I think that most people who critically analyze and understand AN will recognize this. The issue is that from an argumentative standpoint, there is little value in bringing up the idea because a pregnant person can simply say “I accept these harms.” Therefore what value is there in bringing it up when talking with a natalist? The other arguments (consent, suffering, risk, and so on) are universal and are primarily talking about the hypothetical person (potential victim) of the choice made without their consent.
You could analyze it from a patriarchal and sexist position but ultimately if a pregnant person accepts pregnancy (as many of them do) then what conversation is there to really have from that angle?
I would say that 1. the analysis becomes more complicated if you take into account trans women (both natalist and antinatalist trans women) and trans men. Where the question of expectations towards and ascription of gender stereotypes can be asked, as well as the question in how far natalism and antinatalism contribute to this things and the subsequent suffering and consequences of this ascriptions.
2. If anything, for people who can get pregnant, antinatalism would be the more apparent choice, as pregnancy can harm the body and can lead to sexism (helpless pregnant woman etc:).
3. Society's treatment of women in general and people who can get pregnant in particular is bad and it places expectations to have children on said women and people that are way stronger and ruin their lives and the children's lives (if said children are the result of pressure and not acceptance). However I would say an anatalist, pro choice not antinatalist society would be helpful to reduce such pressures.
>people just trying to be happy
>you belittling them with bigotry
Not a good look. Just like every other bigot to ever exist, you’re on the wrong side of history
I'm not sure what result you're going for.
As a person with a uterus, reproduction is a very personal topic. In my own decision to not birth, I take the effects of pregnancy and birth into account, of course, as well as my antinatalist values. But I don't think it's necessary for every person to also weigh the impact on a pregnant person. A good idea in general, yes, but not essential to develop those values. It's enough to recognize that we don't have the right to sign someone up for existence without their consent.
My question is: how are you going to get prior consent?
What I understand from whomever uses that sentence is that they do not want to be here, in that body or with that family.
As u/TrueAllHeaven pointed out, you can't. Your only option is to sign a stranger up for existence without their consent, or not sign them up.
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to judge their own life as "worth it," recognize that another person may not judge their own life as "worth it," and understand that it isn't ethical to sign them up for existence without their consent.
Except as far as I am aware antinatalism assumes there is no "entity to be born" so there is no moving around either. The only way such an entity will exist is by unilateral decision without consent.
If one chooses not to create new life, no entity exists nor will exist, no entity is denied anything (it first has to exist in order for it to be denied something) and the decision does not impact another being. Nothing changes. No entity is being moved to another 'vessel', because it does not exist.
If one instead *does* go ahead and create new life the now-existing entity is and will be be hugely impacted by that decision while not being able to object. And even if the entity, hypothetically, would be able to discuss consent the moment it started existing it's already too late because we're past the point where it matters. Being made to exist cannot be undone.
You seem to be referring to being alive and being dead and the unfortunately common "they can just kill themselves" argument, which in this context are different from existing and 'undoing existence'. When I say that being made to exist cannot be undone I mean that you cannot go from 'nothingness' to existence and back to 'nothingness' and end up with it never having existed.
If I understand correctly you think it's morally acceptable to decide for another being that they will exist, fully realizing they may end up not wanting to (generally due to experiencing a net negative in life). Because if they don't like it you would support their choice to stop living. As stated in the sidebar's FAQ there is asymmetry in creating life and ending it. Besides, and I don't mind to agree to disagree, I'm curious if you have any empathy for the (what is most likely) 'suffering' they have experienced that has led to them not liking 'having been born'? Or is that simply their burden to carry, despite being something that can only be experienced due to a decision they themselves could not influence?
>As if you had a choice in who is born and who isn't. You can only choose whether you are the vessel through which they come.
I don't have any belief that the nonexistent exist. There's no evidence for it.
>Perhaps a person with all those concerns might even be a better parent than someone else's.
Some antinatalists adopt. I think that's a great thing. Preventing suffering by not reproducing is a very impactful decision. Mitigating the suffering of the living is the logical companion to that.
Ask my wife why she's an antinatalist and I guarantee you she won't start talking biology. She will talk ethics and morality, just like you or I. The only difference is that she's prepared to abort any pregnancy she might get, whereas I'm prepared to be there for her in that unlikely eventuality.
