When you are conceiving a child there are two options of who you get: male(perperaror) and female(victim).

This is a depressing and disempowering way of seeing the world. If you see the world this way then it makes sense why you wouldn’t want anyone to have children. But it’s a very pessimistic view and not everyone shares it. This isn’t really about having children, it’s about your pessimism about the state of humanity.

I’m not a feminist because I think all men are permanent perpetrators and all women are permanent victims.

I’m a feminist because I think women are perfectly capable of advocating for themselves and advancing their goals, such as when suffragists did it even though they lacked the rights of male citizens. They had a huge disadvantage and they won. Women in the west are the beneficiaries of a feminist legacy that means we are actually extremely free to achieve our own ends.

That is not to say that any partnered woman or woman with a child is not a "real feminist", no, but she has to understand the implications of her choices and how they affect women's fight for freedom.

There is no fight for freedom that doesn’t require a next generation to exist. Extinction is giving up, extinction is not making the world better for the next generation like our foremothers did.

Death is not liberation. Idealizing nonexistence is not feminism. It’s death cult shit.

If using my naturally given female reproductive organs is antifeminist, then this movement is just as focused on controlling women as anything men have come up with.

We do not need to focus on taking away women's rights, or shaming them for using them. We need to focus on making the world see that women are just as capable of agency, and deserving of fair treatment as men are.

Our bodies and what we do with them are not the problem. Mistreatment of women is the problem. And I have not given up on that situation improving to the extent that I think life is not worth continuing.

giving birth to a child is an inherently antifeminist and an antiwomen act.

I understand that there is a lot of joy to motherhood for some but the nuclear family is inherently oppressive to women.Choosing to put yourself into the position of fully submitting to a man & carrying his offspring to then most likely be forced to do most of the labor while your male partner reaps all the benefits is the ultimate submission to the patriarchy.

OP, using the male-supremacist phrase "carrying his offspring" strikes me as "an inherently antifeminist and antiwoman act" - one which shows "ulimate submission to the patriarchy" too.

The same goes for getting on a high horse and accusingly slagging off all women who've had children in or after relationships with a male partner as antifeminist sellouts because you can't imagine any woman becoming a mother without "fully submitting to a man" and being "forced to do most of the labor."

I see you've now added a coda clarifying that even if a woman is a lesbian, you think she should be condemned for becoming a mother too because in your view

giving birth from a sperm donor is still immoral and cruel

Given your views, I don't get why you'd add this equivocating little coda:

That is not to say that any partnered woman or woman with a child is not a "real feminist", no, but she has to understand the implications of her choices and how they affect women's fight for freedom.

Which is it, OP? If you really believe that "giving bith to a child is an inherently antifeminist and antiwomen act" that amounts to "the ultimate submission to the patriarchy," how can it possibly be that any woman who's had a child, isn't apologetic about it, and hasn't come around to your antinatalist POV might somehow still be a"real feminist" in your analysis?

If you truly are convinced that all mothers are quilty of committing "an inherently antifeminist and an antiwomen act" that amounts to "the ultimate submission to the patriarchy" and is "immoral and cruel" under any circumstances, then I think you should stick to your guns and condemn us all across the board - and in no uncertain terms, too. Have at it. Let loose with both barrells. Go for the jugular. Show no mercy whatseover to any of us evildoers. Off with our heads!

As it is, adding a bit of waffly wording to hint that there might be some women here and there whom you might consider letting off the hook for having the audacity to have children just makes it seem like you're not 100% confident in the position you started off stating so strongly and with such absolute assurance at the outset.

We shouldn't divide each other but we also should strive to critically analyze the way our society is structured.

Pointing an accusing finger at 85% of the world's women and slagging us all off for being guilty of committing what you contend is "an antifeminist and antiwomen act" seems a wee bit at odds with your view that "we shouldn't divide each other," OP. I also don't see how slagging off all women including lesbians for having children counts as striving "to critically analyze the way our society is structured." But since I'm one of those awful women who dared to reproduce, what would I know?

