Is the Child Free movement anti-feminist?

[GothAnneGeddes]

Not sure how to word this, but while I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with not wanting children, this whole idea of a movement (with a lot of men in it) that seems to despise mothers and children with a visceral repulsion and also encourage women to remove their reproductive organs is very unsettling.

What do you think?

And if it advantages men, then it disadvantages women, because women are different from men.

It takes a fair amount of critical thinking to think 'through' the obvious problems as we live them, HB, and to come up with more satisfactory solutions. Critical thinking was not a feature of education over the last 20 years, so I reckon it's understandable that most don't see past or through the issues - plus, you have to bear in mind that many people are constitutionally unsuited to do it. That's not sexist, classist or anything else-ist, it's a deep-seated human quality.

I 100% disagree with your latest statement that "if it advantages men, then it disadvantages women, because women are different from men". We are more alike than unalike. Clean water, healthy food, non-toxic air, warmth & shelter advantage us all. We're all human. We're all people.

then ask yourself garlicbutter, why men are hell-bent on polluting the planet.

It's intentional. THe oil tankers that "accidentally" spill into the sea because they weren't made properly. THe nuclear power plants built in earthquake zones. The mercuarly leaked into the water supply causing foetuses to become deformed. ALL corporations headed by men. Mary Daly believed patriarchies are necrophiliac, and I'm inclined to agree with her. Gynocides in Rwanda, HOlocausts in Germany. Men as a group are out to kill all life on the planet. It's written in the script of patriarchy.

Women-as -a group, on the other hand are biophiliac, they love life.

I don't think two groups of people could be any more different than men and women.

as long as patriarchy exists any time of peace we experience is a "respite" from the perpetual state of war that is patriarchy.

Please, do NOT tell me that when women finally reclaim their power the world will look anything like it does under patriarchy

otherwise we all might as well pack up and go home right now. The jig is up.

Good lord Sak

That's a little harsh, if not to say insane....

Yep, the father of my children is intent on wiping life on earth out.

It is, after all, in his best interests.

If only I'd noticed it sooner......

Fuck me.

If only men were as sane as women.

Jeysus, thank the lord I have a twat.

Really, otherwise I may be spending my time ensuring my wife gave birth to a deformed foetus rather than enjoying our humanity.

Thanks.

You are a friend of the people

You are a friend of the people

equality in my book doesn't mean measuring up to male values either - i'm not sure if that continues to be the accusation? (it may be that you aren't referring to me with the 'even some liberal feminists' but i'm having a moment of paranoia after beign accused of being a male rights activist .

i think the only specific references i made to what equality might look like were about men valuing and respecting childcare and playing an equal role in that sphere. i can't see how (if?) you wedged that under the 'misguided women want to be measured as equal by male standards' equality umbrella. if anything it's a clear desire to get men to measure up to the (current) women's standards.

and i can't even make an attempt to respond to sakura's posts, sorry. i'm a feminist, but clearly not as, um, committed. it leads to an interesting diversion to environmental humanism, sure. and happy to discuss that - it's an ideology that has come up before on the feminist board when people discuss alternatives to feminism that are less stereotypical and more, um, equalist? (i'd say humanist but the elements co-opted by religion make it less appealing as a term).

i haven't come across much mary daly tbh, as the theological aspects didn't/ don't interest me in particular. a quick google seems to suggest that it's time i did read her, as it might explain where some of more radical elements are coming from on here. apparently she didn't believe in equality, but believed that women should govern men. and was vehemently anti-trans. ho hum.

i do like to make my own mind up though. it's less than appealing when acolytes appear to believe that all men are intentionally working towards the apocalypse though. presumably just to wipe out women. that'll learn 'em.

Yes, I'm assessing the actions and behaviour of men-as-a-group.

Men have done a right job on planet earth haven't they? Will they be happy until every last species is dead, every last lake and sea polluted, ever last woman's body polluted with pesticides?

If enough men wanted patriarchy to end, the regime wouldn't last half a day.

Unfortunately, too many men know that if patriarchy were to end, they would no longer benefit from male privilege, which means they would no longer have a cheap source of labour, or slave labour, or a sex class to serve them.

Not entirely sure you can take the high ground when you readily make use of the products of those pollutants. Which make your life easier than it would be without it.

You have strange views sakura

THe partriarchal world has also brought sanitation, vaccination and contraception, the hallmarks of civilisation. (Though the last one did involve the work of a lot of women, such as Marie Stopes and Margarent Sanger and I am willing to believe that women contributed to the other two and were mainly sidelined by history). I have never had any time for this back-to-nature bullshit because it does women few favours. Try coping with shoulder dystocia, eclampsia or placental abruption by means of a chant to the goddesssand a few fucking herbs because we don't want any nasty male technology.

Not saying our world is perfect now as it is but it is better than the supposed good old days you do know disease has killed more people than all combined by billions?

all war

This is totally not making sense to me at present

The overriding point, to me, is that we don't know if an oil multinational run by women would cut corners because oil multinationals are run by men. I want to have this argument with some feminine expereince under our belt!

Until then it's all wishes & whatifs.

"There is actually plenty of evidence for those arguments about men (as a group)" I would argue that there is plenty of evidence for those arguments about the patriarchy not about men as a group. Blaming men as a group for the sins of the patriarchy is the same for blaming catholics asa group for the sins of the Catholic church - even less so as you elect to become a Catholic, you don't elect to become a man.

Yes, it took me a long time to realise that it's done in order to continue the crimes against women and children. That governments, including our current lovely one , disenfranchize women deliberately

And the last one too. Women paying money out of their hard-earned minimum wages through taxes in order to fund incompetent male bankers, and give them bonuses for not doing their job properly.
You can't make this up.

Women, being women, are so trusting and innocent.

re. vaccines. Perhaps if men hadn't massacred nine million herbalists, midwives and medicine women throughout Europe, their knowledge wouldn't have died with them and women would have discovered the science behind vaccines without male input.
Women would have understood that milkmaids didn'T get small pox because they'd usually become infected with cow pox as teenagers.
Women probably knew a lot more about disease than the men who re-write history give them credit for.
Men HAD to exclude women from education in order to discover anything themselves. They knew that, which is why women were oppressed so forcefully.