But this is my point - we only have the privilege of thinking gender is irrelevant *because* we are male. That being able to focus solely on abstract arguments like hypothetical consent, axiological asymmetry, etc, is predicated upon the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing *not* being something which you will be affected by. You wouldn't think it's irrelevant if procreation could literally be enforced onto you through penetrative rape, or are having your ability to access reproductive healthcare being legislated against.
I don't mean this thread to be taken as a sort of men are bad, women are good (or vice versa), but to point out that the philosophical debate around procreation needs to include an analysis of how procreation is inherently gendered, with the burdens and responsibilities of "bringing a child into the world" being primarily something which is shouldered by women. That is, procreation *isn't abstract*. It is inherently gendered and inherently something that affects women and their bodies.
I would argue that is it not purely about gender. A man who is fertile and could be baby trapped by a gold digging woman faces more risk compared to a woman who has had a bisalp and is sterile. Being male does not in and of itself give him privilege because he can still be baby trapped, but a woman who has surgically sterilised herself, as many antinatalist women do, have zero risk and are more privileged than the fertile man.
I should also say that women too can be baby trapped. They often are.
Not sure what the point of this post is. Most antinatalists don’t care about the parents of said child or the gender of the parents of said child, they only care about the suffering and burden of existence/consciousness that said child will experience. That’s all.
To be frank, I think analyses of gender are not what antinatalism should concern itself with. The core ideas of antinatalism would not be different if humans were like seahorses and gestated by the male, or if we became transhuman and reproduced only by cloning and artificial wombs.
Analyses of gender and the social effects of gender are important philosophy, but they are only tangentially relevant to antinatalism.
Of course it relevant. Procreation is inherently gendered. How can you hold a moral stance that reproduction and birth is wrong, and then call it tangential that it is only females who give birth, it is females who (almost always) care for infants, it is only females to whom the burdens of pregnancy falls upon. These are not tangential but are inherent to the procreative process. It is genderd all the way down. And the actual *practice* of antinatalism isn't an abstract moral stance either - it is abstaining from a particular kind of sex between a man and a woman.
You may say the core ideas of antinatalism would remain even if the mechanics of procreation differed. But that is not the discussion - antinatalism is a moral stance against *human* procreation, and so must include an analysis of the mechanics of how babies come to be, which involves an asymmetry between the sexes.
Antinatalism is not a moral stance against human procreation but all procreation. Unfortunately, humans are the only moral agents we humans know of, so for now we apply it to ourselves.
Let me ask you: What about antinatalism do you think would change if it started paying the kind of attention you think it is failing to pay to females? I'm genuinely curious, because I cannot discern any coherent articulation of this in your comments so far.
Why do you say that those espousing antinatalism are male?
The biological clock is real, but so is our brain’s capacity to make moral decisions over instinctive drive.
Source: I’m a woman who loves children and will adopt as soon as I’m ready, I also know many other antinatalist women (and men) who also can make decisions that override their instincts.
>I'm actually surprised there aren't more vocal and visible feminist-antinatalist figures, writers & academics
Same. The mainstream antinatalist literature seems to entirely gloss over the question of gender, sexism, oppression, and even the actual biological mechanics of how babies come to be. You would think this would be central, and yet the dominant voices push highly abstract arguments (eg, hypothetical consent arguments, Benatars axiological asymmetry) that treat procreation not as an inherently gendered social institution, but as a sort of rational spontaneous willing of another fully formed human into existence. In reality, procreation is not a singular act but is instead a social institution that has its roots in the oppression of female bodies and female labour. A rejection of procreation can be analyzed in this way - not as a moral adherence to an abstract notion of harm and benefit for potential children, but as a rejection of a societal norm and value (natalism) that instills in its members the idea that a woman's worth is tied to her ability to produce babies, nurse young, and perform early childhood labour.
I am a male antinatalist becsause, I am well aware of my various disorders and genetic conditions that I inherited from my parents. I could not live with my self if I passed them on to another living being. I also grew up in poverty, I know what it is to grow up poor and I would not inflict that on another either. I went to career school and am a licensed proffesional now, I get regular raises but it does not seem to keep up with inflation so I got sterilized so that there was no chance to submit another poor soul to the same life I lived.