I can hardly understand how you can call yourself a radical feminist

Right back at ya, OP. Right back at ya.

But thanks for livening up my Sunday with the fire-and-brimstone preaching. Being scolded and shamed by someone who thinks women should be condemned as evildoers for having children really made my day.

I was so ready to support you when I saw your title, but your post isn't really about natalism so much as it about how women shouldn't give birth or else they're unfeminist, isn't it ? I'm curious about your definition of natalism, because to me natalism is not just women having children, it's an ideological stance promoting higher birth rates for the sake of society.

Before you come for me with the choice feminist accusation, that's not really the point I'm making, it's more so about the difference between a random woman with no feminist consciousness wearing make-up every day and having BDSM sex with creepy men VS a woman like Phyllis Schlafly actively lobbying for patriarchy.

Now, about the body of your post, your main point seems to be that life for women is eternal suffering and thus giving birth is an act of violence, because you either birth a girl who will be brutalized by a boy or a boy who will brutalize a girl. It reads a bit childish, like saying "well, if my mother didn't birth me, then I wouldn't have to deal with this shit !" Many women, including those who have experienced extreme male violence, think life is worth living.

Unlike others here I don't even disagree with you about men being perpetrators and women being very likely to be victims, I disagree with the underlying idea that this means all women would be better off dead. And the reason you're getting so much opposition and downvotes is because very few women, even in the most radical feminist spaces, would agree with that. The spaces where this take will be applauded are going to be those where the most depressed women congregate. Which, btw, aren't necessarily the most feminist women as you seem to think.

Feminism is supposed to be uncomfortable, if it is not, you are doing something wrong.

That's just not how it works. Feminism is a social and political movement for women's liberation, not a personal development strategy. How you feel doesn't matter in whether you're doing it right or wrong. If anything, I feel like radical feminism in particular has a problem of women being edgy and oh so radical on the internet without actually doing anything. I'm not accusing you of doing that, btw, since I don't know you, I'm just reflecting.

But I admit that I don't see how this kind of fatalistic attitude can lead to action. "Well, it's nature anyway, men are our predators and will always win and any woman who thinks otherwise is just delulu and brainwashed" is just another way of saying it's not worth doing anything, isn't it ? If women are doomed anyway, there's no point in fighting.

And to me, not fighting is definitely the wrong way of doing feminism.

Is this some kind of joke? I mean, I’m childfree but even I find this a preposterous assertion.

Voluntary extinction is a tough sell to most people.

Important PSA for Longtime Ovarit Members: I responded to the OP, and I've engaged in a back and forth with her in the comments, without paying any notice to her user name. That's how I usually operate - I address and argue with the points someone makes, rather than having a go at the person.

But now I realize that OP is the newbie to Ovarit who started this thread the other day:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/597549/as-a-detrans-woman-radical-feminism-finally-gave-me-peace

Which means OP is 17!

I now feel bad - and rather stupid - for spending time pushing back against the things she's said on this thread that I find so objectionable.

1. We are humans, and humans are animals. Just like any other animal, we have an instinctual desire to reproduce. Antinatalism is never going to catch on, sorry.

2. Mothers and motherhood shouldn't be mystified or glorified, but they should be honored and respected. Mothers need feminism and feminism needs mothers. This antinatalist subset of feminism alienates the majority of women, and that is illogical and frankly, misogynistic.

Happy to see all the downvotes and comments.

Here’s my take:

Some women choose to have kids, and that’s fine.

Some women choose not to have kids, and that’s fine.

But among sexually reproducing species, only females are capable of bringing forth life, and thus females (of all species) are the most powerful creatures in existence. And in humans, females have the capacity to not only bring forth life, but also to be genius mathematicians and astronauts and brain surgeons, which essentially makes those females superheroes.

This crosses the nutty line for me.

That’s the politest I can be.

