminist group? I can actually only find men advocating it although admittedly I haven’t looked for long.

If we need fewer people to exist you should list who to get rid of and how to dispose of them, or who to sterilise. I’ve got a feeling people like me would inevitably find themselves on such a list, just as they have previously

It is always someone that is not part of their circle of friends and family, preferably someone on the other side of the world, that they want to be anihilated, isn't it?

I think a lot of this movement is so that people won't feel so bad and protest about wars and man-made famines. And if they can continue to discriminate against mothers, children and old people, so much the better.

Also you say in your title that they “have a point”. What is that point? Just that there would be no human made problems if no humans existed?

As others have alluded to above, I don’t understand why they aren’t killing themselves if they feel so strongly people ought not exist.

Yeah I know what they're saying is correct, in that the only way patriarchy will grind to a halt is if women stop having children. They are technically 100% correct

Well that's ultimately a cure for all the human made ills of the world. Even much of the environmental damage would be ameliorated by natural regeneration of flora and fauna.

Do they get much exposure? I've never heard of them before.

Also, it's such an extreme "solution" that of course in a weird way it's logical... If human beings stopped reproducing it would end patriarchy. And war. And traffic jams. And crap Christmas adverts. And killing of elephants for ivory. Doesn't make it a sensible proposition though!

I was referring to the OP questioning whether there was a primal biological imperative as if this was an odd concept.

You had just posted you have two sisters and two cousins, adult human females, each and every one who never had an urge to procreate. or not. In contrast to your sisters I definitely did and it kicked in when I was 30- not before.

Your little attempt to educate me is irrelevant to that particular point - the point being, in case it's not clear, is there a primal urge to procreate?

Getting pregnant is easy for the vast majority of people Lass. There is a sizeable majority of women in this world we inhabit who don't have the luxury of 'waiting' till their 30 for the desire to kick in.

I would hope Lass you have empathy to recognise this.

I definitely wanted to have a baby when I hit 30. Getting pregnant was very easy and I very deliberately chose a partner who I thought would be a good father and , terribly un-feminist of me, would be a good provider for our child.

To reduce the population of the earth, men should deposit their sperm in a bank and then get a vasectomy, one that cannot be reversed.