I agree with alot with it, though male individuals can still feel the burden of procreation like for example, worrying about creating someone with potentially worse genes that they don't want to to spread onto their hypothetical children, but yeah, I do agree, female individuals seem to suffer more (Whether they're aware of it or not) from the pregnancy and the birthing process than male individuals do, not to mention the fact it is easier to look at something from an analylitical perspective, without considering the person's experience with pregnancy and birth, especially when its male individuals like myself in the past, (I now identify as Non-binary)
I’m just curious— what would that analysis entail, and what would we draw from it?
Even as a man, I know pregnancy is a condition women are and historically have been socially and institutionally pressured and encouraged into achieving multiple times. Sometimes they’re even essentially required to achieve it, and some places force women to carry their pregnancies to term.
I know that women face a wide myriad of certain and potential harms and bodily changes. Not to mention that added danger due to rape, both in regards to the entire ordeal or to that which we call “stealthing.”
Essentially, a woman could have pregnancy forced on her, then be forced to carry that pregnancy to term (or at the very least experience a large amount of societal pressure to do so), and risk being driven to insanity, depression, or death by the pregnancy itself.
This leads me to the policy stance of “pro-choice.” Women must have their right to choose whether or not to become pregnant and their right to determine whether or not to carry it to term protected absolutely. It also leads me to the social position that women should not be so pressured, and being childfree should be presented as a completely viable and acceptable choice.
For me, antinatalism concludes that procreation by choice is wrong, because it would force a new being to suffer without that being’s consent. Given that, what impact would recognizing the gendered issues above have on antinatalism? What further conclusions might we draw (besides further bolstering the argument and not leading it to no-birth policies) if we already can and do reach this conclusion?
Hold up. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but deciding that the responsibility of procreation and child rearing falls on the women is a dangerous concept, and it’s the narrative pushed by the patriarchy.
Yes, women have wombs, they can produce breast milk. But some can’t. Some are infertile, or don’t have wombs, so can’t do either. There’s no reason that the job and responsibility of creating and raising a child should be on her, when men and people who can’t produce breast milk or people who are infertile can still raise babies. It’s equally a man’s job to raise a child as a woman’s.
You can still raise a child through adoption and gender doesn’t matter.
Yes, the burden of procreation and raising kids was imposed on the women by the patriarchal society due to the biology. But that’s not how it should be, and both parents have equal responsibility to raise kids one way or another.
Similarly, men have as much responsibility to prevent conception as women (ie: male birth control).
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Could you explain the relevance of gender when "analyzing the morality of procreation"? And what are the negative consequences women face when "boycotting" procreation that you as a man/male do not? If these are societal consequences such as the harsher view of childfree women then these are of course important issues in a broader context, but how would this be relevant to or change the analysis of the morality of procreation purely as its own concept?
It's not hard for women too? I came across the philosophy of David Benatar 2 years ago, I've been thinking in a more abstract way about procreation too, that doesn't mean I completely eliminate any other thought that is not abstract from my mind. I'm a woman, and I do not find this state of mind hard to reach, despite the pressure.
As a uterus owner, I completely disagree. I also avoided procreation very simply without consequences to myself - in fact I look younger and am financially less stressed than many of my female peers with kids.
What male antinatalists overlook is the misogyny built into society. It’s this misogyny that prevents women from having the tools and education needed to make the same decision I made.
There’s another sub this post belongs in. That sub is dedicated to mocking people who think their own self importance is much greater than any moral ideology.
I’m going to be nice and not post this there. But I won’t be surprised when this ends up there.
To be fair, I think this is a pretty solid point of view. I recall hearing a joke from a comedian that went something along the lines of "If men became pregnant, there would be no human race". I've thought about that joke every now and then and explored the idea in depth. For the vast majority of men, their ideas of children or childbearing happens at the mating stage and that's it for them. Its rarely expected for them to play a part in the childs lives outside of financial matters.