This might get my account banned (whoops?), but this is the reason I don't actually call myself a radical feminist.

I'm in line with most if not all radfem beliefs, but I also think human nature is better and more complex than "man violent, woman victim". Yes, male violence is a problem, due to both genetics and socialisation, and yes, throughout history women's reproductive capacity has made them a target of oppression. However, I don't think this means that this is always and will always be the case. I definitely don't think that inequalities in opportunity and frequent if not ubiquitous cases of male violence against women mean that life is not worth living as a woman.

I think men and women are different, and that difference comes with inherently greater risk to us. But we're more than our nature and it's misleading and pretty depressing to simplify the world to men=bad. They're just as human as the rest of us.

So the only way to be a radical feminist is to be a nihilist?

If women don’t have children, that’s the end of humanity. You can say you aren’t promoting suicide, but on a larger scale you are supporting the suicide of the human race. It’s no longer about the sexes, it’s about existence. “Anti-Natalism” or whatever you’re advocating here is not supporting any kind of fight for freedom or reaching toward any kind of goal. It decides that women should not exist bc they experience suffering and men should not exist bc they cause suffering.

Maybe that’s what you believe, but don’t mix messages by talking about “our collective liberation” or ways to structure a future society. You’re saying annihilation is the best outcome for feminism.

I’ll leave my two cents here and then see my way out.

I never had the drive, the patience, or the tolerance of male bullying to focus my mind and heart on a successful professional career. I have tremendous admiration for women who do, I just know from my limited time struggling in that realm that I was angry nearly 100% of the time.

Instead, I decided to focus on a career that would enable me to strive and thrive without having to claw my way through a minefield of resentful men. The tradeoff is that I never made a lot of money. But living frugally I managed to make and save enough to become a single mom, which has given me no end of pleasure and satisfaction.

Part of that satisfaction of knowing that this is something no man could ever do.

I am so glad you do not get to decide these things for the rest of us. Motherhood, under appropriate circumstances (completely voluntary and completely supported), is the definition of female empowerment. You wish the extinction of women because women are oppressed. I want to give birth to and raise the women who will smash the patriarchy. And I do believe I have. I have faith and hope in women, which is why giving birth to my daughters is the most profoundly feminist act I have ever undertaken. The path you advocate is sex class suicide for women, and I view it as deeply antifeminist.

Okay. so you are going to get so smashed on this one. Welcome to ovarit. lol.

I too am an anti-natalist and lived to tell the tale. I am 60 and have no kids, never "wanted" them (a term I find specious as a social theorist). I think there are ways to make this argument that is not about MORALS--really, just reject all judeo-christian frameworks if you want to claim feminism as your grounds.

May I recommend some reading to back up your position? Many feminists have already treaded the ground on this topic in different ways. First: > their nature makes them inherently more prone to violence and anger(testosterone) and their societal conditioning exacerbates the effects of it.

The nature argument has been successfully deconstructed by a feminist scholar. You can make the same argument, even better/more persuasive in fact, using The Nurture Assumption. The Nurture Assumption is also the best explanation of ROGD out there and one we need to all take incredibly seriously if we want to fight the transsing of young people and children.

For the antinatalist position, both sides of the Atlantic have some excellent sources on this. I would start with The Anti-Social Family by socialist feminists Michele Barrett and Mary McIntosh.

Then you might read Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. She provides some alternatives to the backlash answers posted here.

I am anti-reproduction for lots of reasons that go back to the Zero population growth movement. There is def a strong child-free movement to draw on (look at Nina Paley) for defenses of your position, but morality and policing who is feminist is never going to work and is borderline fascist. It borrows directly from the very system you are attempting to critique. Indeed, this very argument has been taken up beautifully w/in queer theory itself (No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, arguably one of my favorite books of all time).