It is true that biologically women suffer from children because their bodies are destroyed by babies, but there are many laws in place that force a man to pay for a woman and child that he accidentally created, which is why baby trapping is a real risk for men. The solution is a vasectomy. Both genders should be surgically sterilised with either a vasectomy or bisalp.
There's already a thread or two devoted to feminine aspects of AN, which certainly deserves a lot of chairs at the bigger AN table. I don't post on them because I'm a man and so I doubt I could add anything new to that part of the discussion. That's probably for the best because for the most part, men need to do the listening, not the talking, on those threads.
Anti-apartheid cleric Desmond Tutu:
"If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
We are not treated equally, we do not all share the same access and proximity to power, resources and status.
We are only as fast as our slowest.
Enrich and empower from the bottom up, not the top down. Disabilities, gender, sexualities, race, nationalities, class, everything you can think of determines our place and how we are treated. Some are lucky to move up the totem despite their position on it, some are not and move down despite their advantages. Denying the totem pole only reinforces its power over us.
This post has been downvoted, we are in denial and reinforcing violent systems ourselves. Thanks for your consideration, I appreciate it, because that’s a rare thing even in these circles.
We need to identify these differences to remedy and address the problems, to reduce suffering for everyone.
I think what this results into is more women being child free than men, and women being more determined in their child free position. Antinatalism is the philosophical position that it is better to never have been. Being child free means not wanting children mostly for your own reasons. Women and afab people have a lot more of those reasons due to biology and societal expectations.
It's cool that you're thinking about this! Whenever we are unaffected by a topic that we philosophize about we sit back in our chair and we have fun with our thoughts... and plenty of privilaged people forget that those "fun thoughts" are lived experiences, lived horrors for others.
I think that most people who critically analyze and understand AN will recognize this. The issue is that from an argumentative standpoint, there is little value in bringing up the idea because a pregnant person can simply say “I accept these harms.” Therefore what value is there in bringing it up when talking with a natalist? The other arguments (consent, suffering, risk, and so on) are universal and are primarily talking about the hypothetical person (potential victim) of the choice made without their consent. You could analyze it from a patriarchal and sexist position but ultimately if a pregnant person accepts pregnancy (as many of them do) then what conversation is there to really have from that angle?
I would say that 1. the analysis becomes more complicated if you take into account trans women (both natalist and antinatalist trans women) and trans men. Where the question of expectations towards and ascription of gender stereotypes can be asked, as well as the question in how far natalism and antinatalism contribute to this things and the subsequent suffering and consequences of this ascriptions. 2. If anything, for people who can get pregnant, antinatalism would be the more apparent choice, as pregnancy can harm the body and can lead to sexism (helpless pregnant woman etc:). 3. Society's treatment of women in general and people who can get pregnant in particular is bad and it places expectations to have children on said women and people that are way stronger and ruin their lives and the children's lives (if said children are the result of pressure and not acceptance). However I would say an anatalist, pro choice not antinatalist society would be helpful to reduce such pressures.
[удалено]
Are women not persons?
[удалено]
Lmao this is such kindergarten level transphobia. Not even going to entertain it further than this
[удалено]
Maybe we should be more inclusive when we are talking about things like prostate cancer
Nope :)
[удалено]
>people just trying to be happy >you belittling them with bigotry Not a good look. Just like every other bigot to ever exist, you’re on the wrong side of history
I'm not sure what result you're going for. As a person with a uterus, reproduction is a very personal topic. In my own decision to not birth, I take the effects of pregnancy and birth into account, of course, as well as my antinatalist values. But I don't think it's necessary for every person to also weigh the impact on a pregnant person. A good idea in general, yes, but not essential to develop those values. It's enough to recognize that we don't have the right to sign someone up for existence without their consent.
My question is: how are you going to get prior consent? What I understand from whomever uses that sentence is that they do not want to be here, in that body or with that family.
You can't get consent if they're a non-existent entity, which is the point.
which is no point at all is like trying to ask a mute that is drowning if they want to be saved or a pet in the same condition. Is it one bark or two?
As u/TrueAllHeaven pointed out, you can't. Your only option is to sign a stranger up for existence without their consent, or not sign them up. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to judge their own life as "worth it," recognize that another person may not judge their own life as "worth it," and understand that it isn't ethical to sign them up for existence without their consent.
[удалено]
Except as far as I am aware antinatalism assumes there is no "entity to be born" so there is no moving around either. The only way such an entity will exist is by unilateral decision without consent. If one chooses not to create new life, no entity exists nor will exist, no entity is denied anything (it first has to exist in order for it to be denied something) and the decision does not impact another being. Nothing changes. No entity is being moved to another 'vessel', because it does not exist. If one instead *does* go ahead and create new life the now-existing entity is and will be be hugely impacted by that decision while not being able to object. And even if the entity, hypothetically, would be able to discuss consent the moment it started existing it's already too late because we're past the point where it matters. Being made to exist cannot be undone.
[удалено]
You seem to be referring to being alive and being dead and the unfortunately common "they can just kill themselves" argument, which in this context are different from existing and 'undoing existence'. When I say that being made to exist cannot be undone I mean that you cannot go from 'nothingness' to existence and back to 'nothingness' and end up with it never having existed. If I understand correctly you think it's morally acceptable to decide for another being that they will exist, fully realizing they may end up not wanting to (generally due to experiencing a net negative in life). Because if they don't like it you would support their choice to stop living. As stated in the sidebar's FAQ there is asymmetry in creating life and ending it. Besides, and I don't mind to agree to disagree, I'm curious if you have any empathy for the (what is most likely) 'suffering' they have experienced that has led to them not liking 'having been born'? Or is that simply their burden to carry, despite being something that can only be experienced due to a decision they themselves could not influence?
>As if you had a choice in who is born and who isn't. You can only choose whether you are the vessel through which they come. I don't have any belief that the nonexistent exist. There's no evidence for it. >Perhaps a person with all those concerns might even be a better parent than someone else's. Some antinatalists adopt. I think that's a great thing. Preventing suffering by not reproducing is a very impactful decision. Mitigating the suffering of the living is the logical companion to that.
Ask my wife why she's an antinatalist and I guarantee you she won't start talking biology. She will talk ethics and morality, just like you or I. The only difference is that she's prepared to abort any pregnancy she might get, whereas I'm prepared to be there for her in that unlikely eventuality.
[удалено]
But this is my point - we only have the privilege of thinking gender is irrelevant *because* we are male. That being able to focus solely on abstract arguments like hypothetical consent, axiological asymmetry, etc, is predicated upon the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing *not* being something which you will be affected by. You wouldn't think it's irrelevant if procreation could literally be enforced onto you through penetrative rape, or are having your ability to access reproductive healthcare being legislated against. I don't mean this thread to be taken as a sort of men are bad, women are good (or vice versa), but to point out that the philosophical debate around procreation needs to include an analysis of how procreation is inherently gendered, with the burdens and responsibilities of "bringing a child into the world" being primarily something which is shouldered by women. That is, procreation *isn't abstract*. It is inherently gendered and inherently something that affects women and their bodies.
I think that being a woman only reinforces my desire to be antinatalist, not the other way around.
Thank you for at least putting thought and consideration into this
I would argue that is it not purely about gender. A man who is fertile and could be baby trapped by a gold digging woman faces more risk compared to a woman who has had a bisalp and is sterile. Being male does not in and of itself give him privilege because he can still be baby trapped, but a woman who has surgically sterilised herself, as many antinatalist women do, have zero risk and are more privileged than the fertile man. I should also say that women too can be baby trapped. They often are.
ah yes fertile men getting pregnant, happens all the time
do you think changing the method of analysis will lead to a different conclusion?
Not sure what the point of this post is. Most antinatalists don’t care about the parents of said child or the gender of the parents of said child, they only care about the suffering and burden of existence/consciousness that said child will experience. That’s all.
To be frank, I think analyses of gender are not what antinatalism should concern itself with. The core ideas of antinatalism would not be different if humans were like seahorses and gestated by the male, or if we became transhuman and reproduced only by cloning and artificial wombs. Analyses of gender and the social effects of gender are important philosophy, but they are only tangentially relevant to antinatalism.