Again, I am totally in agreement with you about reproduction (except around moralism, which is indebted to patriarchal religion, or around boundary-policing of feminism), but this is maybe the most fundamental ideological bedrock 'faith' in all of human culture. Everything in culture is designed to enforce reproduction (of labor/consumers), in ways that are anything but visible to most people. It does not fall apart or even get questioned w/o an entire armament of rational counter-logic. The best thing you can do is learn all you can about the counter argument (mine is the environment. the hypocrisy of having children to only destroy the world they inherit by doing so, but another good one might be the Nuclear War Scenario which is GOING TO HAPPEN). There are ways to make this arg, though I will point out that the arg is already being acted on in the obvious declining birth rates that should stop by 2100.

The other thing I would say is that the women here, for the most, are pretty great/supportive, so alienating them by making proclamations is not a good way to start. Give them the benefit of the doubt. This is not reddit. Also, don't model men/patriarchy on the internet by declaring your ride or die positions. Ask questions, feel people out. Use your "I" statements to get the most out of ovarit as a feminist resource--not a virtual fight club.

Blaming women for women's oppression is inherently anti-feminist.

Your daughter has a 97% chance of being assaulted by men in her lifetime

Alright where in the world did you get this number from because I have never heard a number that big

Edit: UN Women, and the number includes harassment not just assault

While I do share some of your sentiments, I'm not going to lie, the pragmatist in me is very worried about the long term implications of very low fertility rates. I've been following demographic statistics for years, and this really isn't a manufactured problem. Demographers thought fertility would rebound in high-income and more gender egalitarian societies (e.g. the Nordics) but that hasn't really happened.

Rapid population decline will have unpleasant consequences for everyone in society. The elderly (who are disproportionately women) will have to work longer to retire, if they can at all, and will face straining health and social care systems, as well as declines in familial support networks, partly due to families being smaller. In Japan, finding dead elderly people in their houses who have been passed away for months with nobody noticing is a growing problem.

Meanwhile, young people will have to cope with rising tax burdens and likely hits to infrastructure investment. Towns, particularly in rural places, will be abandoned, and whoever hangs on until the end will be left with worthless property and a lack of public amenities. And all of that is just stuff that's already happening . In countries with very low fertility, or middle-income countries with low fertility and net-emigration, the socio-economic implications of a population halving in a century and over 50% of people being over 65 are very very bad and unprecedented. Again, in Japan, the furthest along, year-on-year population declines are projected to double from their current rate. We've not seen the worst of it.

The projections for a lot of the world isn't gentle decline and stagnant GDP - that I'd actually be in favour of, endless population expansion is unsustainable. Rather it's 'holy cow, this is worse than the Black Death' (at least, numerically and economically)

Women will be effected by this to. I really really get the urge to watch the world burn, but women live in the world. In my view, the prudent way forward is to suggest effective ways of raising fertility to 'gentle decline' levels which don't promote patriarchy or sacrifice female wellbeing. Not sure what those are.

I think it's easy to be anti-natalist in the abstract, but the practical consequences of anti-natalism are really not pleasant. Also, I guess more philosophically, I don't agree with the notion that life is endless suffering and pain, male-inflicted or otherwise. There are ups and downs and variation, but it feels a bit pessimistic to evaluate all future lives as not worth living.

What’s even the point of feminism and fighting for equality if you believe that most men are inherently bad, and there’s nothing that can be done?

I disagree that good men don't exist and that they always play a perpetrator role

There are men out there that have sacrificed their lives to save related females or complete female strangers in situations where I certainly would have given up and called it a loss or fucked right off

These men are the farthest you can get from "women are inferior fuck toys"

I'd prefer to be an optimist and think we can make more men like that than be a pessimist and declare all men unsalvageable

That's a rather gloomy take.

Moreover, only a tiny fraction of all women has the choice to not give birth. If we have daughters, and manage to maintain the status quo, we might be able one day to free other women. If we just go extinct ... misogynist countries take over.

If you truly want to end humanity, you must be in favour of having children in the relatively less misogynist countries.