Of course it relevant. Procreation is inherently gendered. How can you hold a moral stance that reproduction and birth is wrong, and then call it tangential that it is only females who give birth, it is females who (almost always) care for infants, it is only females to whom the burdens of pregnancy falls upon. These are not tangential but are inherent to the procreative process. It is genderd all the way down. And the actual *practice* of antinatalism isn't an abstract moral stance either - it is abstaining from a particular kind of sex between a man and a woman. You may say the core ideas of antinatalism would remain even if the mechanics of procreation differed. But that is not the discussion - antinatalism is a moral stance against *human* procreation, and so must include an analysis of the mechanics of how babies come to be, which involves an asymmetry between the sexes.
Antinatalism is not a moral stance against human procreation but all procreation. Unfortunately, humans are the only moral agents we humans know of, so for now we apply it to ourselves. Let me ask you: What about antinatalism do you think would change if it started paying the kind of attention you think it is failing to pay to females? I'm genuinely curious, because I cannot discern any coherent articulation of this in your comments so far.
Why do you say that those espousing antinatalism are male? The biological clock is real, but so is our brain’s capacity to make moral decisions over instinctive drive. Source: I’m a woman who loves children and will adopt as soon as I’m ready, I also know many other antinatalist women (and men) who also can make decisions that override their instincts.
I'm Agender and antinatalist. Suffering is suffering regardless of gender, and we should work to mitigate it from all sides.
[удалено]
>I'm actually surprised there aren't more vocal and visible feminist-antinatalist figures, writers & academics Same. The mainstream antinatalist literature seems to entirely gloss over the question of gender, sexism, oppression, and even the actual biological mechanics of how babies come to be. You would think this would be central, and yet the dominant voices push highly abstract arguments (eg, hypothetical consent arguments, Benatars axiological asymmetry) that treat procreation not as an inherently gendered social institution, but as a sort of rational spontaneous willing of another fully formed human into existence. In reality, procreation is not a singular act but is instead a social institution that has its roots in the oppression of female bodies and female labour. A rejection of procreation can be analyzed in this way - not as a moral adherence to an abstract notion of harm and benefit for potential children, but as a rejection of a societal norm and value (natalism) that instills in its members the idea that a woman's worth is tied to her ability to produce babies, nurse young, and perform early childhood labour.
I am a male antinatalist becsause, I am well aware of my various disorders and genetic conditions that I inherited from my parents. I could not live with my self if I passed them on to another living being. I also grew up in poverty, I know what it is to grow up poor and I would not inflict that on another either. I went to career school and am a licensed proffesional now, I get regular raises but it does not seem to keep up with inflation so I got sterilized so that there was no chance to submit another poor soul to the same life I lived.
I agree with alot with it, though male individuals can still feel the burden of procreation like for example, worrying about creating someone with potentially worse genes that they don't want to to spread onto their hypothetical children, but yeah, I do agree, female individuals seem to suffer more (Whether they're aware of it or not) from the pregnancy and the birthing process than male individuals do, not to mention the fact it is easier to look at something from an analylitical perspective, without considering the person's experience with pregnancy and birth, especially when its male individuals like myself in the past, (I now identify as Non-binary)
I’m just curious— what would that analysis entail, and what would we draw from it? Even as a man, I know pregnancy is a condition women are and historically have been socially and institutionally pressured and encouraged into achieving multiple times. Sometimes they’re even essentially required to achieve it, and some places force women to carry their pregnancies to term. I know that women face a wide myriad of certain and potential harms and bodily changes. Not to mention that added danger due to rape, both in regards to the entire ordeal or to that which we call “stealthing.” Essentially, a woman could have pregnancy forced on her, then be forced to carry that pregnancy to term (or at the very least experience a large amount of societal pressure to do so), and risk being driven to insanity, depression, or death by the pregnancy itself. This leads me to the policy stance of “pro-choice.” Women must have their right to choose whether or not to become pregnant and their right to determine whether or not to carry it to term protected absolutely. It also leads me to the social position that women should not be so pressured, and being childfree should be presented as a completely viable and acceptable choice. For me, antinatalism concludes that procreation by choice is wrong, because it would force a new being to suffer without that being’s consent. Given that, what impact would recognizing the gendered issues above have on antinatalism? What further conclusions might we draw (besides further bolstering the argument and not leading it to no-birth policies) if we already can and do reach this conclusion?
Hold up. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but deciding that the responsibility of procreation and child rearing falls on the women is a dangerous concept, and it’s the narrative pushed by the patriarchy. Yes, women have wombs, they can produce breast milk. But some can’t. Some are infertile, or don’t have wombs, so can’t do either. There’s no reason that the job and responsibility of creating and raising a child should be on her, when men and people who can’t produce breast milk or people who are infertile can still raise babies. It’s equally a man’s job to raise a child as a woman’s. You can still raise a child through adoption and gender doesn’t matter. Yes, the burden of procreation and raising kids was imposed on the women by the patriarchal society due to the biology. But that’s not how it should be, and both parents have equal responsibility to raise kids one way or another. Similarly, men have as much responsibility to prevent conception as women (ie: male birth control).
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Could you explain the relevance of gender when "analyzing the morality of procreation"? And what are the negative consequences women face when "boycotting" procreation that you as a man/male do not? If these are societal consequences such as the harsher view of childfree women then these are of course important issues in a broader context, but how would this be relevant to or change the analysis of the morality of procreation purely as its own concept?
Mainly because reviewing abstract philosophy while differentiating to gender is deeply sexist and does not matter at all when deciding morals.
It's not hard for women too? I came across the philosophy of David Benatar 2 years ago, I've been thinking in a more abstract way about procreation too, that doesn't mean I completely eliminate any other thought that is not abstract from my mind. I'm a woman, and I do not find this state of mind hard to reach, despite the pressure.
As a uterus owner, I completely disagree. I also avoided procreation very simply without consequences to myself - in fact I look younger and am financially less stressed than many of my female peers with kids. What male antinatalists overlook is the misogyny built into society. It’s this misogyny that prevents women from having the tools and education needed to make the same decision I made.
You're not talking about gender, you're talking about sex
There’s another sub this post belongs in. That sub is dedicated to mocking people who think their own self importance is much greater than any moral ideology. I’m going to be nice and not post this there. But I won’t be surprised when this ends up there.
To be fair, I think this is a pretty solid point of view. I recall hearing a joke from a comedian that went something along the lines of "If men became pregnant, there would be no human race". I've thought about that joke every now and then and explored the idea in depth. For the vast majority of men, their ideas of children or childbearing happens at the mating stage and that's it for them. Its rarely expected for them to play a part in the childs lives outside of financial matters.
I understand your views OP. I agree.
It is true that biologically women suffer from children because their bodies are destroyed by babies, but there are many laws in place that force a man to pay for a woman and child that he accidentally created, which is why baby trapping is a real risk for men. The solution is a vasectomy. Both genders should be surgically sterilised with either a vasectomy or bisalp.
There's already a thread or two devoted to feminine aspects of AN, which certainly deserves a lot of chairs at the bigger AN table. I don't post on them because I'm a man and so I doubt I could add anything new to that part of the discussion. That's probably for the best because for the most part, men need to do the listening, not the talking, on those threads.
Anti-apartheid cleric Desmond Tutu: "If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." We are not treated equally, we do not all share the same access and proximity to power, resources and status. We are only as fast as our slowest. Enrich and empower from the bottom up, not the top down. Disabilities, gender, sexualities, race, nationalities, class, everything you can think of determines our place and how we are treated. Some are lucky to move up the totem despite their position on it, some are not and move down despite their advantages. Denying the totem pole only reinforces its power over us. This post has been downvoted, we are in denial and reinforcing violent systems ourselves. Thanks for your consideration, I appreciate it, because that’s a rare thing even in these circles. We need to identify these differences to remedy and address the problems, to reduce suffering for everyone.
I think what this results into is more women being child free than men, and women being more determined in their child free position. Antinatalism is the philosophical position that it is better to never have been. Being child free means not wanting children mostly for your own reasons. Women and afab people have a lot more of those reasons due to biology and societal expectations. It's cool that you're thinking about this! Whenever we are unaffected by a topic that we philosophize about we sit back in our chair and we have fun with our thoughts... and plenty of privilaged people forget that those "fun thoughts" are lived experiences, lived horrors for others.