Your plan of just letting humanity die out would be feasible only if women had the right to bodily autonomy everywhere in the world, and at that point, your argument that the status quo is so horrid we should just end things ... does not really apply anymore, does it?

Having children worsens the individual woman's situation, but as I see feminism as a collective effort, it does not make mothers bad feminists.

And while childfree women certainly have, on average, happier lives under patriarchy, that does not make them better feminists.

Really? So feminists think procreation is a bad thing? That the only thing that is important in your life is yourself? Kind of reminds me of the TRA themes.

I don't even think it's just the testosterone I also think it's their brain structure and nervous system. Men are more than happy to say "women's brain structure and nervous system is wired to care for infants" but we aren't allowed to say that they're biologically hardwired for violence.

I agree that natalism is harmful to women. Like hellooo someone has to pay for this ideology with their flesh and blood.

Also sorry for it being unpopular but the reason is simply that most women have children. You should be glad for radical feminists with children. Half or more women on the left don't have children and so redirect their maternal, protective instincts to sex offenders in wigs.

But there are plenty women like us who, while we don't have any children of our own, still redirect our natural protective and maternal instincts to actual children.

A friend of mine described the desire to have a child this way: "It's just something you want.

Whether it's socialization or your DNA's drive to replicate itself can be argued until the cows come home.

Uuuuuggghhh. Go get a hug.

I'm an antinatalist simply because it's inherently nonconsensual to the child. No one chooses to be born, and life is a death sentence.

I can agree with a lot of your points. I've never wished to either be pregnant or have children, and am in fact puzzled by the fact that many women do. That being said, one of the other reasons is what you have stated. I've known many really sweet little boys who turned into assholes when they grew up. These were children of friends who were going to "raise them right". I think it's been tried before, and hasn't worked. I've known many strong, brave little girls who changed at adolescence to be quieter, more compliant, and more centered on impressing boys.

I have no idea if this is due to nature or not. When there is no basis for comparison, it's hard to tell. I was firmly in the "nurture" camp until recently, but now, I just don't know. The whole world that is there for both men and women to emulate and learn from is so patriarchal it's hard to know.

Even if it is due to nature, though, nature can be overcome if men really want to do it. They don't, and I avoid them as much as possible without being completely separatist (which is really difficult.)

Men will also try to invade or break up any group of all women, or any space they're not allowed into and think it is their right because of male privilege, so any women's land or separatist community has to be hidden from the mainstream and may suffer some serious disadvantages to lifestyle. Don't get me wrong, I would totally live that way if it were feasible for me, but for many reasons, particularly health ones, I am unfortunately dependent on a lot of male run systems. This isn't an accident.

Many here have stated that population decline is a problem, which is ridiculous. If you are having children just so someone can look after the elderly, that's a really bad reason to have kids and sort of enslaves them (speaking as someone who spent 14 years caring for an elderly relative full time)

Mostly, I just believe that controlling women's reproductive rights is just wrong. I get that this isn't what you are talking about, but it might come off that way. I also get that it's hard to sort out a woman's choice to have babies versus force, coercion or pressure to do so.

There are a lot of mothers on here, and many who feel some sense of superiority because of it, so of course you're getting a lot of pushback. I think that your post is probably a result of great frustration, but it does come off as confrontational, especially to those wrapped up in their children, which again, is fueled by societal pressure among other things.

Thanks for posting. It's hard to make unpopular posts, and good for you. I upvoted you if it means anything.

ETA: It would help all of us if you were to talk about what your problem with the comment is instead of merely downvoting me, or OP.

Natalism isn't anti-feminist, but it is certainly anti-radical feminist. Most women have sex with men to have children, and that's super anti-rad fem. I know I will get downvoted to oblivion for this, but I 100% believe that having male children is the most anti-radical feminist act one can do. So unless you're in a lesbian relationship or a single mother who has the option of sex selection IVF, its not radical feminist. I refuse to potentially birth another enemy of women and girls into this world.